LBJ AND THE INSCRUTABILITY OF THE LORD

12/30/12

I’m currently reading The Path to Power, the first installment of Robert A. Caro’s three part biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson.   Yes, I know; the book was written in 1981 and I am about 30 years behind in my pleasure reading.   However, I highly recommend the book, though I am not normally given to 800 pages of anything.    But I digress.

Besides being a riveting, and disconcerting, picture of one of the most fascinating political figures of my lifetime, the book reinforces for me a point I made in my 10/27/12 piece, YOU MEAN EVERYBODY GETS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE--FOR FREE?

 It seems that, from almost the moment of his birth, LBJ, or someone close to him, felt he was destined to be somebody really important.  On the day of his birth in 1908, LBJ’s grandfather saddled up his horse and rode through the surrounding farms and towns announcing that a future U.S. senator had been born.   When LBJ was 10 or 12 years old, Caro tells us, he would break into conversations of the older boys he liked to hang out with and tell everyone he was going to be president of the United States.   In 1940, when Mr. Johnson was only 32 years old and in his second term in the U.S. House, he as much as told two of his financial backers that his political ambitions transcended Congress…and Texas.

We all know the rest of the story:  LBJ, with what can only be called a superhuman work ethic and an ambition and ego that was far stronger, finally achieved his ultimate goal, by whatever means necessary, and wound up serving one of the most consequential, yet one of the most troubling and, in many ways, tragic, presidencies in our history.  He died a sad and broken man.

So what does this all have to do with the ideas expressed in my 10/27 post?   President Johnson devoted his whole life, and his considerable talents, to the single-minded purpose of becoming President of the United States.  He sacrificed a lot of things, and a lot of people, in that quest.   He got what he wanted…and it ruined him.

The most immediate reaction would be to question those things we think we need and want and to examine them in light of what God wants for us.   The old adage “Be careful what you wish for” surely applies in his case.   I have come to the conclusion that we should wish for nothing, or for very little, and instead just let God have His way with us.   I have no idea what I want or what I should do, and I‘m no kid.   I pray for knowledge of God’s will for me and the power to carry that out, but I’m not even sure the first part of that prayer is necessary; I don’t have to know what God’s will is for me…I just have to carry it out by seeking whatever guidance He sees fit to give me and the willingness and the ability to do the next right thing.   When I was young, I thought I knew what I wanted, at least in a general sense, and went after it with everything I had, albeit far less talent, intelligence, energy, and, yes, ruthlessness and amorality, than LBJ had in such abundance.   I never achieved those things that seemed to be the only things that mattered, and the pursuit of them had nearly horrific consequences.  I did, however, get far better gifts without any planning or contemplation; they just happened and I could have never in a million years planned or predicted them; I didn‘t even want many of them.  Perhaps Mr. Johnson, and the country and the world, would have been better off if he had similarly let God make his life decisions for him.

The second reaction to LBJ’s pursuit is a bit more esoteric and more directly related to my 10/27 post.   LBJ worked like hell to become president, and he did manage to become only the 36th man to achieve that lofty and seemingly impossible, from looking at the odds, goal.   And one supposes that being president would be a great achievement, a lofty goal, a towering position, and many more superlatives that are impossible to enumerate.  But…

All of you (Some might say “some of you,“ or “many of you,“ but I am quite comfortable with saying “all of you,“ but, again, I digress.) reading this will achieve a goal, a position, or a place, far greater than the presidency of the United States:  We will all be with God in heaven and that will be an immeasurably better place, a more sublime goal, than being president of the United States.  There won’t be only 44 of us who achieve this goal, and it will take nothing like the effort that LBJ, or any man who held the office he so craved, dedicated to achieving what is, by comparison, a quite insignificant perch.   Indeed, we will “achieve” this goal through no achievement of our own; we will win our place with God through faith in Him and in His Son.   Simple, really.

That we can achieve so much, indeed the most important thing we can achieve or can imagine, with so much less effort than was expended by those who sought what is in comparison quite an insignificant position offends our human sense of fairness.   We bust our hindquarters for the things that we think are really important, even if not as important as being the most powerful person on earth, and yet we get the most important thing for free.  It just doesn’t seem right.   But then our ways are not His ways.  And we will never fully understand His ways until we join Him for eternity in heaven…if then.

“THEY SAY THIS CAT PAUL IS A BAD….SHUT YOUR MOUTH…BUT I’M TALKIN’ ABOUT PAUL!”

12/21/12



The Apostle Paul was one tough son of a, er, gun. He may not have always been the nicest guy in the group, and certainly was not the most agreeable, but he was the veritable Dick the Bruiser of the Apostles. This is completely understandable; he had a very tough job: to travel the world to often hostile lands to preach the gospel to people who often were not receptive and who could express that lack of receptivity in some of the cruelly enthusiastic, to say the least, methods of the time. Further, in these travels, he had to contend with people who, like he, were Pharisees, and thus who would like nothing more than to shut him up by any means possible. This was not a job for the lily-livered.

The story that most exemplifies the toughness of Paul is one that is often glazed over in a quick, or even not so quick, read of the Acts of the Apostles.



Paul is on his first missionary journey with his pal Barnabas. He starts in Antioch, a city in which he was already spent some time and the city in which the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” (Acts 11, 26) He does pretty well with the people of Antioch, and especially the Gentiles of the town. (Acts 13, 48) But then his former buddies, the Pharisees showed up and “stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas,” forcing the pair to vamoose before they get stoned, and not in the way we in the modern world interpret that verb.

Paul and Barnabas move on to Iconium with the same results. The Pharisees (“the unbelieving Jews,” Acts 14, 2, the term Paul (and John and Luke) uses for the Jewish religious authorities, not the Jewish people in general) are on his tail and again “stirred up the Gentiles” and Paul and Barnabas make a quick exit before the rocks come out.



The duo end up in Lystra, where Paul cures a lame man (Acts 14, 8-10), which really wins the people over, though not in a way Paul would have preferred. He has to persuade the people that he is not Hermes and that Barnabas is not Zeus (Acts 14, 11-18). Once he convinces the Lystrans that he is, like them, only a man, who shows up again but the Pharisees? They once again manage to stir up the crowd, and this time Paul doesn’t escape and is stoned. The Lystrans drag him out of the city and leave him for dead. Paul’s disciples gather around him and, lo and behold, he isn’t dead. That is remarkable enough and is usually the part in the story when readers zone out. But the next sentence (Acts 14, 20) is even more astonishing.



“But when the disciples gathered around him, he got up and entered the city.”



So Paul goes to Lystra, gets stoned, and is left for dead. When he recovers, he doesn’t do what you and I would have done, i.e., get the he(ck) out of there. He goes right back into the city the residents of which had just stoned him! Maybe he’s a little touched, but he’s definitely tough…and fearless.



After Paul and Barnabas leave Lystra, they head to Derbe and then, in a passage people mostly gloss over, head back to Antioch via Lystra and Iconium. (Acts 14, 21) So he goes back to each city in which the people just a little while before had been preparing to line rocks in his direction.



The man was a glutton for punishment, one supposes. But Paul’s hunger for doing the Lord’s will transcended what most people, in both the modern and ancient worlds, would consider his craziness. Thank God Paul was a tough, stubborn, and perhaps a little crazy, man.

I WANT TO DO WHAT MY ABBA WANTS…or I HAVE TO DO THIS OR GOD WILL SEND ME TO HELL…?

12/9/12




We know generally what God wants of us; He wants us to have faith in Him (and in His Son, if we are Christians), live a life, in accordance with His will, reflective of that faith, and thus to share eternity with Him, our Abba (Galatians, 4, 6), or Papa.

It’s harder to know specifically what God wants of us (See my 11/27/12 post, THE WEDDING FEAST AT CANA: A WHOLE LOT OF PARTYING GOING ON…AND MARY’S COMMAND FOR THE AGES), especially with all the people, many of them poseurs, who purport to speak for God. But I suspect that one thing God wants is to be loved volitionally rather than out of a sense of obligation; i.e., He wants us to be so in love with Him that we want to be with Him and serve Him. He doesn’t want us to love and serve Him and spend time with Him because we are afraid we will go to hell if we don’t. He wants to be Daddy, not some kind of celestial drill sergeant.



Anybody who has been deeply in love and/or who is a parent knows this feeling. Who wants his lover, or his children, to love him out of fear or obligation? Neither does God.

“OH, YOU’RE A CATHOLIC BOY? YOU CAN’T COME.”

12/9/12




Both Matthew 15, 21-28 and Mark 7, 24-30 recount a troubling tale of Jesus’ treatment of a Gentile woman.

According to Mark, a woman who “was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth” (Mark 7, 26. In Matthew’s account, she is a “Canaanite woman” (Matthew 15, 22). The term “Greek” was often used at the time in the Holy Land to denote any Gentile. Hence, if I or you had been alive at the time, we would have been “Greek” even if our names were Quinn, Kruszewski, Patrello, of Fernholz, but I digress.) begged Jesus to expel the unclean spirit that had possessed her daughter. Jesus, knowing that the woman was not a Jew, replies in a way most of us find stunning:



“Let the children be fed first. For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” (Mark, 7, 27)



Jesus is calling Gentiles dogs!



The story has a happy ending. The woman, who must have been quite a pistol, replies



“Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” (Mark 7, 28)



and Jesus replies



“For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.” (Mark 7, 29)



and Mark further reports



When the woman went home, she found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. (Mark 7, 30)



But despite the happy ending, we come away asking how Jesus could be so callous to this woman who was begging His help.



I’ve heard several explanations, but they are all lame. One… “culture”…is especially unsatisfying. After years of prayer and thought on this, I have come up with a better explanation.



In this passage, Jesus is acting so clearly cold, cruel, and contrary to Himself in order to show us how cold, cruel, and contrary to Him we are, and how ridiculous we sound, when we exclude people from access to Him, actually or in our minds, because they are different from us. How do you think some of us Catholics sound when we speak of “the one true Church” and hint, if not proclaim (contrary, by the way, to the doctrine of our Church, at least for now), that salvation can only come through the Catholic Church? How do you think some Protestants sound when they say that we “papist” and “idol worshipping” Catholics can’t achieve salvation? How do all of us Christians sound when we argue, in line with or contrary to the doctrines of our branch of Christianity that non-Christians cannot enter into eternal happiness with God? (See my 11/14/12 post YOU MEAN NON-CHRISTIANS DON’T GET TO COME TO HEAVEN?) That’s right; we sound like Jesus sounded when he told the Gentile woman who begged for His mercy (There was no need to beg, by the way; Jesus doesn’t want us begging for anything from Him; see my 12/4/12 post, “HEY, GOD…DO YOU SUPPOSE WE CAN WORK OUT A DEAL?”)…cold, cruel, and contrary to His very nature, a nature He so much wants us to share.



So do you think Jesus sounds uncaring, mean, and cruel in Mark 7, 24-30 and Matthew 15, 21-28? I do. And He knows He sounds uncaring, mean, and cruel. But He does so because He wants us to realize how we sound, and how much we hurt Him, when we presume to say something like



You can’t have (eternal life, friendship with God, admittance to our church, partnership in our community) because you’re not (Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Jew, Muslim).

“HEY, GOD…DO YOU SUPPOSE WE CAN WORK OUT A DEAL?”

12/4/12




As I said in my last post, THE WEDDING FEAST AT CANA: A WHOLE LOT OF PARTYING GOING ON…AND MARY’S COMMAND FOR THE AGES, John’s gospel is dense, with multiple meanings and multiple layers of those meanings for virtually every passage. But within one of the most complex passages can be found one of the few simple statements in that gospel.



John 3, 31-36 is a brief reflection on Jesus’ divine nature, delivered immediately after a passage about John the Baptist’s proclaiming that



“He (Jesus) must increase; I must decrease.” (John 3, 35)



(Note, by the way, that we do not know who the speaker is of 31-36. Is it John the Baptist? John the evangelist? Or is it Jesus? We don’t know, but we suspect it is the evangelist reflecting on what he has just reported, as happens so often in this gospel.)



The reflections of 3, 31-36 are there for at least two reasons, as is everything else in John. One of those reasons is to reinforce the point that it is Jesus whom the early Christians must follow, not John the Baptist. Following John the Baptist is, of course, beneficial because it will lead us to Jesus, but John’s purpose is indeed to lead us to Jesus. This was quite the controversy in the earliest days of the Church; many of John’s followers clung to their loyalties and were hesitant to follow Jesus, thinking that doing so was somehow an abrogation of their fealty to John. John and Jesus were, in many people’s minds, rivals rather than the partners in salvation that they actually were.



The second reason for John 3, 31-36 is to yet again reinforce the major thrust of John’s gospel; i.e., that Jesus is indeed divine, that He is the son of God and that He is God.

Buried within this passage is verse 34, which could easily be glazed over:



“For the one whom God sent speaks the word of God. He does not ration his gift of the Spirit.” John 3, 34, emphasis mine



It is the second portion that is especially germane: God does not ration his gift of the Spirit.



We tend to think of God in human terms…



“If I do this, will you do that?”



“I promise to do this if you give me what I ask.”



“Don’t give this to me; give it to someone who needs it more than I do.” (or maybe the opposite: “Don’t give that to that guy; give it to me”!)



“Don’t inflict this trial on my children (or friends or spouse); inflict it on me.”



But, while God, in the Person of Jesus, did indeed share our humanity, He is also divine. He doesn’t think like us and He knows no limits. He has and gives abundantly of everything, and especially of the Spirit. “He does not ration the gift of the Spirit.” The only limitation of the gifts of God, and especially of the Spirit, is our willingness to accept them, to believe, if you will, that God is so good and so powerful that He wants to and indeed can deliver to us immeasurable quantities of the Spirit if only we will accept those gifts.



This is indeed a formidable limitation, given our human frailties, suspicions, and limitations. But it is a limitation imposed by us, not by God.

THE WEDDING FEAST AT CANA: A WHOLE LOT OF PARTYING GOING ON…AND MARY’S COMMAND FOR THE AGES

11/27/12




Just about everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, is familiar with Jesus’ first miracle at Cana; i.e., His turning water into wine. (John 2, 1-12) The story certainly has its moments, especially when the none the wiser headwaiter is surprised by the quality of the newly created wine and says



“Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.”



Somehow, those of us who have been known in the past to enjoy an adult beverage or two can relate, only many of our stories do not deal so much with new wine as with, say, Budweiser and Buckhorn (The latter was 69 cents a six pack, unless one could find it on sale, when I was a young man…a long, long, time ago. It could only be drunk at near frozen temperatures due to a taste that approximated dishwater in which pots containing lots of onions had been washed. But it completed the job cheaply after one had imbibed several Budweisers.), but I digress. Also, Jesus didn’t mess around; when He made wine, He made good stuff, consistent with His whole approach to life.



The miracle at the Cana wedding feast, however, is more than an interesting and entertaining story. I find two aspects especially intriguing and they are at least ancillarily related.

First, John says that the jars or jugs into which the water was poured and from which it was dispensed as wine were not ordinary jugs, but, rather “six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.” (John 2, 6, New American Bible) So, first, we are talking about some serious drinking here. Second, and more important, note that everything in John is loaded with symbolism and has at least two meanings. In this case, the replacement of the Jewish ceremonial washings with the new wine of Jesus Christ is interpreted as Jesus’ replacing of the old Jewish law with the new covenant of His message and His blood. That is doubtless true. But the replacement of the ceremonial washings with the new wine of Jesus can also be interpreted as the replacement of rote and sometimes empty ritual with the true worship of God “in Spirit and truth” (John, 4, 24). Not all of that empty ritual took place 2,000 years ago in the Holy Land; many still mistake the rote practice of ritual with true worship of God and of His Son.



Second, “the mother of Jesus” (John 2, 2) (who, interestingly, is never named in John’s gospel), gives the servers a command that transcends the ages:



“Do whatever he tells you.” (John, 2, 5)



She was speaking not only to those few attendants who unwittingly, but obediently, became instruments in Jesus’ first miracle. She is telling all of us to “do whatever he tells you” that so we, too, can become instruments in Jesus’ ongoing work. This command of Mary, the only command of Mary in the gospels, is all that we need to do.



The problem of course, is trying to determine what Jesus tells us. God speaks to me and He speaks to you, but never as clearly as we would like. And the problem is compounded by the legions of people who presume to speak for Christ and insist that we do whatever they tell us because, after all, they speak for Christ. And many of these same people seem to insist on the preeminence of ritual, which is sometime good and sometimes not so good, but never capable of leading to salvation. See my 10/22/12 post ST. PAUL, ST. JAMES, AND SALVATION BY FAITH.

“I’D WORRY A LOT LESS...”

11/25/12




“I’d worry a lot less about what other people think of me if I realized how little they do.”



I first heard that quote about 25 years ago. It’s been attributed to many authors, thinkers, even politicians around the great city of Chicago, but its origin is lost in the fog of the past, which is probably especially apropos to the quote. This thought has been immensely comforting to many, including yours truly…or at least it would be if it were as easy to internalize as it is to intellectualize.



We think about ourselves a lot. I realize that the closer we get to God, the less we think of ourselves, but I also realize that few of us are as close to God as we’d like to be, or should be, and that all of us are not sufficiently close to God that we can stop trying to get closer. And, to the extent that we go through the process of losing our selfishness, which some have defined as the maturation process and/or the process of realizing our spiritual potential, even the best of us devote most of our concern to those closest to us, to our friends, spouses, families, etc., rather than to the great, largely faceless, mass of humanity. That’s just the way we are; we are, after all, human.



To a large extent, we realize this innate, and not necessarily entirely bad, selfishness in ourselves, but we don’t see it in others. We often think that people are out there thinking things like…



“Boy, I remember when (insert your name here) really did me wrong twenty years ago. S/he ruined my life. I hate him/her! But he always was an a—hole!”



“(Insert your name here) didn’t even see me or acknowledge me when I saw him at (church, the game, the store) yesterday; s/he acted as if I weren’t there. I’m crushed!”



“Remember when (insert your name here) dropped that pass in the end zone and we lost the state title? What a schmo!”



“How ‘bout that time (insert your name here) got really (drunk, tired, upset, out of sorts, full of himself, or all of the above) and made an enormous ass out of himself? What an a—hole!”



Or maybe we imagine they think



“Remember that time (insert your name here) really did something nice for my (mom, dad, sister, daughter, son)? S/he didn’t have to do that. What a great person s/he is!”



“You know, that (insert your name here) is really (smart, hardworking, helpful, kind, willing to help). What a great person s/he is!”



“Wow! Isn’t (insert your name here) great looking!”



But guess what? They don’t think those things. They simply don’t care. They have more to do than sit around and think about us, what we are doing, what we have done, or how we have wronged or benefited them. They have their own lives, friends, families, etc., about which to concern themselves. They rarely think of us, who we are, what we’ve done, how our lives are going, or how we have had an impact on their lives, mostly because we haven’t, in most cases, had nearly as much impact on their lives as we think we did. We simply are not that important, or at least our importance wanes very quickly with the passage of time. And people just don’t care, or care all that much. This is by no means an indictment of people; it is simply a recognition that people are (at the expense of using what has become an incredibly trite expression) not wired to think much of what other people do or have done, or at least not nearly as much as we imagine. As I said before, this innate concern with self is not necessarily a bad thing; it is a survival device in more than the obvious ways.



Sometimes I think that the best thing for a lot of us would be to run into somebody from our distant pasts only to discover that they don’t even remember us. If we thought we had done them wrong, such a realization would be an enormous relief. If we thought we had done them right, such a realization would be a much needed dose of humility.



Is this a call to care little about how we treat people? Of course not. It is, rather, a call to do right by people NOW, when we can do something about it and for them, rather than dwelling on the good, but mostly the wrong, we have done people in the past. We can’t do anything about that…and the damage we have wrought, or the benefit we have conferred, on people is not nearly as large as we suppose.

WAS ST. PETER AN ALCOHOLIC?

11/21/12




It was the first Christian Pentecost, around 29 A.D., in Jerusalem. The disciples were “all in one place together.” (Acts 2, 2) Suddenly, tongues of fire descended over the heads of the disciples, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they started speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues, at least in this first manifestation, was an ability to speak in one’s own language while one’s listeners heard what was said in their languages. This came in very handy in this instance because there were Jews from throughout the Diaspora, or dispersion, in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost, and most spoke languages other than Aramaic. But, as St. Paul points out in the 14th chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians, to most listeners, speaking in tongues can sound like so much babbling. So in response to this first speaking in tongues, some observers said of Peter and the Apostles (Acts 2, 13)



“They have had too much new wine.”



What is remarkable is Peter’s response to the charge that he and his buddies had been drinking too much “new wine” (Act 2, 15):



“These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.”



So Peter’s defense against charges of drunken babbling is not so much that he isn’t drunk but that he isn’t drunk yet; after all, it’s only 9:00 A.M. You almost expect him to follow with something like “…but if it were happy hour, well, then you’d have a point.”



I’ve found this passage and interpretation thereof fascinating since a great friend, and Jesuit priest, pointed it out to me more than twenty five years ago. If indeed Peter did have some trouble with the new wine, he would be exhibiting a condition that is very prevalent among people back then and people now; alcoholism is a big deal now and it was a big deal then.



More importantly, if it were indeed true that Peter was an alcoholic, this would be only one instance in which he was the most human of all Apostles, the Apostle to which most of us can most easily relate.



Like many of us, Peter was headstrong and impetuous with sudden and passing bouts of bravado and pseudo-strength followed by a realization of his innate weaknesses and a consequent reassessment of his seemingly rash actions, very human traits and actions that seem to be especially manifested in alcoholics, both practicing and recovering.

The examples of these traits in Peter are abundant. St. Matthew, in his account of Jesus’ walking on water (Matthew 14, 24-33), tells us that St. Peter, obviously impressed by this heretofore undiscovered ability of his Master and wanting to both please and imitate him, said



“Lord, if it is you, command me to come out to you on the water.”



and, hardly waiting for Jesus’ assent, went racing out to meet Jesus on the waves. There he was, caught up in the moment, strutting his stuff…for a few minutes until he realized something like “Hey, wait a minute; I’m walking on water! I can’t do this!” and started sinking, only to be saved by Jesus.



This tendency to act now and think later on the part of Peter again displayed itself at the Transfiguration. There they were, Peter, James, John, and Jesus, up on the mountain, all but Jesus thinking this would be what had become by then a routine prayer session, when, suddenly, Jesus’ (Luke 9, 29)



“face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white.”



and then who showed up but Moses and Elijah! If Peter ever needed a drink, this was certainly the time, but I digress. Peter quickly realized that this was no ordinary day on the hill, but, rather than, like James and John, simply drinking it all in and enjoying it, he immediately blurted out (Luke 9, 33)



“Master, it is good that we are here; let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”



Luke even points out



But he did not know what he was saying.



Effectively, what Peter was saying was something like “Man, this is great! Let’s just stay up here and never come down to the reality of life.”



and thus became like so many Christians throughout the ages who think that signing up for Christianity means, first, going to heaven, which is a great place to be, and that, as an additional bonus, sticking with Jesus will somehow keep trouble away and make life easy. But most of us know that, while Jesus does promise a place in heaven for us, He promises nothing of the sort in this life. He’s not going to take away our troubles; indeed, following Him will result in plenty of trouble above and beyond life’s normal trials. But He does promise us that He will be with us during those troubles; after all, He experienced most of them while He was here. But Peter didn’t want to hear that; He wanted to keep the good stuff on the mountain and avoid the painful stuff that awaited him down in the valley and thought his Master was the ticket for achieving this goal.



Peter’s impetuousness comes through again at the Last Supper when, after Jesus tells his Apostles (Mark 14, 27)



“All of you will have your faith shaken, for it is written ‘I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be dispersed.’”



Peter replies



“Even though all should have their faith shaken, mine will not be.”



(If my thesis about Peter’s having an excessive love of the fruit of the vine is true, this may have been the 1st century forerunner of the Manischewitz talking. After all, at least according to the three synoptic gospels, the Last Supper was a Seder, and one can be confident that more than the wine that Jesus transformed into His Precious Blood was being consumed at the meal. Note that Peter, James, and John were having a very difficult time staying awake an hour or so hence in the Garden of Gethsemane at a not, by any stretch of the imagination, inconsequential time. But I digress.)



Jesus, being the cooler head at the table, replies (Mark 14, 30)



“Amen I say to you, this very night before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.”



and, as always, He was right. When the heat was on, Peter, being human and afraid, denied even knowing Jesus despite his previous bravado.



And then, after the resurrection, when Jesus tries to make everything okay again between Him and Peter by asking Peter three times (John 21, 15-19)



“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”



Peter gets “distressed,” not understanding at all what Jesus was trying to do and replies in an exasperated fashion after the third time he was asked



“Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you!”



The guy pops off, falls down, and fights back when Jesus tries to lift him up. Sound alcoholic? Sound human?



Then, getting back to that first Christian Pentecost….



Peter, inspired by the Spirit and now clearly not full of “new wine,” launches into a long explanation of the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and its implications not only for his Jewish listeners and for all mankind. Three thousand people are convinced and want to be baptized, to sign up, if you will. So what does Peter do? He doesn’t look into their backgrounds. He doesn’t ask if they’ve been good. He doesn’t ask them to renounce their existing faith. He doesn’t make them jump through hoops. And he doesn’t make them feel like he is, through his great graces and manifest goodness, doing them some kind of favor. He, and his buddies, simply baptize them…all three thousand of them. (Acts 2, 41). Impetuousness does have its positives!



Later on, when the family of Cornelius, a Gentile, undergoes a Pentecost like experience, filled with the Spirit, speaking in tongues and all, Peter doesn’t check the rule book and say something like “Wait a minute; these guys aren’t Jews like us. This can’t be real. Our rules tell us only Jews can be filled with the Spirit. No, these guys can’t join us! Not these infidel Gentiles!” Instead, he says (Acts 10, 47-48)



“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?”



and



He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.



Again, impetuousness has its positives!





Speaking of impetuousness having its positives, thank God Peter was the often weak, yet headstrong far beyond his abilities, man that he was. Why? Because God’s glory and strength is manifested through otherwise weak and very ordinary and fallible people…people like Peter…and us. So there is hope for all of us, who can all easily relate to Peter’s manifest humanity.



And…



If Peter were the kind of guy who thought through everything, who carefully considered his every move, we might not have had the Christian faith that we have today. No rational person gives up everything for what seemed like, nearly literally, a wing and a prayer. No rational person follows an itinerant preacher up a hill for God knows what purpose. No rational person decides to get out of a boat and walk across the water. No rational person gets up and talks to a group of thousands of people not having the faintest idea what he is going to say. No rational person breaks all the rules and lets insiders in on this great thing we really should save for ourselves. And no rational person goes to his death by being crucified, upside down, as tradition says Peter was.


So, unless you (perhaps, too,) are alcoholic, raise a glass to St. Peter this Thanksgiving. His very human tendency to shoot first, aim later, to rush in where wise men fear to tread, his impetuousness too late tempered by reason…his very alcoholic traits…are among the greatest things for which we should be utterly grateful.

WHEN DOES ETERNAL LIFE START?

11/16/12




I’ve noticed that, over the last twenty years or so, obituaries and the prayer cards we get at wakes have changed. In the past, they contained two dates, labeled “Born” and “Died.” For example:



John Jones



Born: March 10, 1913



Died May 15, 1985



Now the same two dates are in included, but one of the headings has changed from “Died” to “Born into eternal life” or similar words. For example



Jane Smith



Born: March 10, 1923



Born into eternal life: May 15, 2005

The sentiment is a beautiful one; after all, as Christians, we believe that natural death does not end our lives but merely marks a transition into our eternal life with Jesus. So the new language is a more accurate, and certainly more comforting, description of what has happened to the person whose passing we are observing.



And yet the words “born into eternal life” miss something fundamental about Christ’s message. They seem to adhere to the old notion that “all” Jesus is offering us is eternal joy in heaven and that our life on this earth is a mere period of preparation for that eternity and, indeed, can, and some think should, be a time of trial, a valley of tears, if you will, to be endured while awaiting eternal life.



But what Jesus offers us is an eternal life of joy with Him beginning not when we pass from this mortal coil but beginning, if not before, NOW. Eternal life does not start when we pass; eternal life begins when we are conceived. This life is not a time of misery and trial but the first stage of a life of joy in and service to Jesus Christ and our brothers and sisters of all faiths.



Most of us, certainly including yours truly, don’t live our lives entirely in the joy of Jesus Christ, and understandably so. Life, even for those of us with what are now called first world problems, is full of challenges, trials, and worse. As a good friend of mine, and a very good Christian, who is situated much like my wife and me, said at a lunch we recently shared “Life is one big ball of worry.” Those who know me know that I share much of that sentiment and I worry far too much. And much of the world lives in situations that are far more deprived, and with many more sources of worry, than we do.



To the extent that we give into worry and the cares of the world, though, we are refusing to accept the message of our Savior, who, after all said, in a passage that grates on many people, including yours truly (Matthew 6, 31-34):



“So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be given you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.”



And again, in a less grating passage (Matthew, 11, 28-30):



“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy and my burden light.”



Again, I am among the world’s worst violators of Jesus’ admonition not to give into worry and to accept His message of joy and hope in this world; like many people, but probably to a greater extent, I tend to stew in the negative and focus on what could go wrong. The good news is that Jesus is very forgiving. The better news is that, if we truly accept what we profess to believe, eternal life starts NOW, if we haven’t let it start already. This life is not the gauntlet we must endure, the valley of tears we must traverse, to get to the good stuff. If we truly accept the gift of life God offers us, this life on earth can be one of joy and fulfillment…and the transition to the next phase of our eternal lives will be that much easier.



But, ironically, it’s hard…very hard…to accept the message that life here can be, indeed is intended to be, a life of joy and fulfillment. (Much of that is because we seek joy and fulfillment in the wrong things, but that is grist for another mill.) And most of us have, in relative terms, very nice lives. How hard must it be for those for whom life presents challenges we can’t even imagine?



But God is forgiving and, unlike us, does not get frustrated or discouraged. He just continues to offer us eternal life, beginning NOW, and waits patiently for us to accept it. He’ll wait until we join Him in heaven for us to accept it, but He wishes we wouldn’t wait that long.

YOU MEAN NON-CHRISTIANS DON’T GET TO COME TO HEAVEN?

11/14/12




One of the most reassuring, yet troubling, verses in the New Testament is John 14,6. Jesus is at the Last Supper with His disciples and is giving delivering His, if you will, farewell address, which covers chapters 14-17. Early in Jesus’s musings, in an effort to reassure His disciples, He says (14, 3-4):



“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be. Where I am going, you know the way.”

Thomas (who gets the undeserved rap as “Doubting Thomas,” partially for this inquiry but more for his very understandable attitude after Jesus’s resurrection, which will serve as grist for another mill) says (14,5):



“Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?”



Then comes the zinger in 14,6:



“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”



This, along with a much less well known passage in the letter to the Hebrews (7, 25):



Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them. (Emphasis mine)



is great news, from an almost selfish point of view, for those of us who follow Christ, or at least try to follow Christ. But it’s perplexing, indeed impossible, to think that God shuts the proverbial gates of heaven to those who are not Christians, i.e., who do not come to God through His Son. This simply cannot be; God cannot exclude the vast majority of His children from His eternal presence; what father, let alone our ultimate Father, would do that?



I have heard two interpretations for John 14,6 that fully take into account God’s equal love for all His children, Christian and non-Christian alike. I can take credit for neither; I simply have heard them both and am simply reporting, and perhaps interpreting a bit, what I have heard.



The first is that the word “through” positions Jesus as the gate through Whom we must pass to enter eternal life. We don’t have to live as Christians in order to gain eternal life; we only must pass final muster, in a sense, with Him. We have to come through the gate of Jesus to enter heaven. This explanation might be consistent with Jesus’s proclamation in John 10,7-9 that



“Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep…Whoever enters through me will be saved.”



But it isn’t entirely satisfying.



A much better explanation is we, as Christians, believe as a basic, indeed THE basic, tenet of our faith that Christ is God. In John 14, 10, Jesus says



“…I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”



If Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him, Jesus is indeed God. So all who seek God, in whatever way, seek Jesus. Consequently, they are coming to the Father through Jesus; they approach God, who is Jesus, through Jesus, who is God. Put simply, Jesus is God so all who love and follow God love Jesus. This follows so naturally from the basis of our faith that it seems the perfect explanation for a very troubling, in some ways, passage, rendering that passage the reassuring message of love that God intended it to be.

A GHOSTLY TALE FROM ST. LUKE?

11/9/12




You can often find passages in the Bible that are especially intriguing, and not necessarily for reasons having to do directly with the subject matter. One passage that has always fascinated me is Luke’s recounting of Jesus’ (apparently) third meeting with His disciples after His resurrection. Luke recounts that, after Jesus appeared to the disciples gathered in the upper room and greeting them with “Peace be with you,”

But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see that I have.” Luke 24, 37-39, New American Bible



Notice that Jesus did not say, in response to the disciples’ initial thought that they were seeing a ghost, “There are no such things as ghosts.” No. He said



“Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see that I have.”



Was Jesus effectively saying that there are such things as ghosts, but that He wasn’t one of them, that He had been resurrected, body and soul? Maybe Jesus’ almost ancillary protestations that He was not a ghost are nothing and I am reading entirely too much into this, but note that Jesus was always very careful in choosing His words, as were the Gospel writers, perhaps, after John, especially Luke.



Do I believe in ghosts? Probably not. But what I will think about and consider is a considerably broader range of topics and phenomena than what I will believe. I have never seen a ghost and, probably, neither have most of you. But I would be willing to say with near certainty that some of you, and other people I know, have seen ghosts, or at least think you, or they, have seen ghosts.



The important message in this passage of Luke, and of the whole Gospel, is that Jesus did indeed rise, body and soul, and, through faith in Him, we, too, will rise to join Him in heaven. His comments regarding ghosts are at the very most ancillary to His message, and indeed may have been said entirely to reinforce the reality of His bodily resurrection. But why did He say, effectively, “I am not a ghost” rather than “C’mon; there are no such things as ghosts”?



Intriguing, to say the least.

WIVES SHOULD BE SUBMISSIVE TO THEIR HUSBANDS?

10/29/12

 

Tomorrow's (i.e., 10/30/12's) first reading for Mass in the Catholic Church is the now infamous Ephesians 5:21-33, which contains the following passage:

 

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the Church,
he himself the savior of the Body.
As the Church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

 

The admonition to wives to be submissive to their husbands is offensive to the modern ear, so offensive, in fact, that the Church provides an alternate reading, Ephesians 5:2a, 25-32, which excludes that reference.

 

The most obvious explanation for Paul's admonition is, of course, historical context.   But there is more to that explanation than meets the eye.

 

Was St. Paul, the author of Ephesians, the raging male chauvinist, perhaps even misogynist, that he is sometimes accused of being?   Yes, by standards of today but by not by standards of his day.  

 

It was a matter of course in Paul's day that women were not considered the equals of men, so much so that Paul's advice to women to be submissive barely raised notice, let alone objection.  (It is indeed one of the gifts of God that we have made so much, but not yet enough, progress in our regard for women in advanced societies; less developed of today's societies, sadly, still regard women with little more than scorn and, tragically, sometimes do so in the name of God.   But I digress.)   The portion of this passage that did raise eyebrows, if not hackles, among Paul's listeners, followed the above quoted lines:

 

Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the Church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the Church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.

 

Paul goes so far as to say

 

So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the Church,
because we are members of his Body.

 

Love your wives?  And love your wives as you love your own flesh?  In that era, and in that area where the Roman military and Greco-Roman culture dominated, women were regarded as little more than chattel and wives were more or less traded as parts of business deals, large or small.   Doubtless there were many instances in which men did love their wives, but generally when that condition prevailed that love developed over time; love was not a consideration in the deal that was marriage in Greco-Roman culture.   Lust perhaps, and probably rarely, but love?   Rarely, if ever.

 

So what was truly revolutionary to the ear of Paul's time was his admonition to husbands to love their wives.   Telling wives to submit to their husbands was the same old same old.   But telling husbands to love their wives was so out of the ordinary, and threatening to the normal course of things, that it could have, and doubtless did, get Paul in trouble.

 

In Paul's further defense, he concludes this passage, after relating a larger point about the relationship of Christ to the Church being very much akin to the proper, loving relationship between a man and a woman, with a reiteration of his advice for men to love their wives:

 

In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself

 

and a change in the verb describing the proper relationship of a woman to her husband

and the wife should respect her husband.  (Emphasis mine)

 

Though we wish Paul would have added something like

 

and the husband should respect his wife,     

 

who, even today, would argue with that?

 

So, yes, Paul sounds like a male chauvinist, at best, to today's listeners.   I cringe when I hear the above passage, and I am sure most of you do, too.   But give St. Paul a break; he was operating in the 1st century Roman world and was effectively sticking it in their eye by telling men that they should actually love, rather than own and do with what they would, their wives.   By those standards, Paul was a champion of women's rights, as was his Master, but the latter is grist for another mill

 

YOU MEAN EVERYBODY GETS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE…FOR FREE!?

10/27/12




As part of my post-Communion prayer and meditation today, I was trying to enumerate all the things for which I am grateful. Of course, the list is way too long for any of us to possibly enumerate. We tend, though, to start, and maybe end, our lists, with the obvious things and often, though not necessarily, the material things:



Our families

Our freedom

Having been (most of us) born in America during peace time

Our homes

Our education

Our friends

Our church and our faith

Our health

Our pets

Our cars

The great food we in this country eat daily as a matter of course

The beauty of the season…



Again, the list is too long to enumerate.



It occurred to me, as I tried to scratch the surface of the list, that the thing for which I ought to, and I think and hope I am, be most grateful is the presence of God in my life, that God wants to be and is my friend, my Father, my protector, my Creator, and my Savior and that He will never leave me. Perhaps a time will come when we will not feel all that grateful, and for good reason. That time has doubtless come for many of you; terrible things happen, friends and family leave us, we lose our jobs, our money, our standing in the community. But God is our constant; He never leaves us and, while He doesn’t promise us that life will be good or easy, He does promise that He will be with us for it.



Then something else occurred to me: the thing for which I should be most grateful, the presence of God, is something EVERYONE has. Some people reject His presence, but, even in those cases, He is never far from them and they can once again be in His presence for the mere asking. So EVERYONE, rich and poor, good and bad, hard working and lazy, good looking and not so good looking…EVERYONE…has the most important thing in life.



I don’t know about you, but this is not entirely a happy thought. People, including yours truly, work hard (or, perhaps in my case, perhaps we ought to just leave it at work) to achieve things. Material things, of course, but also friends and family, education, etc., if we think about it, require work and effort, hence forth the old adage, for instance, that to have a friend you have to be a friend. The work we do, especially in the case of our families and friends, is often, in most cases almost always, not unpleasant, indeed it is usually rewarding and fun. But for many of us the work we do to obtain the material things, and often the work we do to be a better friend, spouse, or parent, can be difficult, strenuous, exhausting, tedious, dispiriting, and/or something we would just rather not do. Yet we do whatever is necessary to achieve the things we, and the people we love, need and want…and harbor a very understandable resentment of those who don’t.



But the thing we most need, the most important thing in our lives, the presence, the Fatherhood, the friendship, the comfort of God, requires NO efforts; it is always there for us…and anyone, even those we consider not all that worthy, have it, or at least have ready access to it. If this isn’t somehow troubling to us, there are at least two possible reasons.



First, we haven’t grasped, or haven’t bought into the idea that God’s presence is indeed the most important thing in your lives and everything else, by comparison, is either ephemeral or, like our families, derive their value because they are manifestations of God’s love for us and our love for Him. This probably describes most of us, including yours truly. We may intellectually understand the preeminence of God and His presence, but haven’t fully accepted it.



Second, we have truly achieved that level of selflessness that should be the aim of our lives, the thing that God most wants us to achieve, and, therefore, that other people can have what we most treasure for the mere asking does not bother us. This condition does not describe most of us, including yours truly, and St. Paul, who says (Romans, 3:23):



“For all have sinned and fall short of he glory of God.”



In a sense, this having fallen short is a human condition that we can strive to, but probably never will, overcome in this life. This is perhaps a good thing, yet another gift from God for which to be grateful. It’s pretty frightening to imagine a world in which we all realized, and internalized, the paramount importance of the free gift of God’s grace, were perfectly fine with EVERYONE having access to that gift, and acted accordingly in our material affairs. One does not have to a fervent believer in free markets to imagine the impact such an attitude would have on the world’s living standards! But that is perhaps grist for a discussion of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew, 20:1-16).

RICHARD MOURDOCK ON RAPE: GOD INTENDED IT?

10/24/12




Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, in an attempt to explain why he opposes abortion even in the case of rape, opined yesterday during a debate:

“I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”



Leaving aside for a moment the question of when life begins and/or when abortion is permissible, Mr. Mourdock displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how God works.



Put simply, God does not intend that horrible, or even just bad, things happen. God does not want a woman to go through the horrors of rape, nor does He want the children conceived under such horrid circumstances to endure whatever horrific circumstances may await them.



So if God is omnipotent and God does not want things like rape to happen, why do they happen? These things happen because God is not omnipotent. God is not omnipotent because He created us with free will and thus with the power to refuse God, to say “No!” to God and choose the path of evil rather than the path of His will. God is largely powerless to stop people who insist on refusing His love and His mercy and therefore to not follow His will. That is why things like rape happen…not because God intended a woman to be raped. What loving father could intend that his beloved daughter be raped? And God is the ultimate loving Father.



Since God clearly did not intend the terrible crime of rape to be perpetrated on one of His daughters, how could He intend the pregnancy that resulted? Clearly He did not. But God also works, as best He can, given that He must work through people, to make the best out of terrible, or even merely bad, situations. How that plays out under these clearly terrible circumstances is another issue, though it is very difficult to see how He would demand that a woman to carry the term the product of such an abominable violation of His will. But to say that God intends a rape and the immediate consequences thereof shows a fundamental misunderstanding of God as a loving Father…and an overestimation of His ability to control people and circumstances.

“YOU GET WISE! YOU GO TO CHURCH!”

10/23/12




In reading the letter to the Hebrews today, I again ran across this admonition from the unknown (That the author is not St. Paul, as was once believed, has been accepted for hundreds of years.) writer: (Chapter 10, v. 25):



We should not stay away from the assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.

At the time the letter was written, probably before AD 70, the Christian assemblies to which the author refers were simply meetings of people who accepted Jesus, or early church services.  So the message of the writer of Hebrews can be translated in modern times as, in the immortal words of Curtis Salgado, “You get wise!  You go to church!”

Even then, perhaps especially then, in the earliest days of the Church, it was deemed important to get one’s self to church regularly…and there were plenty of Christians who didn’t go to church. Back then, everyone had a good excuse not to go to church; the authorities, whether local or Roman, in the Holy Land were not too keen on this new sect or branch of Judaism and had little compunction about persecuting those who adhered to it. But, despite the dangers, people recognized the value of gathering together to profess their faith in common and to, as the author put it, “encourage one another.”



Today, going to church has fallen out of favor, even among those who have deep faith in God in the person of Jesus. While the reasons for not going to church are not as valid as they were when there was something of a price on Christian’s heads, aversion to church attendance is understandable, given what many organized religions, or at least some people representing many organized religions, have done to betray the trust of the faithful…or worse. But adhering to the ancient admonition to attend “the assembly” makes sense not only from the standpoint of mutual encouragement in these trying times, but also because of human limitations.



You and I are limited in what we can do because we have different talents and abilities. Paul wrote about different roles for people of different talents in the 12th chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians. And even if we were virtually unlimited in our abilities, we would be constrained by time and normal human limitations. We simply cannot do what needs to be done (See yesterday’s post, ST. PAUL, ST. JAMES, AND SALVATION BY FAITH.) on our own; it takes the collective effort of believers from many backgrounds and of many abilities to accomplish the works that God wants accomplished, both to spread the good news of the salvation He offers us and to give witness to the faith by which we are saved.



Going to church was tough back in the 1st century and, though less so, it’s still tough today. And, no, it isn’t necessary to go to church to be saved; Jesus already took care of that (Again, see ST. PAUL, ST. JAMES, AND SALVATION BY FAITH.) But church attendance helps strengthen our own faith and the faith of others and to bring the good news to others. So find a church that you like to attend, not a church that you feel you must attend, regardless of denomination, and go when the Spirit moves you, hopefully, but not necessarily, frequently. You’ll be doing God’s work…and yourself, and many others, a favor.

ST. PAUL, ST. JAMES, AND SALVATION BY FAITH

10/22/12




The first of today’s (Monday, 10/22/12’s) readings in the Catholic Church comes from the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, concluding with verses 8-11:



For by grace you have been saved through faith,

and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

it is not from works, so no one may boast.

For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works

that God has prepared in advance,

that we should live in them.

This is far, far from the only place in which Paul has made the point that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not from our works, our devotion, dedication, or anything else we can do, have done, or will do; faith, not works, saves us and we incapable of achieving our own salvation. All the novenas, all the Masses or services we attend, all the confessions we make, all the work among the poor and the sick, all of the personal sacrifices we make for others will not win us salvation. Salvation cannot be won or earned; it is a free gift from God, won by the sacrifice of His Son on the cross and His resurrection from the dead. Paul could not be more explicit in making this point than he is in this passage.



Does this mean that works are worthless, that we are free to do whatever we please as long as we believe in God? Of course not, for at least two reasons.

First, our good works are a manifestation of our faith, a sign of our faith. He who says he has faith in God and then acts in a manner contrary to God’s wishes, or to sound morals, may believe in God but he has no faith in God. As James said, (Chapter 2, vs. 18-22, New American Bible):



Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works. Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works and that faith was completed by the works. (Emphasis mine)



The minor point here is that I love St. James; he tells it like it is (“you ignoramus..) and provides me solace, or at least justification, when I, as is my wont in my blogs and elsewhere, put the proper label on someone.



The major point here is that believing is not faith; even the demons believe that Jesus is the Christ, as demonstrated in several of his exorcisms. Faith is deeper than belief. That faith is demonstrated, or, as James puts it, completed by works. Anyone can say “Oh, yeah, I believe that Jesus is Lord.” But true faith is demonstrated by the way we live our lives—with an awareness of Christ. And it is living in this awareness, rather than living by the rules, that saves us.



The second reason that good works are necessary lies in the old expression that God has no hands or, with a slight variation, that we are the only hands God has. If God is to accomplish His work of salvation, we must do our very large part in spreading the word of God so that others may have faith in Him and thus be saved. We can do so with words, but, as St. Francis of Assisi said,



Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.



and



It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.



Again, we demonstrate our faith through our works and we preach the faith through our works. Further, God needs us to accomplish His work of salvation; without us, nothing, or very little, gets accomplished in saving the human race through faith in Him and in His Son.

ST. PAUL, MEET FATHER DAN MALLETTE…A MAN AFTER YOUR OWN HEART

9/27/12




Father Dan Mallette, pastor of St. Margaret of Scotland Parish since 1977, and still pastor until Sunday, September 30 of that parish on the eastern stretches of my old neighborhood, is being forced out of the rectory by Cardinal George. Father Mallette contends that the Cardinal promised that Father Mallette and his dog Tuffy would be able to live at St. Margaret for life. “I love it here and I love the people.” Now, however, according to Father Dan, the Cardinal says the rectory at St. Margaret is unsafe and needs to be repaired and, according to Archdiocesan spokeswoman Colleen Dolan “his (Father Mallette’s) safety has not been assured there in recent years.”

So suddenly the rectory at St. Margaret needs to be repaired; it’s strange that the need to repair the rectory did not seem urgent until a new pastor is due to be installed. And as for Father’s safety not being assured, one would have thought the Archdiocese would have figured that out when two thugs broke into Father’s bedroom in 2002…and were promptly dispatched by the then 70 year old ex-boxer. Or maybe it should have become apparent last December, when two other thugs broke in and beat Father Mallette to within an inch of his life. The safety, or the need for repair, of the rectory was not an issue then, even for the man most directly involved. But now, when Father Mallette is being pushed out, the rectory, in which Father wants to live out his life, is in disrepair and Father is suddenly in danger? As Father Mallette said, “Bull----.”



A few stipulations before I go on:



--I know Father Mallette. Though he has never been my pastor, he has done wonderful things for me and for people close to me throughout the years. Though we live about fifty miles from St. Margaret and the church we normally attend in the old neighborhood is Sacred Heart, not St. Margaret, I make it a point to get to St. Margaret’s each Good Friday to pray along with Father Mallette and the parishioners who get there on that solemn day. The Church has done a lot of hurtful and harmful things of late, but this one is personal for me.



--No one is arguing that Father Mallette should not retire. He has been a wonderful pastor for his largely black, but, thanks to Father Mallette’s connections, charisma, personality, and efforts, still very diverse congregation. But he is 80 years old and has been pastor for 35 years, well beyond the mandated 12 year tenure for pastors. The issue is not his retirement but his ability to stay in the parish, in the home, and among the people he loves.



--Father Mallette has been described as “a living saint.” Though he would probably argue with that description, those of us who know him wouldn’t. But his being a living saint does not mean that Father Mallette is not a tough guy who can be irascible, stubborn, and, at times, profane. Those of you who read the New Testament will recall that St. Paul had the same qualities.



--The Cardinal is currently battling with cancer, so it is difficult to criticize him at this juncture. However, he did decide to stay on the job despite his cancer and thus cannot be exempted from criticism that comes with the job.





So what to make of the Cardinal’s being forced out of his residence at St. Margaret’s?



--The new pastor, a Father Bill O’Donnell, is stepping into some giant shoes and I can understand his wanting to establish his own identity and his desire to step out of Father Mallette’s giant shadow. However, a deal’s a deal and if the Cardinal said Dan Mallette and Tuffy could live at St. Margaret for life, they ought to be allowed to live there. The Cardinal, through his spokeswoman, Ms. Dolan, questions Mallette’s claim that the cited promise was ever made before launching into the now standard and incessant drivel about Father Mallette’s “safety” that has suddenly become an issue now that Bill O’Donnell wants to run his own show.



So whom do we believe, Father Mallette or Cardinal George? I know Father Mallette. I trust Father Mallette. I don’t know Cardinal George and I don’t reflexively trust anyone even if he is a Prince of the Church. For this, I have been accused of “not being a Catholic.” I disagree, but I digress. The point in this case is that I believe Father Mallette, not the Cardinal, or, rather, his spokeswoman.



--I don’t know Bill O’Donnell, but, given the type of guy who seems to be getting ahead in the Church of late, I am forming a pretty good picture of him in my mind. That Father Mallette has said of Father O’Donnell



“What I don’t understand is why he has to be so mean…he’s a genius at being a pain in the ass.”



only fortifies that image. Perhaps the old rectory on Throop needs refurbishing only because it is not up to Father O’Donnell’s expectations of the type of place in which a priest is entitled to reside.



--Yes, the rules say that pastors should serve only twelve years, but, as I said before, no one is arguing that Father Mallette should not retire, only that he should be able to live out his years among the people he loves, as he says the Cardinal promised him. Why would that be so hard? While it’s unusual for a pastor to stay on at his old parish, it’s not a completely foreign practice. And when one considers that, without Father Mallette, there may very well have been no St. Margaret of Scotland at this juncture, can’t the tough old guy’s wishes be respected after all he’s done for the church…and the Church?



If Bill O’Donnell is such a weakling that he can’t operate in the admittedly formidable shadow of Father Mallette, maybe he should get a nice, quiet parish in the suburbs somewhere. St. Margaret, with its many challenges and its diverse congregation, needs a tough guy like Father Mallette, just as the ancient church at Corinth, with is many challenges and diverse congregation, needed a tough guy like St. Paul.







For more of my thoughts on politics and the ironies that permeate life, along with a healthy dose of what some call cynicism but I call realism, see my other posts on The Insightful Pontificator.


For more of my thoughts on political issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Political.


For some of my thoughts on financial issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Finance.

THE FEAST OF THE EXALTATION OF THE HOLY CROSS; ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, PRAY FOR US

9/14/12




This morning I went to Mass, as I try to do a few times during the week, unaware that it was the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The deacon, a different deacon from the one who preached the Assumption homily I found so egregious (See my 8/15/12 post THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION: MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR LORD, PRAY FOR US) was going along pretty well, commenting on, among other things, the miracle that followed the discovery of the Cross of Christ and the popularity of the cross in today’s culture when he let out his whopper:



“The presence of the Crucifix, the cross with the corpus, or body of Christ, is a sign that the church in which it is located is a Christian church.” (Emphasis mine)



Huh?

If the deacon had used the term “Catholic” instead of “Christian,” I would have gone along with it. But most Protestant congregations do not use or display the Crucifix; they stick with simple, unadorned crosses, sans the body of our Lord. So one supposes that, in the estimation of this homilist, those churches that display only the cross are not Christians; it is only we Catholics, who display the Crucifix, who are Christians.



One might think that I am making too much of this, that this was a poor but unintentional of words. Given the attitude displayed in the Assumption homily on which I commented (Same parish, different deacon.), in which Mary, the very mother of our Lord, was used as a cudgel to beat up on non-Catholic Christian denominations, this was not an oversight at all. As one who attends Mass a lot, it is becoming clear that this attitude is permeating not only this particular parish or the Diocese in which it is located, but most of today’s Catholic Church.



Throughout the entire post Vatican II portion of my life, the Church has spoken of its devotion to ecumenism, or Christian unity. For many of those years, it was apparent that what the Church had in mind was the Protestants’ finally admitting they were wrong all along, accepting all aspects of Catholic doctrine, submitting to the rules (of course), and then maybe, just maybe, being granted re-admittance to the one true Church. But then, for a few years there, it looked as if the Church were becoming more open to genuine reconciliation of Christian congregations, with each of us considering others’ beliefs in the context of what gets us closer to Christ and the way He wants us to live rather than what complies with the traditions and doctrines of men.



Sadly, though, a “new” attitude seems to be ascending in the Church toward ecumenism that is really the old attitude. It might best be described by using the very secular expression “My way or the highway.”





For more of my thoughts on politics and the ironies that permeate life, along with a healthy dose of what some call cynicism but I call realism, see my other posts on The Insightful Pontificator.



For more of my thoughts on political issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Political..



For some of my thoughts on financial issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Finance.

THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION: MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR LORD, PRAY FOR US

8/15/12




Today is the Feast of the Assumption in the Catholic Church so, naturally, I went to Mass this morning. The homily I heard from one of our deacons (I don’t know his name; for reasons that might become clear as you read this, we don’t go to what is still considered our parish much any more, opting to go to either my childhood church or to one of the other parishes in Naperville.) was deeply troubling to this Catholic, Christian, and devotee of Mary the mother of Jesus.

The deacon started off by saying that the Assumption was defined, and the Feast declared, in 1950 by Pius XII, who was speaking ex Cathedra (i.e., with Papal infallibility) in making the declaration. He also pointed out that this was the first ex Cathedra declaration by a pope since 1854, when Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception. He was right on both counts. But what he said next was shocking, and, while I don’t have a photographic memory and wasn’t writing anything down, I can quote with only the risk that perhaps an article or two may have been changed:



“Here we have the nucleus of our faith.”



Huh? The nucleus of our faith, at least as I understand it, is that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Jesus is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, that He died for our sins, and rose from the dead, and that, by faith in Him and in His resurrection, we have been granted eternal salvation with Him in heaven. (Some Catholics might argue with the section of that sentence after the comma.) That is the nucleus of our faith; from that nucleus spreads plenty more. But the nucleus of our faith is neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption; they are among the other things that spread from the nucleus of our faith. Indeed, the Church was around, and souls were being saved through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for over 1,800 years before the first of those doctrines was declared.



The deacon went on to say that, again, closely quoting:



“Many of our brother Christians accuse us, wrongly, of worshipping Mary, but this is untrue. Worship is reserved for God.”



Right on both counts: We don’t worship Mary (though I suspect a lot of Catholics don’t know that.); we venerate Mary. A nuance, maybe, but an important one. And, correct, many Protestants do accuse us of worshipping Mary, but one can see how they might think that we do.



Then came the real whopper, enough to make me say “C’mon!” in a sufficiently hushed tone to be polite but to be audible by those around me. The deacon said, again closely quoting:



“Many of our brother Christians say ‘There is nothing special about Mary.’”



Huh?



Which Protestants say “There is nothing special about Mary”? Maybe, and only maybe, one might be able to find some backwoods, spin-off, rogue fundamentalist sect in the backwoods somewhere that might say things like “There is nothing special about Mary,” but “many of our brother Christians”? C’mon! One of the foundations of the Reformation, and hence of virtually all Protestant faiths, is sola scriptura, roughly translated “The Scripture Alone” or “Only the Scripture,” and it holds that the Scripture alone is the foundation of our faith. According to sola scriptura, Church tradition plays no role in the faith, contrary to what we Catholics believe.



Hence the Protestant faiths adhere to the Bible with varying degrees of strictness. Anyone who adheres to the Bible has read the first few chapters of Luke and Matthew and John 19: 26-27 and thus thinks that there is plenty that is special about Mary.



The Protestants clearly differ with us in our approach to Mary, and there is plenty to debate about her role in our faith and in our lives. Setting up straw men does nothing to advance that debate.



I have had a lifelong devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus, but that does not mean that those who don’t are somehow deficient in their dedication to her Son. And I strongly suspect that Mary is not happy about her being used as a cudgel with which to beat our fellow Christians over the head.







For more of my thoughts on politics and the ironies that permeate life, along with a healthy dose of what some call cynicism but I call realism, see my other posts on The Insightful Pontificator.


For more of my thoughts on political issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Politics.


For some of my thoughts on financial issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Finance.