I usually find lent to be kind-of like a marathon, or at least what I imagine a marathon to be. It starts off and I have a lot of high ideals, in the middle I realize that I'm not really living up to those ideals, and by the end, I'm so tired from living that I just want to get to Easter.
This year has been different. I've found myself exploring Benedictine spirituality. It has been a concern of mine for some time that I didn't have a spiritual "mentor", a saint whose life of faith assists me in my journey. That's what I've found so appealing about St. Benedict and Benedictine sprituality. In praying the psalms and a developed personal prayer, as well as the attitude of treating all guests like Christ and a profound sense of community, I've found my own prayer-life reinvigorated. I've especially found that the chanting of the liturgy of the hours, I've paid more attention to the words that I'm praying and found the time more rewarding...more spiritual. Now, if only God would suggest to the Archbishop that I try being a monk...
Friday, April 07, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
"People-centered" popluation program
I think the article on zenit.org entitled "Holy See on People-Centered Population Policies" shows the good actions that permeate the episcopacy (another term for "the bishops" and shows that the church can still make stands on controversial issues despite the complaints of some.
"Perhaps it is worth recalling how the mandate of this commission has developed with the passage of time. In years gone by, dire predictions as to the future composition and sustainability of the projected human global population led to radical population policies which have in turn been responsible for different but equally grave dilemmas such as the serious problems brought about by falling birthrates, and the creation of imbalances between men and women in the population, with its own social consequences. If the development of the world's peoples is to be both sustainable and sane, such flawed policies will have to be replaced by truly people-centered ones. "
"Perhaps it is worth recalling how the mandate of this commission has developed with the passage of time. In years gone by, dire predictions as to the future composition and sustainability of the projected human global population led to radical population policies which have in turn been responsible for different but equally grave dilemmas such as the serious problems brought about by falling birthrates, and the creation of imbalances between men and women in the population, with its own social consequences. If the development of the world's peoples is to be both sustainable and sane, such flawed policies will have to be replaced by truly people-centered ones. "
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The meaning of suffering
How do you react when you hear that someone say they believe they have been called by God? Are you somewhat skeptical? For me, it depends on the particular call the person believes she or he has received. If the person believes they have been called by God to serve the poor, I admire them. If they believe they have been called by God to eat four pounds of hamburger, I’m a little more skeptical. And, if they believe they’ve been called by God to beat me up, I try to more actively discourage the call.
One of the central things that Jesus needs to establish in the gospels and especially in the gospel of John is his identity: Who is he? In the first three gospels, the so-called synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus’ identity is proclaimed from the heavens at his baptism. We hear in the gospel of Mark, a voice from the skies that says, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”, In both Matthew and Luke, the voice seems to change from a message to Jesus, to a message to those surrounding him. The voice says, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased.”
The gospel of John has no such divine pronouncement at its beginning, probably because there is no explicit statement that John baptized Jesus. Instead, the gospel writer prefers to do make the statement here, 12 chapters from the beginning. That prompts all of us to ask, “Why?” and “What is John doing by moving the voice of God to this point in the gospel?”
It’s important to understand a few of the details before proceeding to answer those questions, beginning with a bit of context. In the chapter immediately preceding this, Jesus does one of two resuscitations that are recorded in the gospels. He brings to life a dead little girl in Mark. In the gospel of John, he raises his childhood friend, Lazarus. We know that this had a profound spiritual affect on Jesus because it is the only time in which the very human emotion of weeping overcomes our Lord. It is an image of his own gruesome death and the sadness that will be a part of that experience. After Lazurus is raised, a banquet is thrown in celebration. In the middle of that banquet, Mary the sister of Lazarus, (not Mary Magdalene regardless of what Dan Brown says) anointed the head of Jesus with costly oil. Judas gets angry because they could have spent that money on the poor, though the evangelist says that is has nothing to do with the concern for the poor but concern for himself since he was stealing from the collection. Jesus sees in this lavish anointing a preparation for his own burial, a statement that could have only been confusing for this group of disciples since he had just raised Lazarus. Can’t he also raise himself? All of this is taking place at Lazarus, Martha, and Mary’s house in the little town of Bethany, which is the same name of the town that John the Baptist is supposed to have baptized and is not far from Jerusalem. Jesus enters into Jerusalem the next day, a wildly popular figure after having raised Lazarus. He enters to a throng of people waving palm branches and singing songs to him, an event we will celebrate next week, Palm Sunday. In the context of this entry into Jerusalem, our current scene unfolds.
It all begins when some Greeks, probably non Jews, want to see Jesus. What spills out is a clarification of Jesus’ identity…literally the crowd gets to see Jesus. That’s when this heavenly dialogue unfolds. Instead of Jesus either seeming to passively receive the knowledge of his identity or passively have his identity broadcast to anyone listening as it took place in the previous three gospels, John seems to want to fold Jesus’ identity into his mission of being lifted up. Jesus now accepts that, just like Lazarus actually had to die before he was resuscitated, so he is himself going to have to die before he is resurrected. The heart of the passage begins when Jesus asks, “…what should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour.’ But, it was for this purpose that I came to this hour.” Then, in a unique dialogue between heaven and earth, Jesus turns to his heavenly Father and says, “Father, glorify your name.” The voice responds, “I have glorified it and will glorify it.”, a phrase, I’ve learned, indicates a timeless quality to salvation. John has put it here to be the time when Jesus, basically, accepts his divine calling to be glorified, to be crucified. His identity is not merely announced, it is inextricably bound to his death for the salvation of the world.
We, the members of the body of Christ, can learn a great deal from this divine dialogue. It is the true message of Lent; the cross. So much of the time when we talk about the salvation that has been won for us in Christ, we talk about it in terms that pass quickly from the cross to the glory of the resurrection. During Lent, we are forced to find value in suffering. Christianity is a religion that takes suffering seriously. We can see this in Christ just as easily as we can see it in the life and death of Pope John Paul II, whose requiem anniversary we remember this weekend. John Paul II was a man who knew profound suffering. From suffering under the repression of the Nazis to the tyranny of the communists; in watching his mother and brother die as a child and in his own attempted assassination in 1987; in the dissent of so many theologians and the calls from theological demagogues who tried to turn the church into an ideology or another community among other communities, in the development of Parkinson’s disease and the developments of his death, we can see an example of one who taught us much about the dignity of suffering and the importance of accepting the crosses each of us have been handed.
Our primary vocation is given to us in baptism, a call to holiness. This is what Matthew, Mark, and Luke wanted to transmit. John wants us to know that this call to holiness will involve suffering; the suffering of watching a loved one die, the suffering of being what society calls the imperfect, the poor, the handicapped, marginalized, the suffering of war and hatred. We take up our crosses when we do not run from these sufferings but see them as a part of our central call to holiness, our participation in the central act of salvation.
One of the central things that Jesus needs to establish in the gospels and especially in the gospel of John is his identity: Who is he? In the first three gospels, the so-called synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus’ identity is proclaimed from the heavens at his baptism. We hear in the gospel of Mark, a voice from the skies that says, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”, In both Matthew and Luke, the voice seems to change from a message to Jesus, to a message to those surrounding him. The voice says, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased.”
The gospel of John has no such divine pronouncement at its beginning, probably because there is no explicit statement that John baptized Jesus. Instead, the gospel writer prefers to do make the statement here, 12 chapters from the beginning. That prompts all of us to ask, “Why?” and “What is John doing by moving the voice of God to this point in the gospel?”
It’s important to understand a few of the details before proceeding to answer those questions, beginning with a bit of context. In the chapter immediately preceding this, Jesus does one of two resuscitations that are recorded in the gospels. He brings to life a dead little girl in Mark. In the gospel of John, he raises his childhood friend, Lazarus. We know that this had a profound spiritual affect on Jesus because it is the only time in which the very human emotion of weeping overcomes our Lord. It is an image of his own gruesome death and the sadness that will be a part of that experience. After Lazurus is raised, a banquet is thrown in celebration. In the middle of that banquet, Mary the sister of Lazarus, (not Mary Magdalene regardless of what Dan Brown says) anointed the head of Jesus with costly oil. Judas gets angry because they could have spent that money on the poor, though the evangelist says that is has nothing to do with the concern for the poor but concern for himself since he was stealing from the collection. Jesus sees in this lavish anointing a preparation for his own burial, a statement that could have only been confusing for this group of disciples since he had just raised Lazarus. Can’t he also raise himself? All of this is taking place at Lazarus, Martha, and Mary’s house in the little town of Bethany, which is the same name of the town that John the Baptist is supposed to have baptized and is not far from Jerusalem. Jesus enters into Jerusalem the next day, a wildly popular figure after having raised Lazarus. He enters to a throng of people waving palm branches and singing songs to him, an event we will celebrate next week, Palm Sunday. In the context of this entry into Jerusalem, our current scene unfolds.
It all begins when some Greeks, probably non Jews, want to see Jesus. What spills out is a clarification of Jesus’ identity…literally the crowd gets to see Jesus. That’s when this heavenly dialogue unfolds. Instead of Jesus either seeming to passively receive the knowledge of his identity or passively have his identity broadcast to anyone listening as it took place in the previous three gospels, John seems to want to fold Jesus’ identity into his mission of being lifted up. Jesus now accepts that, just like Lazarus actually had to die before he was resuscitated, so he is himself going to have to die before he is resurrected. The heart of the passage begins when Jesus asks, “…what should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour.’ But, it was for this purpose that I came to this hour.” Then, in a unique dialogue between heaven and earth, Jesus turns to his heavenly Father and says, “Father, glorify your name.” The voice responds, “I have glorified it and will glorify it.”, a phrase, I’ve learned, indicates a timeless quality to salvation. John has put it here to be the time when Jesus, basically, accepts his divine calling to be glorified, to be crucified. His identity is not merely announced, it is inextricably bound to his death for the salvation of the world.
We, the members of the body of Christ, can learn a great deal from this divine dialogue. It is the true message of Lent; the cross. So much of the time when we talk about the salvation that has been won for us in Christ, we talk about it in terms that pass quickly from the cross to the glory of the resurrection. During Lent, we are forced to find value in suffering. Christianity is a religion that takes suffering seriously. We can see this in Christ just as easily as we can see it in the life and death of Pope John Paul II, whose requiem anniversary we remember this weekend. John Paul II was a man who knew profound suffering. From suffering under the repression of the Nazis to the tyranny of the communists; in watching his mother and brother die as a child and in his own attempted assassination in 1987; in the dissent of so many theologians and the calls from theological demagogues who tried to turn the church into an ideology or another community among other communities, in the development of Parkinson’s disease and the developments of his death, we can see an example of one who taught us much about the dignity of suffering and the importance of accepting the crosses each of us have been handed.
Our primary vocation is given to us in baptism, a call to holiness. This is what Matthew, Mark, and Luke wanted to transmit. John wants us to know that this call to holiness will involve suffering; the suffering of watching a loved one die, the suffering of being what society calls the imperfect, the poor, the handicapped, marginalized, the suffering of war and hatred. We take up our crosses when we do not run from these sufferings but see them as a part of our central call to holiness, our participation in the central act of salvation.
Friday, March 31, 2006
The wisdom of Abraham Lincoln
When I read history, it tends to revolve around three subjects; Church History, World War II in Europe, and the Civil war. With the last of these three, I especially like the figures of General Grant and President Lincoln. In the book that I'm currently reading, entitled Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin, I have discovered just how policially savy Lincoln was. I was unaware that Lincoln chose his rivals for the election to be his cabinet. One of them, a man named Salmon chase, was a particular thorn in Lincoln's side because he wanted to replace Lincoln after one term. I found this paragraph to be particularly humorous/educational:
"...Chase's incessant presidential ambitions reminded (Lincoln) of the time when he was 'plowing corn on a Kentucky farm' with a lazy horse that suddenly sped forward energetically to 'the end of the furrow.' Upon reaching the horse, he discovered 'an enormous chin-fly fastened upon him, and knocked him off,' not wanting 'the old horse bitten in that way.' His companion said that it was a mistake to knock it off, for 'that's all that made him go.'"
"'Now,' Lincoln concluded, 'if Mr. [Chase] has a presidential chin-fly biting him, I'm not going to knock him off, if it will only make his department go.' Lincoln agreed that his secretary's tactics were in 'very bad taste,' and 'was sorry the thing had begun, for though the matter did not annoy him his friends insisted that it ought to.' Lincoln's friends could not understand why the president continued to approve appointments for avid Chase supporters who were known to be 'hostile to the President's interests.' Lincoln merely asserted that he would rather let 'Chase have his own way in these sneaking tricks than getting into a snarl with him by refusing him what he asks.' Moreover, he had no thought of dismissing Chase while he was hard at work raising the resources needed to support the immense Union Army."
Sometimes you have to let someone who thinks they are a jack of all trades do the thing in which they excell and not worry about their inflated ego.
"...Chase's incessant presidential ambitions reminded (Lincoln) of the time when he was 'plowing corn on a Kentucky farm' with a lazy horse that suddenly sped forward energetically to 'the end of the furrow.' Upon reaching the horse, he discovered 'an enormous chin-fly fastened upon him, and knocked him off,' not wanting 'the old horse bitten in that way.' His companion said that it was a mistake to knock it off, for 'that's all that made him go.'"
"'Now,' Lincoln concluded, 'if Mr. [Chase] has a presidential chin-fly biting him, I'm not going to knock him off, if it will only make his department go.' Lincoln agreed that his secretary's tactics were in 'very bad taste,' and 'was sorry the thing had begun, for though the matter did not annoy him his friends insisted that it ought to.' Lincoln's friends could not understand why the president continued to approve appointments for avid Chase supporters who were known to be 'hostile to the President's interests.' Lincoln merely asserted that he would rather let 'Chase have his own way in these sneaking tricks than getting into a snarl with him by refusing him what he asks.' Moreover, he had no thought of dismissing Chase while he was hard at work raising the resources needed to support the immense Union Army."
Sometimes you have to let someone who thinks they are a jack of all trades do the thing in which they excell and not worry about their inflated ego.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Bishop Blase Cupich
Bishop Cupich guided my retreat before I became a deacon and he's wise, pastoral, caring, and good. He's got a blog...interesting that even bishops can have blogs. Here's his summary of a visit he had to visit the pope and an oppertunity to reflect on Deus est Caritas.
"The best description of the liturgy is that it is this very same event. God, who loves us so passionately, empties himself to the point of giving us everything he has, including the life of his only Son. Our response, called “worship” is our acceptance of the life God gives us to the point that our life takes on a new direction. Yes, this happens every time we celebrate the sacraments, but in each instance God is giving us himself and we are stretched just a bit more, gradually growing in the likeness of God himself. Someone once described the liturgy as a revelation of the beauty of God’s love for us."
"The best description of the liturgy is that it is this very same event. God, who loves us so passionately, empties himself to the point of giving us everything he has, including the life of his only Son. Our response, called “worship” is our acceptance of the life God gives us to the point that our life takes on a new direction. Yes, this happens every time we celebrate the sacraments, but in each instance God is giving us himself and we are stretched just a bit more, gradually growing in the likeness of God himself. Someone once described the liturgy as a revelation of the beauty of God’s love for us."
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Another interesting Catholic New Service story
I try to go to Catholic New Service once a day to find interesting stories. I found this yesterday and had a couple of thoughts...
Godspell
Jesus Christ Superstar
There are more that I don't know...less popular and more local. But, the question that comes to mind is: Is this authentic evangelization or just more christian novelty that won't move anyone's hearts and minds to Christ? We'll see.
Godspell
Jesus Christ Superstar
There are more that I don't know...less popular and more local. But, the question that comes to mind is: Is this authentic evangelization or just more christian novelty that won't move anyone's hearts and minds to Christ? We'll see.
My future
This is one of the saddest stories that I've heard in a while.
I know that, as a priest, I'm going to have the painful job of walking in to parishes that are dying...with no baptisms, confirmations, first communions, etc. in order to close them down. I know that this is probably an action by a people that are voicing frustration for the complete incompetence of government; state, local, and federal, in securing and rebuilding New Orleans. But, I wonder how much of this has to do with our vehement hatred for bishops and lack of obedience that has come since the Second Vatican Council. The Council didn't prescribe this. Has the church in the United States completely lost its sense of reverence for the successors of the apostles? Do we have any humility whatsoever?
And, perhaps the most disturbing thing to me, is the desecration of the Eucharist that took place there. These people prevented Christians from sacramental grace...because their building wasn't as available as it used to be. People complain that younger priests like myself want a smaller church. Are you honestly going to tell me the church is going to be worse off without people who have NO RESPECT FOR THE EUCHARIST? People who hate the Body of Christ?
I know that, as a priest, I'm going to have the painful job of walking in to parishes that are dying...with no baptisms, confirmations, first communions, etc. in order to close them down. I know that this is probably an action by a people that are voicing frustration for the complete incompetence of government; state, local, and federal, in securing and rebuilding New Orleans. But, I wonder how much of this has to do with our vehement hatred for bishops and lack of obedience that has come since the Second Vatican Council. The Council didn't prescribe this. Has the church in the United States completely lost its sense of reverence for the successors of the apostles? Do we have any humility whatsoever?
And, perhaps the most disturbing thing to me, is the desecration of the Eucharist that took place there. These people prevented Christians from sacramental grace...because their building wasn't as available as it used to be. People complain that younger priests like myself want a smaller church. Are you honestly going to tell me the church is going to be worse off without people who have NO RESPECT FOR THE EUCHARIST? People who hate the Body of Christ?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Example 2: The USCCB to Pro-choice Democrats
You may have missed this because not only did the mainstream media not cover it but, as far as I can tell, no one did. I hear so many complaints from bloggers when the bishops say the slightest thing that they don't like to hear and yet no one says anything when they do something good. In any case, here's what struck me.
"...At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right – the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives’ statement cites, declares:
'The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fÃnds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).
While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.
As the Church carries out its central responsibility to teach clearly and help form consciences, and as Catholic legislators seek to act in accord with their own consciences, it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles. As members of the Church, all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the Church. (Emphasis mine)
"...At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right – the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives’ statement cites, declares:
'The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fÃnds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).
While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.
As the Church carries out its central responsibility to teach clearly and help form consciences, and as Catholic legislators seek to act in accord with their own consciences, it is essential to remember that conscience must be consistent with fundamental moral principles. As members of the Church, all Catholics are obliged to shape our consciences in accord with the moral teaching of the Church. (Emphasis mine)
Monday, March 27, 2006
Example One: Sean Cardinal
First they find his sense of Humor...
Then
To a diocese that has, undoubtedly, believed God has left them, this cardinal says...
"Belief in God for many people today is more like a hangover. They feel the effects of the religious activities of the past, but their own consciousness borders on agnosticism. They still make space for God in our churches, but He is given very little space everywhere else.
A hundred years ago, when Friedrich Nietzsche made his declaration that “God is dead,” he was not suggesting that God in the heavens had died. Nietzsche was saying that God no longer mattered in everyday life. “God is dead,” he said, “but His shadow is a long one and we must first conquer this shadow.”
These images of faith as a hangover, of religion as struggling with God’s shadow, of an absent God whose calling card we still possess, describe in general the attitudes of many contemporary Christians living in a thoroughly secularized culture. For secularism there are no absolutes, there is no forever. We wake up in this world as orphans.
To be a believer is to have a Father, a God who loves us. That faith and knowledge can give us a strength and serenity that is unshakeable. In one of the Nazi death camps during the Second World War, a believer wrote on the wall:
I believe in the sun, even when it isn’t shining.
I believe in love, even when I feel it not.
I believe in God, even when He is silent.
I know that for many God seemed silent during those awful times, but God is speaking in the heroism and goodness of so many people in those dehumanizing circumstances who shared their last crust of bread, who cared for the sick and dying and even forgave their persecutors.
Then
To a diocese that has, undoubtedly, believed God has left them, this cardinal says...
"Belief in God for many people today is more like a hangover. They feel the effects of the religious activities of the past, but their own consciousness borders on agnosticism. They still make space for God in our churches, but He is given very little space everywhere else.
A hundred years ago, when Friedrich Nietzsche made his declaration that “God is dead,” he was not suggesting that God in the heavens had died. Nietzsche was saying that God no longer mattered in everyday life. “God is dead,” he said, “but His shadow is a long one and we must first conquer this shadow.”
These images of faith as a hangover, of religion as struggling with God’s shadow, of an absent God whose calling card we still possess, describe in general the attitudes of many contemporary Christians living in a thoroughly secularized culture. For secularism there are no absolutes, there is no forever. We wake up in this world as orphans.
To be a believer is to have a Father, a God who loves us. That faith and knowledge can give us a strength and serenity that is unshakeable. In one of the Nazi death camps during the Second World War, a believer wrote on the wall:
I believe in the sun, even when it isn’t shining.
I believe in love, even when I feel it not.
I believe in God, even when He is silent.
I know that for many God seemed silent during those awful times, but God is speaking in the heroism and goodness of so many people in those dehumanizing circumstances who shared their last crust of bread, who cared for the sick and dying and even forgave their persecutors.
Defensorum Episcoporum
Okay, so as I read most other blogs, it seems that bishops can do nothing right. I frequently post comments like, "Crazy successors of the apostles...." or "What did Christ think by setting these fools up as the hierarchy...we could have done so much better than he." Of course, I'm trying emphasize the point that THESE ARE THE BISHOPS. They make mistakes but, if you openly mock them and their leadership abilities, you are mocking the hierarchy of Christ's Church. Did the Apostles make mistakes? Yes, of course. Were they, nonetheless, the people Christ chose to spread his message. Just as assuredly yes.
So, I'm proposing a slight change in format until I get tired of it. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I'm going to find an article by one of the successors to the apostles to post. I'm sure that someone who doesn't know me will accuse me of having "episcopal ambitions" (an actual accusation I've received!) but there are so many problems with that idea that I don't need to even acknowledge it. First of all, just look at my posts. I'm not very intelligent... And, yes, I'm going to cite all bishops, not just (so called) liberal or conservative ones. I know that leadership automatically makes critics. I hope to be the one who cheers for Christ's church as Christ meant it to be.
Here's the way I see a week playing out:
Sunday: posting my homily
Monday: my sabbath rest
Tuesday: In defense of the successors of the apostles.
Wednesday: Something whitty from my life.
Thursday: Same as Tuesday, only with more research.
Friday: Probably something critical of the weeks news...or just another whitty ditty.
Saturday: leave me alone. I'm working on my homily that should have been done Thursday instead of doing research.
So, I'm proposing a slight change in format until I get tired of it. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I'm going to find an article by one of the successors to the apostles to post. I'm sure that someone who doesn't know me will accuse me of having "episcopal ambitions" (an actual accusation I've received!) but there are so many problems with that idea that I don't need to even acknowledge it. First of all, just look at my posts. I'm not very intelligent... And, yes, I'm going to cite all bishops, not just (so called) liberal or conservative ones. I know that leadership automatically makes critics. I hope to be the one who cheers for Christ's church as Christ meant it to be.
Here's the way I see a week playing out:
Sunday: posting my homily
Monday: my sabbath rest
Tuesday: In defense of the successors of the apostles.
Wednesday: Something whitty from my life.
Thursday: Same as Tuesday, only with more research.
Friday: Probably something critical of the weeks news...or just another whitty ditty.
Saturday: leave me alone. I'm working on my homily that should have been done Thursday instead of doing research.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
In lieu of a homily...
So my homily was kind of weak this weekend because I was visiting a parish that isn't used to my sharp fidelity to the holy church. So, instead, I had some good jokes and offered a centeral thought that, I thought, was pretty good. Here's the core of the homily....
"We learned in seminary that there’s a difference between having a private life and leading a secret life. The difference is that private lives are morally acceptable in nature. For instance, prayer, kissing a loved one, reading a book or looking up information on the internet. Ultimately, none of these actions harm your relationship to God but they aren’t things that everyone has to know. In other words, you could tell people all about them but you don’t have to.
A secret life, on the other hand, is deliberately done in darkness because it involves doing things that harm our relationship to God and each other. We want to live as people in the light but the forces of darkness have a tendency to creep in, whether that’s by using the Lord’s name in vain, by viewing pornography, by reading anti-Christian literature or whatever else we would be too ashamed to tell other people we have done. The true power of sin is to take our private lives and turn them into immoral secret ones. And, as Christians, we need constantly be transforming our secret lives into luminous moral ones."
"We learned in seminary that there’s a difference between having a private life and leading a secret life. The difference is that private lives are morally acceptable in nature. For instance, prayer, kissing a loved one, reading a book or looking up information on the internet. Ultimately, none of these actions harm your relationship to God but they aren’t things that everyone has to know. In other words, you could tell people all about them but you don’t have to.
A secret life, on the other hand, is deliberately done in darkness because it involves doing things that harm our relationship to God and each other. We want to live as people in the light but the forces of darkness have a tendency to creep in, whether that’s by using the Lord’s name in vain, by viewing pornography, by reading anti-Christian literature or whatever else we would be too ashamed to tell other people we have done. The true power of sin is to take our private lives and turn them into immoral secret ones. And, as Christians, we need constantly be transforming our secret lives into luminous moral ones."
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Worshipping Mary
I found this elsewhere. On another blog...but I can't remember which one.
Be forewarned. It's frightening stuff...totally pagan. Yet, for some reason, they feel like they have to have all this Catholic imagery as a part of it. I don't understand why people who believe that church is not "big enough" or good enough for them would still want to dress and act like us.
Pray a Hail Mary for these folks that, despite their ignorance, they will find Mary who will lead them to her Son.
Luther would be so pissed...
Be forewarned. It's frightening stuff...totally pagan. Yet, for some reason, they feel like they have to have all this Catholic imagery as a part of it. I don't understand why people who believe that church is not "big enough" or good enough for them would still want to dress and act like us.
Pray a Hail Mary for these folks that, despite their ignorance, they will find Mary who will lead them to her Son.
Luther would be so pissed...
Sunday, March 19, 2006
We worship Christ crucified
This past week, I had the privilege of accompanying five students to two Benedictine Monasteries in Northern Missouri. After dropping the one woman off at the Clyde Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, the remaining four guys and I traveled the mile and a half to Conception Abbey. As I walked in, in some ways it felt like I was being transported back to the best aspects of past generations. Some of it was familiar for me. I’d been with different communities that chanted morning and evening prayer, my seminary being the most influential in my life. Yet some of it was entirely unfamiliar. The particular chant tones, for instance, were very unfamiliar. Imagine trying to sing the words to “On Eagles Wings” to a different tune. It was hard. But, eventually, even I became accustomed to the differences. We were also invited, this past Monday and Tuesday, into the part of the monastery where most people do not get to go, the cloister, to eat with them and pray in their choir stalls. It was in these two sacred places that we noticed many times where we didn’t know what was happening because traditions had been built up about when to stand, sit, and kneel that we didn’t know. When we asked the brothers why we did such and such action we would usually get two answers. The first was a profound theological statement about reverence and letting your posture reflect that reverence. The other was something like, “We think they brought this tradition with them when they came to this country 150 years ago. And, we think they were doing that in the monastery in Switzerland.” But, it wasn’t empty piety, doing things because it’s the way we always have done them. They passed on the meaning from generation to generation and continued many of the practices that were handed onto them. In the end, it was hard for me to leave this place because the holiness was so profound and the faithfulness so genuine.
I can’t help but contrast this with what Jesus is dealing with in the gospel. In order to understand what probably made Jesus so upset, you have to understand what the Temple symbolized when King Solomon built it. It was a place that farmers would come to bring one of the best of their animals to give some of it to the priests and offer the rest to God. There would have been a certain attachment to the animal since the farmer had raised it and it would have been terribly difficult to sacrifice the best animal you had. Over time, this simple act of sacrificing one of your animals, became a sacrificial system wherein people would come to the temple mount that would have been filled with animals. Instead of bringing along an animal to sacrifice from your herd, you would travel to the Temple and purchase an animal to which you had no connection. And, since you couldn’t use that idolatrous currency with the picture of a false god on it, the emperor, there were moneychangers that could take your denarius and exchange it for an Israelite shekel. And, since you were there with money, you could pay for your temple tax to support the priests. Jesus must have asked himself how this had developed from the simplicity of the time of Solomon. And, the real problem that Jesus has is that there was supposed to be development from the original theology of taking your prize bull to the temple to be sacrificed, but it was supposed to be a change from animals to him. In other words, instead of sacrificing the animal they loved so much, they were supposed to be sacrificing him for their sins. But, their changes have distorted the original meaning so much that they may not be able to recognize the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
I started to think about this in our present day context and I asked myself: what we expect from our churches. Do we expect our church experience to be entertaining? If you do, I imagine we are sadly disappointed each week. Or, do we expect it to be a place to make friends and have social experiences? Or do we expect it to be a place that affirms our own beliefs and practices and never challenges us? Or, do we expect our church to be a mega-church that supplies all this and many more programs like exercise, childcare, and a coffee shop? If so, I would suggest Jesus’ actions in the temple are just as pertinent to us as they were for the Jewish temple priests. We need to remember that, at our heart, we don’t come here to worship laughter or conversation. We don’t come here to worship our own beliefs. We come here because we have become part of the body of Christ (just as these elect hope to do at Easter) and we come to eat the body and blood of Christ. Yet, we can’t lose the heart of this worship and allow it to change into something Jesus never intended it to become. Especially during this season of Lent, we take time to slow down, to pray, fast, and give alms. We do this to remind ourselves of the saving power of God through which we become holy. Or, to use Paul’s terminology from the second reading, we worship Christ, a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others but to us who were baptized and believe he died on the cross and rose three days later, we worship Christ, the power and the wisdom of God.
I can’t help but contrast this with what Jesus is dealing with in the gospel. In order to understand what probably made Jesus so upset, you have to understand what the Temple symbolized when King Solomon built it. It was a place that farmers would come to bring one of the best of their animals to give some of it to the priests and offer the rest to God. There would have been a certain attachment to the animal since the farmer had raised it and it would have been terribly difficult to sacrifice the best animal you had. Over time, this simple act of sacrificing one of your animals, became a sacrificial system wherein people would come to the temple mount that would have been filled with animals. Instead of bringing along an animal to sacrifice from your herd, you would travel to the Temple and purchase an animal to which you had no connection. And, since you couldn’t use that idolatrous currency with the picture of a false god on it, the emperor, there were moneychangers that could take your denarius and exchange it for an Israelite shekel. And, since you were there with money, you could pay for your temple tax to support the priests. Jesus must have asked himself how this had developed from the simplicity of the time of Solomon. And, the real problem that Jesus has is that there was supposed to be development from the original theology of taking your prize bull to the temple to be sacrificed, but it was supposed to be a change from animals to him. In other words, instead of sacrificing the animal they loved so much, they were supposed to be sacrificing him for their sins. But, their changes have distorted the original meaning so much that they may not be able to recognize the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrifices in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
I started to think about this in our present day context and I asked myself: what we expect from our churches. Do we expect our church experience to be entertaining? If you do, I imagine we are sadly disappointed each week. Or, do we expect it to be a place to make friends and have social experiences? Or do we expect it to be a place that affirms our own beliefs and practices and never challenges us? Or, do we expect our church to be a mega-church that supplies all this and many more programs like exercise, childcare, and a coffee shop? If so, I would suggest Jesus’ actions in the temple are just as pertinent to us as they were for the Jewish temple priests. We need to remember that, at our heart, we don’t come here to worship laughter or conversation. We don’t come here to worship our own beliefs. We come here because we have become part of the body of Christ (just as these elect hope to do at Easter) and we come to eat the body and blood of Christ. Yet, we can’t lose the heart of this worship and allow it to change into something Jesus never intended it to become. Especially during this season of Lent, we take time to slow down, to pray, fast, and give alms. We do this to remind ourselves of the saving power of God through which we become holy. Or, to use Paul’s terminology from the second reading, we worship Christ, a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others but to us who were baptized and believe he died on the cross and rose three days later, we worship Christ, the power and the wisdom of God.
Friday, March 17, 2006
logic 101
If you read the following two paragraphs...
"As teachers, administrators, coaches, and religious educators know all too well, there is no easy answer to this question. Events for parents are not generally well attended, and those parents who come are the ones who are already actively engaged in school and other activities. This is true for both churches and public and private schools and other organizations.
In addition to having tools for creating effective conversations with parents about what’s missing in their participation with their child, it is important to find a way to engage the parents from the beginning. One way to start the process is by inviting parents to come together to talk about issues and to brainstorm policies and solutions. This can lay the groundwork for any future conversations about these issues."
Would you say the two statements in bold....
1. Seem contradictory but are not.
2. Are a logical contradiction.
3. Show the weakness in the liberal "let's get together and talk about things" solution to all problems.
4. Need further clarification that, hopefully comes after this paragraph.
"As teachers, administrators, coaches, and religious educators know all too well, there is no easy answer to this question. Events for parents are not generally well attended, and those parents who come are the ones who are already actively engaged in school and other activities. This is true for both churches and public and private schools and other organizations.
In addition to having tools for creating effective conversations with parents about what’s missing in their participation with their child, it is important to find a way to engage the parents from the beginning. One way to start the process is by inviting parents to come together to talk about issues and to brainstorm policies and solutions. This can lay the groundwork for any future conversations about these issues."
Would you say the two statements in bold....
1. Seem contradictory but are not.
2. Are a logical contradiction.
3. Show the weakness in the liberal "let's get together and talk about things" solution to all problems.
4. Need further clarification that, hopefully comes after this paragraph.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Scholastica and Benedict
Having just got back from an incredible experience at a Benedictine monastery, a monastery which almost turned my heart toward this community, I find this story to be particularly appropriate. Even if you've read it before, it's still good to review. It's about the love that brother and sister can have for one another. From Gregory the Great's Dialogues
CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE: Of a Miracle Wrought by his Sister, Scholastica.
GREGORY: Who is there, Peter, in this world, that is in greater favor with God than St. Paul was: who yet three times desired our Lord to be delivered from the sting of the flesh, and obtained not his petition? Concerning which point also I must needs tell you, how there was one thing which the venerable father Benedict would have done, and yet he could not. For his sister called Scholastica, dedicated from her infancy to our Lord, used once a year to come and visit her brother. To whom the man of God went not far from the gate, to a place that did belong to the Abbey, there to give her entertainment.
And she coming thither on a time according to her custom, her venerable brother with his monks went to meet her, where they spent the whole day in the praises of God and spiritual talk: and when it was almost night they supped together, and as they were yet sitting at the table, talking of devout matters, and darkness came on, the holy Nun his sister entreated him to stay there all night, that they might spend it in discoursing of the joys of heaven. But by no persuasion would he agree to that, saying that he might not by any means tarry all night out of his Abbey.
At that time, the sky was so clear that no cloud was to be seen. The Nun, receiving this denial of her brother, joining her hands together, laid them upon the table: and so, bowing down her head upon them, she made her prayers to almighty God: and lifting her head from the table, there fell suddenly such a tempest of lightning and thundering, and such abundance of rain, that neither venerable Benedict, nor his monks that were with him, could put their head out of door: for the holy Nun, resting her head upon her hands, poured forth such a flood of tears upon the table, that she drew the clear air to a watery sky, so that after the end of her devotions, that storm of rain followed: and her prayer and the rain did so meet together, that as she lifted up her head from the table, the thunder, so that in one and the very same instant, she lifted up her head and brought down the rain.
The man of God, seeing that he could not by reason of such thunder and lightning and great abundance of rain return back to his Abbey, he began to be heavy and to complain of his sister, saying: "God forgive you, what have you done?" to whom she answered: "I desired you to stay, and you would not hear me, I have desired our good Lord, and he hath vouchsafed to grant my petition: wherefore if you can now depart, in God's name return to your monastery, and leave me here alone."
Departure Delayed
But the good father, being not able to go forth, tarried there against his will, where willingly he would not stay. And so by that means they watched all night, and with spiritual and heavenly talk did mutually comfort one another: and therefore by this we see, as I said before. that he would have had that thing, which yet he could not: for if we respect the venerable man's mind, no question but he would have had the same fair weather to have continued as it was, when he set forth, but he found that a miracle did prevent his desire, which, by the power of almighty God, a woman's prayers had wrought.
It is not a thing to be marvelled at, that a woman which of long time had not seen her brother, might do more at that time than he could, seeing, according to the saying of St. John, "God is charity" [1 John 4:8] and therefore of right she did more which loved more.
PETER: I confess that I am wonderfully pleased with that which you tell me.
CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR: How Benedict Saw the Soul of his Sister Ascend into Heavenly Glory.
The next day the venerable woman returned to her Nunnery, and the man of God to his Abbey: who three days after, standing in his cell, raising up his eyes to heaven, beheld the soul of his sister (which was departed from her body), in the likeness of a dove to ascend into heaven: who rejoicing much to see her great glory, with hymns and lauds gave the almighty God, and did impart the news of this her death to his monks, whom also he sent presently to bring her corpse to his Abbey, and had it buried in that grave which he had provided for himself; by means whereof it fell out that, as their souls were always one in God whiles they lived, so their bodies continued together after their death.
CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE: Of a Miracle Wrought by his Sister, Scholastica.
GREGORY: Who is there, Peter, in this world, that is in greater favor with God than St. Paul was: who yet three times desired our Lord to be delivered from the sting of the flesh, and obtained not his petition? Concerning which point also I must needs tell you, how there was one thing which the venerable father Benedict would have done, and yet he could not. For his sister called Scholastica, dedicated from her infancy to our Lord, used once a year to come and visit her brother. To whom the man of God went not far from the gate, to a place that did belong to the Abbey, there to give her entertainment.
And she coming thither on a time according to her custom, her venerable brother with his monks went to meet her, where they spent the whole day in the praises of God and spiritual talk: and when it was almost night they supped together, and as they were yet sitting at the table, talking of devout matters, and darkness came on, the holy Nun his sister entreated him to stay there all night, that they might spend it in discoursing of the joys of heaven. But by no persuasion would he agree to that, saying that he might not by any means tarry all night out of his Abbey.
At that time, the sky was so clear that no cloud was to be seen. The Nun, receiving this denial of her brother, joining her hands together, laid them upon the table: and so, bowing down her head upon them, she made her prayers to almighty God: and lifting her head from the table, there fell suddenly such a tempest of lightning and thundering, and such abundance of rain, that neither venerable Benedict, nor his monks that were with him, could put their head out of door: for the holy Nun, resting her head upon her hands, poured forth such a flood of tears upon the table, that she drew the clear air to a watery sky, so that after the end of her devotions, that storm of rain followed: and her prayer and the rain did so meet together, that as she lifted up her head from the table, the thunder, so that in one and the very same instant, she lifted up her head and brought down the rain.
The man of God, seeing that he could not by reason of such thunder and lightning and great abundance of rain return back to his Abbey, he began to be heavy and to complain of his sister, saying: "God forgive you, what have you done?" to whom she answered: "I desired you to stay, and you would not hear me, I have desired our good Lord, and he hath vouchsafed to grant my petition: wherefore if you can now depart, in God's name return to your monastery, and leave me here alone."
Departure Delayed
But the good father, being not able to go forth, tarried there against his will, where willingly he would not stay. And so by that means they watched all night, and with spiritual and heavenly talk did mutually comfort one another: and therefore by this we see, as I said before. that he would have had that thing, which yet he could not: for if we respect the venerable man's mind, no question but he would have had the same fair weather to have continued as it was, when he set forth, but he found that a miracle did prevent his desire, which, by the power of almighty God, a woman's prayers had wrought.
It is not a thing to be marvelled at, that a woman which of long time had not seen her brother, might do more at that time than he could, seeing, according to the saying of St. John, "God is charity" [1 John 4:8] and therefore of right she did more which loved more.
PETER: I confess that I am wonderfully pleased with that which you tell me.
CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR: How Benedict Saw the Soul of his Sister Ascend into Heavenly Glory.
The next day the venerable woman returned to her Nunnery, and the man of God to his Abbey: who three days after, standing in his cell, raising up his eyes to heaven, beheld the soul of his sister (which was departed from her body), in the likeness of a dove to ascend into heaven: who rejoicing much to see her great glory, with hymns and lauds gave the almighty God, and did impart the news of this her death to his monks, whom also he sent presently to bring her corpse to his Abbey, and had it buried in that grave which he had provided for himself; by means whereof it fell out that, as their souls were always one in God whiles they lived, so their bodies continued together after their death.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
The Dan Brown Code
Okay, I promise this will be the last post that I make before I go on Spring Break...
But, I had this thought last night while lying in bed. The unfortunate thing is that I don't have the creative ability to do something like this. I tend to limit my stories to anecdotes that relate to a moral...ie a homily/sermon. So, here's what I think someone should do.
We should do to Dan Brown what he has done to the Lord. Now I know what people are going to say, "Turn the other cheek, Father" and "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you, Father." That's exactly what I'm doing. Someone needs to point out how evil this type of literature is and one way we can do it is by doing to Dan Brown what he has done to our Lord. God will forgive him for blasphemy...if someone shows him that he has been blasphemous.
Here are some ideas: Start off with the same kind of caveat that he has, "This is a work of fiction, but there are some facts in it. In fact, there are a lot of facts in it." Then go on to say that Dan Brown is, in truth, Adolf Hitler who faked his own death. No, that's too evil. What about Elvis? No, too corney. Even better, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth and it's impossible to kill him. I also thought you could say that "Dan Brown" isn't his real name, it's a code. I thought of his initials D. B. and thought they could mean "Database", as in Dan Brown is compiling a list of people throughout time (since he is immortal) and killing those who discover his attempts at world domination. You could also show a picture of him like this one and make up a story about it. Do it all under the banner of "fiction - with a lot of fact mixed in."
I think there's huge potential...maybe even a movie starring Tom Hanks!
But, I had this thought last night while lying in bed. The unfortunate thing is that I don't have the creative ability to do something like this. I tend to limit my stories to anecdotes that relate to a moral...ie a homily/sermon. So, here's what I think someone should do.
We should do to Dan Brown what he has done to the Lord. Now I know what people are going to say, "Turn the other cheek, Father" and "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you, Father." That's exactly what I'm doing. Someone needs to point out how evil this type of literature is and one way we can do it is by doing to Dan Brown what he has done to our Lord. God will forgive him for blasphemy...if someone shows him that he has been blasphemous.
Here are some ideas: Start off with the same kind of caveat that he has, "This is a work of fiction, but there are some facts in it. In fact, there are a lot of facts in it." Then go on to say that Dan Brown is, in truth, Adolf Hitler who faked his own death. No, that's too evil. What about Elvis? No, too corney. Even better, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth and it's impossible to kill him. I also thought you could say that "Dan Brown" isn't his real name, it's a code. I thought of his initials D. B. and thought they could mean "Database", as in Dan Brown is compiling a list of people throughout time (since he is immortal) and killing those who discover his attempts at world domination. You could also show a picture of him like this one and make up a story about it. Do it all under the banner of "fiction - with a lot of fact mixed in."
I think there's huge potential...maybe even a movie starring Tom Hanks!
Friday, March 10, 2006
Britain gone mad
Yesterday, while listening to BBC on my trusty Sirius Satelite Radio, I heard that a group of European doctors are angry that the US army is "force feeding" Guantanamo detainees. They say that people have the right to refuse treatment. My immediate thought was: how sad when Europe, that was a strong voice of ethical morality at one point, has gone so far astray. I even thought that, if what I'm hearing is true, Europe will soon be dead. Their abortifacient/contraceptive lifestyle has caused so few children to be born that they are not only not replacing themselves, they are killing themselves. And these are the "moral voices" that we should hear about Guantanamo Detainees?
Then, while perusing other blogs, I found a story about a church being charge 75 pounds for a cross. The city claims that it is an advertisement. The bloggers are asking if the same fee is charged for minarets on the tops of mosques. I don't particularly care about that, to be honest, because I think this is a most unjust law. This is truly the act of people who have lost their way. When churches are fined for identifying markers, it displays the hatred for religion that has developed in England and all of Europe. When you lose sight of God, God looses sight of you. When terrible things happen to Europe in the next few years, they have no right to ask where God is. They turned him away. He didn't turn away from them.
Then, while perusing other blogs, I found a story about a church being charge 75 pounds for a cross. The city claims that it is an advertisement. The bloggers are asking if the same fee is charged for minarets on the tops of mosques. I don't particularly care about that, to be honest, because I think this is a most unjust law. This is truly the act of people who have lost their way. When churches are fined for identifying markers, it displays the hatred for religion that has developed in England and all of Europe. When you lose sight of God, God looses sight of you. When terrible things happen to Europe in the next few years, they have no right to ask where God is. They turned him away. He didn't turn away from them.
Monastic Spring Break
I'll be leaving Saturday to take a group of students to a monastery in Northern Missouri. I'll try to blog a couple of times more but I am probably going to be a little busy packing and getting organized. Please pray for us and for the monks and nuns we are visiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)