HATS OFF TO CARDINAL GEORGE: GAY MARRIAGE, PICKING FIGHTS, AND WHAT REALLY MATTERS

11/18/13

In a letter distributed through the 11/11 parish bulletins to all Catholics in the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George reiterated his stance on same sex marriage; i.e., he said that the law passed by the Illinois legislature legalizing such unions “will contribute over the long run to the further dissolution of marriage and family life, which are the bedrock of any society.”

No surprise there.  But it was his proclamation that

“We have lived with bad laws before, and we will do our best to adjust to this one for the sake of social harmony.”

that was amazing.

Depending on where one stands on the issue of gay marriage, this is either profound progress or outright surrender on the part of the Cardinal.   No matter where one stands on the issue, however, one has to be shocked by the Cardinal’s concession to social harmony and has to ask one’s self what happened to bring about such a change in the Cardinal’s attitude.  Perhaps Pope Francis talked with the Cardinal and his colleagues about framing one’s opposition to gay marriage or maybe Cardinal George and his confreres simply got the message that, yes, opposition to gay marriage remains a tenet of the faith but that how one opposes gay marriage, or stands up for any of the Church’s beliefs, has consequences for the Church, for the world, and for fulfilling our missions as disciples of Jesus Christ.

Note that the Cardinal minced no words in decrying gay marriage as an assault on the bedrock of society.   So some of those who share his belief that such unions are abominations before God are doubtless confused, angry, or both.  Why, they might ask, isn’t the Cardinal standing up for his beliefs and the beliefs of the Church?  Is he backing down just to keep the peace?  If so, wouldn’t that run counter to the way the Cardinal, and the Church, normally operates?   They might even argue that Jesus never backed down.   Jesus stood up for what He believed in regardless of the consequences; after all, that is what got Him crucified and, ultimately, what led to our salvation.

Those who make that argument are for the most part correct; Jesus did stand up for what he believed.  But He also picked his fights carefully.  When it really mattered, he fought, fought hard, and suffered the consequences.  But discretion was often the better part of valor for Jesus.  He didn’t fight for the sake of fighting; that would be very unlike Him, though not, it would appear, unlike many in the Church hierarchy, but I digress.  And when it didn’t really matter, or didn’t matter all that much, Jesus didn’t bother.  It simply didn’t make sense to make enemies over tangential issues.  

The best example of this can be found in Matthew 17, 24-27.  The collectors of the temple tax asked Peter if Peter’s “teacher” (Jesus) paid the temple tax.   Peter, being the impetuous guy he was (see my 11/21/12 piece, WAS ST. PETER AN ALCOHOLIC?), first answered “yes”… and then checked with his teacher.  Jesus first firmly made the point that He and his disciples, the “subjects” of the kingdom of God, are exempt from paying the temple tax.  But then he went on to say

“But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up.  Open its mouth, and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax.  Give that to them for me and for you.”  (emphasis mine) Matthew 17, 27

This is more than an entertaining, humorous, some might say cute, story.  And, like every miracle story, it tells us a lot more than that Jesus was capable of doing miracles. 

The story was designed to tell the people for whom Matthew wrote, largely Jewish Christians, that, yes, as Christians they indeed no longer had to pay the temple tax.  They were no longer subject to the law and rarely, if ever, worshipped in the temple, and thus were under no obligation to pay for the temple’s upkeep.  But, even though members of Matthew’s congregation, if you will, were under no obligation to pay the temple tax, they should do so anyway because it wasn’t worth the fight, wasn’t worth the price they’d pay just to make an ancillary point.  Why make the Jewish authorities angry over something that, in the great scheme of things, wasn’t all that important?   Did it make sense to antagonize devout Jews, or even not all that devout Jews, and thus lose any chance of winning them over to Christianity, just to make a point about something that didn’t go to the core of the faith?

While some might argue about whether civil gay marriage goes to the core of the faith, the message that Matthew and Jesus were sending to the early Jewish Christians is the same message that Jesus is sending us today:   Don’t sweat the small stuff.   Even if you are right, is it worth it in the larger scheme of things to send a message of intolerance to our brothers and sisters in Christ?   Wouldn’t we be better off promoting harmony among our brothers and sisters than we would be promoting misunderstanding, and even hatred, by standing firm in order to make a point?

Yours truly, for one, applauds the Cardinal on his desire to promote harmony rather than make a point on civil same sex marriage.  That I feel that civil same sex marriage is, at best, an ancillary issue for the Church doubtless contributes to my warm feelings toward the Cardinal’s new approach.  What is important is the greater emphasis the Cardinal places on promoting harmony in society, which is without a doubt one of our duties as followers of Jesus Christ and indeed goes to the core of our faith.

IMITATIONS OF CHRIST: THE FIRST THING YOU’RE GOING TO NEED IS A $21,000 BATH TUB

10/24/13

Pope Francis suspended Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of the German diocese of Limburg yesterday.  No, the Pope did not suspend Mr. Tebartz van-Elst for displaying a lack of economy in the use of words and letters in his name.  The Pope suspended this popinjay for gaudy, tacky, extravagant displays of wealth, the most salient of which was a $42 million upgrade to his residence, which included such emulations of the life of Jesus as a $21,000 bath tub.

Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz’s defenders, and there are many, argue that the good Bishop’s residence included a conference center and offices; the entire $42 million wasn’t spent on the bishop’s residence.   Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz’s defenders actually make this argument with a straight face, as if every mid-sized diocese needs a $42 million conference center in its bishop’s residence.   Such inane defenses leads one to ask not why Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz was suspended but, rather, why the suspension was limited to him, who differs only in degree from many (Yours truly is comfortable saying “most.”) of his brethren in the worldwide conference of bishops of the Church.

The silly and showy spending of the likes of Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz is one of the Church’s most glaring scandals for a number of reasons.   The bishops, like all Catholics, indeed, all Christians, are here to imitate our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.   We don’t know exactly what imitation of Christ means in today’s world, especially as it relates to the acquisition and application of material goods.  While Jesus tells us what it means (Matthew 6, 25-34, which includes (31-33)….

“So do not worry and say ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we 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”.),

we have a difficult time applying these assurances and admonitions to our modern, complicated world.   But we do know two things about emulating Christ.  First, we all fall short in this pursuit.  Second, emulating Christ does not involve $42 million houses and $21,000 bath tubs.

Further, from a purely practical standpoint, the behavior of Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz and the legions of his brother bishops who doubtless wish they, too, could attain such heights of tackiness and phony elegance is scandalous to the Church for financial reasons beyond the obvious.   Simply put, people understandably have a hard time giving money to people who live better than they do.   When they see such poltroons as Tebartz-van Eltz living in opulence, they start to wonder where exactly their money is going.  Again, such, er, upscale lifestyles among churchmen is not at al unique to Tebartz-van Eltz.  To use an example that hits close to home, Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago, lives in the most expensive single family home in the city of Chicago.  Why?   Don’t think people don’t take such things into consideration when they are deciding how much, or even if, to give to the Church.

Finally, forget about spending other people’s money.   Any person, but especially any man, who spends such vast amounts of even his own money on his clothes, home, cars, or other trappings of wealth is a fool, a narcissistic fop who deserves not respect, or even consideration, but only ridicule and abuse.  His utter lack of judgment regarding the spending of money betrays an utter lack of judgment on any other matter, perhaps especially matters of faith. 

To have Cardinals, bishops, and priests parading around in foppish finery, living in over the top rectories and “bishops’ residences,” and being chauffeured around in luxury cars invites both the type of reasoned questioning, and outright sarcastic ridicule, to which the Church is being currently subjected.  The Church has brought such treatment upon  itself and the Pope is trying to correct that.   Hopefully the suspension of the idiotic poltroon in Limburg who calls himself a man of God is only the first such step in that direction.

As I’ve said before though, the Pope is putting himself in danger, perhaps grave danger, by taking a stand against the excesses displayed by his brother bishops.  (See Easter Sunday’s “(OUR NEW AND WONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES”.)  The Holy Father is already under attack by the vast elements in the Church and its hierarchy who have no problem with bishops’ living like Middle Eastern suzerains.  Indeed, it is not too much to say that many in the hierarchy entered their profession (That’s the right noun; for such fops, the Church is not a calling but a profession.) not to serve Christ but rather to live like Herod.  Their line of attack, steadily building momentum, will eventually evolve into an argument that Francis is not the “real” Pope, that the “real” Pope remains Benedict XVI (See 9/19/13’s  POPE FRANCIS: WHAT WILL THE “TRADITIONALISTS” DO ABOUT THIS CRAZY MAN?), the man who was so fond of his red Prada shoes and who never missed a chance to parade around in finery that a Russian czar would envy.  And who knows where it will go from there? These are many ruthless, Godless people who inhabit the Church hierarchy who don’t like people like Francis interfering with the “fine lifestyles” they think they have built for themselves.

Pope Francis, a good and saintly man, needs our prayers…and God’s protection.

POPE FRANCIS ON THE CHURCH’S VARIOUS OBSESSIONS: JESUS IS TRULY AT WORK IN HIS CHURCH

9/19/13

In an interview with Italian Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, Pope Francis once again shook things up by declaring that the Church had "locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules" but should no longer be "obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."  He specifically referred to such issues as abortion, contraception, and homosexuality with which the hierarchy of the Church has indeed become obsessed.   Rather than being rigid and doctrinaire, and treating the confessional like a “torture chamber,” the Church should act as "a field hospital after a battle" and should display God’s mercy rather than impose a rigid set of doctrines that seem to have wandered from the original message and intent of Jesus.  

The Pope also discussed the role of women in the Church, saying

“The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role.  The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops… We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions.”

The Pope didn’t go as far as many of us would like, nor is he likely to do so…as he said

“On the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed.”

but we will take, for now, what the Pope has given us…more than any of his predecessors, perhaps than all his predecessors combined…and hope and pray that this is more than lip service.

Pope Francis summed up the entire interview nicely by saying

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.  The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

and

“The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.  We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

And, perhaps best of all….

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.

Such comments, along with such gestures as refusing to move into the lavish papal apartments, eschewing the regal trappings of the Papacy, urging the bishops and priests to get out of the rectories and among their flocks, and even stating his intention to drive around in a 30 year old Renault with a manual transmission (Do I love this man or what?  But I digress.) go a long way toward removing any doubts I may have nurtured regarding the Church’s being divinely guided by Jesus Himself.  (See my Easter Sunday post (“OUR NEW ANDWONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES”).

While I agree with the sentiments the Pope has expressed, and would be disingenuous were I to say that such profound agreement did not have something to do with my belief that this Pope provides evidence that Jesus guides His Church, there is more to it than that.  (See my 3/13/13 post POPE FRANCIS:   THIS IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A MIRACLE! for my first development of this theme.)  What is remarkable, miraculous, really, is that such a man could ever become pope in 2013. 

The College of Cardinals is dominated by appointees of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  In fact, I’m quite sure that ALL the electors were appointed by one of those two Popes.   Thus, there are few if any liberals, or even moderates in any but the most relative of terms, among those who decide who will be pope.  In fact, it would not be too cynical to suggest that the College is controlled by people who would, if they felt free to do so, disagree violently with Pope Francis.  Judging from the Cardinals’ behavior and words of the last three or so decades, one could not be criticized for thinking that this crowd believes that the Church’s most important, perhaps its sole, mission is to enforce doctrine on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, make sure the women, and especially those uppity sisters, remain subservient, and to make sure that the Church retains and prioritizes all the gold, finery, and the tacky regalia that the hierarchy prances around in like a pack of preening popinjays.

How could such a College of Cardinals ever give the Chair of St. Peter to a man who is so different in outlook, even if not on basic doctrine, from them?   How could they choose a man who thinks nothing of the trappings of office to which they so desperately cling?   How could they have chosen a man who would rather emulate Christ than be treated like some medieval potentate by bowing, scraping, terrified, and obedient automatons who profess free will while unthinkingly and reflexively doing whatever they are told?

Surely, Jesus was at work when the College of Cardinals chose Pope Francis.  May He continue to be at work in guiding and protecting this good and holy man.

POPE FRANCIS: WHAT WILL THE “TRADITIONALISTS” DO ABOUT THIS CRAZY MAN?

9/19/13

A lot of people who call themselves “Church traditionalists” aren’t happy with Pope Francis.  (See my Easter Sunday post, “(OUR NEW AND WONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES” and today’s other post, POPE FRANCIS ON THE CHURCH’S VARIOUS OBSESSIONS:    JESUS IS TRULY AT WORK IN HIS CHURCH for further illumination on the Pope’s problems with certain elements of the Church.)  It’s not that the Pope has made any substantive moves that run counter to the Church’s conservative approach of the last thirty or so years and it’s not that he is likely to do so.  This Pope is no radical; he was, after all, made a Cardinal by John Paul II, late in his papacy, at a time when it was nearly a requirement to toe the conservative line to be made a prince of the Church.   But Francis is really shaking things up by his style, his approach, and his most recent pronouncements on such things as homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and women in the Church.  (Again, see today’s other post.)   The conservatives in the hierarchy, accustomed to their comfortable lives of being served rather than serving and perfectly content to spend the rest of their lives obsessing on tangential issues and excluding and castigating those who don’t simply pray, pay, and obey, have to be getting nervous.  What is this guy going to do next?  

But the “traditionalists” are in a bind.  One of the doctrines to which they demand rigid adherence is the primacy of the Pope; we have to do what the Pope says because he is Christ’s representative on earth, the successor to St. Peter.  While technically he is infallible only in limited, and few, instances, the “traditionalists” seem to believe he cannot be challenged at any time on anything.  What do they do, then, when a Pope doesn’t agree with their conception of what it means to be a Catholic follower of Christ?  Can they ditch their doctrine of papal primacy?   If they do, doesn’t that put their other doctrines in danger of being thrown over the side?

So far, the approach of the “traditionalists” seems to be that the Pope doesn’t really mean it when he says crazy things and does insane things like refusing to live in the lavish papal apartments.  I heard a few weeks ago, from a “traditionalist,” that Pope Francis is not living in the Papal apartments not because he finds their regal accoutrements distasteful and not in conformity with his understanding of the way Jesus wants us to live.  No, sir.  The “traditionalist” line is that Francis is not living in the papal apartments out of deference to Benedict XVI.  Since Benedict is still alive, the story goes, Francis won’t live in the papal apartments because he considers those quarters Benedict’s home…even though Benedict doesn’t live there.  Uh huh.   Those peddling this story may be right; and the Cubs and the White Sox may play a subway series in 2014.

Such rationalizations on the part of the “traditionalists,” aside from being a short term strategy, give a hint as to the “traditionalist” long term strategy regarding this bothersome pope.  It seems to yours truly that these quarters of the Church will square the circle presented by the combination of papal primacy and a pope whom they don’t like by arguing that Francis is not the “real” or “legitimate” pope. 

The “traditionalists” will argue, in line with tradition, of course, that the Pope cannot step down, that he has no right to relinquish his position and must serve until his death.  Thus, the real pope is not the poseur Francis but Benedict XVI, the guy who just loves the red Prada shoes and all the gold and regal finery the papacy has to offer and who spent virtually his entire papacy, and time as John Paul II’s doctrinal enforcer, obsessing over the very things Francis said are ancillary to genuinely following Christ. 

That such a pronouncement would be self-contradictory (How can a pope, who is not supposed to be wrong in such important matters, have made such a grave mistake by resigning?  Hmm…) will bother this crowd not a whit.  Contradictions have never bothered them; just look at the riches of the Vatican in light of the simple life of Jesus.  And such a rationalization will let them off the hook; they won’t have to listen to the poseur who thinks he is pope; they only have to listen to what the guy in the red Pradas had to say about the inherent evil of homosexuality, the uppitiness of the sisters, the unpardonable sin of contraception and other such nonsense.

HOW COULD JESUS BE SUCH A RUDE, OBNOXIOUS, SELF-IMPORTANT JERK?

8/19/13

Yesterday I had the opportunity to read, for about the millionth time (“I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate!”   But I digress.) Matthew 15: 21-28.   You know the story.   A Canaanite, therefore a Gentile, woman, calls out to Jesus

“Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!  My daughter is tormented by a demon.” (Matthew 15, 22)

Jesus replies with a cold, hard-hearted

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  (Matthew 15, 24)

To her repeated pleas, Jesus gets even colder and more hard-hearted, seemingly downright rude and heartless

“It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”  (Matthew 15, 26)

Then the woman, not to be denied, retorts with something that I suspect neither you nor I would say.  We’d probably say something unprintable, or at least I know I would.   But she says

“Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” (Matthew 15, 27)

Jesus finally relents

“O woman, how great is your faith.  Let it be done to you as you wish.”  And her daughter was healed from that hour.  (Matthew 15, 28)  (Emphasis mine)

This story has troubled me, and doubtless millions of other Christians, for years.   How could Jesus, the Son of God to whom we have devoted our lives, the man of such great mercy and compassion, be such a jerk to this woman?

About twenty years ago, I heard this behavior of Jesus explained away by a priest I respect as a matter of culture.  This was completely unsatisfying, but at least the guy tried to explain this seeming embarrassment.   So I continued to think and pray on this passage, and I think the answer has finally come to me over the last few years, perhaps due to my innate slowness.

Jesus acted like such a rude, insolent boor to this woman in order to show us how we appear, indeed, how we really are, when we determine that people are not entitled to God’s love and mercy because they don’t think like we do or don’t go to the same church that we do.   When we think we, and only we, have the keys to the kingdom, we sound like obnoxious, arrogant, self-satisfied hypocrites…just like Jesus sounded, intentionally, to the Canaanite woman.

Further…

Jesus tells the woman that it is her faith that saved the woman and cured her daughter, not her belonging to a certain parish or a certain religion and not her somehow earning His mercy through her good works…as prescribed by her church.   It is her faith in Jesus that saved the woman and her daughter, not her membership in the right ethnic group or religion.  

It is the same with us.   Our faith saves us.   Our certainty that we and only we are right makes us sound like, and be, jerks…and separates us from the One to whom we purport to want to get closer.

YOU MEAN THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HEAVEN, TOO?!

7/15/13

What is the measure of one’s Christianity, of one’s devotion to the way of our Lord?  How do I know if I am indeed following the way of Jesus?   How do I know, to put it in vague and often misunderstood terms, how good a Christian I am?  

Wise people have been searching for such a measure since Jesus walked physically on this earth, and since long before then if we take in the full implications of Jesus as God.   While the search has been fruitful, the results have been disappointing, or at least frustrating, because there is no ONE measure of one’s devotion to our Lord.  Instead, there are many yardsticks by which we can tell if we are following the right path. 

One of my favorite such measurements, despite (or maybe because of) its being one of the scariest is the following:

How do you, or how will you, react to the news that heaven is going to be populated, to a large extent, by people you vehemently disagree with on some very important issues, don’t like in the least, and/or you simply can’t stand being around?

If you are a card carrying conservative Republican, you are going to be sharing heaven with a lot of card carrying liberal Democrats, and vice-versa.   If you are adamantly, unshakably pro-choice, you are going to be sharing heaven with plenty of people who are adamantly, unshakably pro-life, and vice-versa.   If you are a staunch defender of the 2^nd Amendment, you are going to be sharing heaven with a lot of people who wish that Mr. Madison had taken the day off when that amendment was written, and vice-versa.  If you are white and don’t like blacks moving into your neighborhood, you are going to be sharing eternity with plenty of blacks, and vice-versa.  If you are Catholic and think that only those who follow Rome are going to make it past St. Peter, guess what?   There will be a LOT of Protestants in heaven…and vice-versa.   And, perhaps most controversially of all for many who share my belief in Jesus as my God, Lord, and Savior, if you are Christian and are absolutely convinced only Christians go to heaven, you are going to have plenty of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of no particular faith as neighbors for eternity.   (See my 11/14/12 post, YOU MEAN NON-CHRISTIANS DON’T GET TO COME TO HEAVEN?, http://insightfulpontificator.blogspot.com/2012/11/you-mean-non-christians-dont-get-to.html)  And if you are any of the aforementioned and are convinced that Christians are badly misguided in our belief that Jesus is God, you better get used to us, because we’re going to be living with you for eternity. 

If you are a Bear fan, you’re going to be keeping company with plenty of Packer fans in the Great Upstairs, and vice-versa.  If you get misty-eyed whenever you get within 100 miles of South Bend, I almost hate to break it to you, but there will be plenty of Trojan, Spartan, Wolverine, and Crimson Tide fanatics in the seats next to you in the Great Stadium in the sky, and vice-versa, and John, Duffy, Bo, and Bear will be sharing the assistant coaching duties with Knute and Frank.   And, perhaps the worst news of all to many of my friends, if you are Sox fan, there will be plenty of Cub fans passing you your Old Style down the eternal aisle…and vice versa.  Finally, and one that hits home, those of us who simply cannot stand being around people who pay scant, if any, attention to their personal hygiene will find ourselves with plenty of heavenly neighbors who think nothing of skipping the toothbrush or the shower for days on end.  (But, Lord, I hope that part of the admission drill is an eternity long ration of soap, deodorant, toothpaste, mouthwash, etc. and a quick lesson their proper, and frequent, use!)

Simply put, God doesn’t look for ways to exclude people; He, or She, looks for ways to include people.  The last thing He, or She, wants is to be separated from any of His, or Her, children for ETERNITY.   What parent would even want to consider, let alone be pleased with and/or seek, such an outcome?  While many of us think we have all the answers, none of us has the answer as to how God can forgive so magnanimously and welcome so enthusiastically and how He, or She, considers matters we think so vital or mere quibbles over arcane and ultimately meaningless doctrine, preferences, or prejudices…

 “…as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.” Psalm 103:12

and

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.”  Isaiah 55:8

Very importantly, perhaps especially for us Christians, is that God was speaking to believers when He, or She, said these things through the psalmist and the prophet.  S/He was pointing out how far His or Her thoughts are from those even of believers, and how he forgave the transgressions of believers, which presupposes acknowledgement that believers do indeed commit transgressions.

That God is so inclusive and so forgiving should be very good news for all of us.  But many of us, if we are honest with ourselves, do not like the idea of sharing heaven with “those people,” whoever they may be, who don’t “deserve it,” like we do.  I would bet heavily, if I were a betting man, that just about all of us have this attitude; the only question is the matter of degree to which we have it.  The extent to which we have the “You mean they’re going to be there too?!!!” attitude is the extent to which we have work to do if we are to get in line with God.

Indeed, that God is so inclusive and so forgiving should be very good news for all of us, especially for those of us who, in our hearts of hearts, don’t like the idea of His being so inclusive and forgiving…because we are neither inclusive nor forgiving.

NEWTOWN AND KINDRED ABOMINATIONS: HIGHER PURPOSE…OR A SLAP IN GOD’S FACE?

6/5/13




While coming home from Mass this morning, I heard a snippet of a radio program in which a spiritual advisor of sorts (I did not catch her name or her background.) discussing how she explained the Newtown massacre to a man who asked how God could let such a tragedy happen.



The advisor said she counseled the man to imagine that there must have been some higher purpose to the Newtown shootings, a higher and infinite purpose that we, as humans couldn’t possibly understand. She said the man went away somewhat comforted.



Whether the man who sought her counsel went away comforted, I don’t know. But to the advisor’s explanation of how God could have allowed Newtown, I can only say



“No! No! No!”



The “higher purpose” explanation assumes that God intended Newtown, and abominations like it, to occur in order to achieve that higher purpose. But God does not intend such horrific things, or even far less horrific things, to occur. The Newtown shooter was using his free will to defy God. It isn’t God’s will that the tragedies of human life occur, as some well meaning people often say after such horrible things take place. Such killings or other manifestations of man’s inhumanity, or worse, to man are done in defiance of God’s will.



Newtown was not, as the “higher purpose” explanation would imply, a case of someone saying “Yes” to God; Newtown was a case of someone saying “No” to God, even if unconsciously.



Will God do all that He can, within the confines of the restrictions His human agents put on Him, to make the best of such ghastly events as Newtown? Yes. Will some good consequently come of them? Yes. But that does not mean that God somehow intended such tragedies to occur in order to achieve what good can be salvaged from them. The relatively very small good that can and usually does arise from such unspeakable tragedies is a case of God trying to make the best of a horrible situation that He clearly did not intend.

PARABLE OF THE TALENTS: IS GOD REALLY THIS HARSH?

6/4/13




Today I had the occasion to read, again, Matthew 25, 14-30, which is not all that different from Luke 19, 12-27. Both recount the familiar story of the man who, as Matthew puts it (Matthew 25, 14), “was going on a journey.” He parcels out his possessions to his servants to manage while he is away. In Matthew’s gospel, one servant is entrusted with five talents, one gets two talents, and one gets one talent, “…each according to his ability.” (25, 15) A talent was a coin the value of which varied with the metal used to fabricate it, rather than the whims of the monetary authorities, in those pre-Federal Reserve days of the New Testament. But the use of the talent, rather than some other unit of coinage, may not have been an accident; see the latter portions of this post. Then again, the use of the talent may have been a complete coincidence and the assumed double meaning may have been an accident of translation. In Luke, each servant gets ten “coins,” but the number becomes confusing when the returns are calculated, sort of like dealing with some dealers, but I digress.



We all know the rest of the story. The guy who got the five talents made another five. The guy who got two talents made another two. Think of these guys as the patron saints as hedge fund managers. The guy who got one talent went off, dug a hole, and buried the talent in it, fearing his master…



“…a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;…” Matthew 25, 24



…and his master’s reaction if the servant were to lose his money.



The master comes home and is pleased with the first two servants, who were “faithful in small matters” (25, 21) and consequently gives them “great responsibilities” (25, 21). But the master, presumably God, is not at all happy with the timid fellow, presumably of limited abilities, who buried his talent in the ground, telling him



“Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?”(25, 27)



This was long before Ben Bernanke came around and effectively abolished such quaint notions as interest on bank accounts, but, again, I digress.



So what does the master do? He takes the talent from the guy who buried it in the backyard, and thus has only one, and gives it to the guy who has ten. Then, to reinforce his point, he orders his other servants to



“…throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” (25, 30)



Talk about harsh!



What’s going on here? Is God that harsh with those of who fail? Does he punish those who fail, either out of incompetence or timidity, to reward the bold and the successful? Though some who preach the “prosperity gospel” might make this argument, there are better explanations.



The first of these explanations is that this passage is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The rich do indeed get richer, the poor get poorer, a story at least as old as the Old Testament. This does not mean this human condition is good or advisable…it just is.



A second, more satisfying, explanation is that those who seek to develop their understanding of God and His will for them (their talents) will increase that knowledge and understanding. Those who are indifferent to those plans of God will lose touch with God and drift away from His will or any desire to fulfill it. The result will be a pointless life and a worse afterlife.



This second explanation has elements of descriptiveness; those who work at things, be they athletics, academics, trades, skills, etc., will develop them. Those who don’t work at things will see those abilities or skills diminish. But the more profound meaning is prescriptive: work on your relationship with God and it will grow. Ignore it and it will become a mere veneer, a surface relationship that is unsustainable.



Yet a third explanation is ideally suited to the situation described in this passage. There are some who have somehow achieved positions of teaching authority in various churches who have perverted the message of God’s love. They teach us that God is not a loving Father, but an unyielding tyrant who must be served…or else. And they have taken it upon themselves to determine what constitutes good service of God, which usually coincides with good service, and unquestioning fealty, to them. Those who listen to these self-appointed, and self-serving, “agents” of God are filled not with love for God but, instead, with fear of Him. Rather than take chances, question God, even occasionally argue with God in series of faith enhancing and love building encounters, they cower and they fear. They bury their faith in the backyard and tremble before God. They beg and bow and scrape, terrified that God might be angry with them and their utter worthlessness, as taught and reinforced by those whom they have been taught are God’s agents and teachers. Their faith withers, dies, and is replaced by terror. Their fate is not a good one…but it is not nearly as bad as the fate of those who taught them that God is to be feared rather than loved, that God terrorizes rather than loves.

“MOVIE BINGO: GOOD, BAD, OR CONDEMNED?”: VICKI QUADE SCORES ANOTHER ONE FOR THE SISTERS

5/21/13

When I first saw “Late Nite Catechism” years ago, I did so reluctantly, at the behest (insistence, really) of some friends.  I thought “Oh, no.  Another one of these addle-brained ‘comedies’ in which the sisters are made the butt of inane jokes about their imagined narrow-mindedness, stupidity, or sadism.”   I, for one, love the Springfield Dominicans who educated me many years ago at St. Walter on the south side of Chicago.  They were terrific educators who followed the Lord and did their best to extend His love and concern to their charges.   They worked us hard and demanded a lot…and we thank them for it.  So I have little tolerance for poseurs and inane cheap shot artists who, having known little of the Catholic education they so ridicule, make these wonderful, holy women the targets of thoughtless, brainless “humor.”  

But “Late Nite Catechism” took me by complete surprise. Ms. Quade’s production was flawless. Yes, it was, to use too weak a word, funny…in fact, it was tears of laughter streaming out of the eyes, nearly falling out of one’s chair hysterical. Yet, at the same time, it was respectful of the work of the sisters and the love they have for God, for the Church, and for their youthful charges. In fact, Ms. Quade donates a portion of the proceeds of each show to religious orders to help the sisters as they struggle with the financial challenges born of lots of older sisters, few younger sisters, and very little coming in to support even their spartan existences.




After “Late Nite Catechism,” my wife and I became huge Vicki Quade fans. We’ve seen “Put the Nuns in Charge,” “Sunday School Cinema,” and “Mother Superior’s Ho-Ho-Holy Night.” So we always eagerly anticipate the next production to emerge from the cauldron of creativity that is Ms. Quade’s mind. We were therefore delighted to learn that “Movie Bingo: Good, Bad, or Condemned?” would be coming to one of our local parishes, St. Thomas the Apostle in Naperville. Our anticipation and excitement were mixed with a touch of concern, however; could Ms. Quade possibly keep up the standard of excellence, hilarity, and poignancy that has been set by her earlier productions?

Our concern was misplaced. “Movie Bingo: Good, Bad, or Condemned?” meets or exceeds the “Quade standard” set by her earlier productions, and especially by “Late Nite Catechism.” The show is hysterical, engaging, thought provoking, and brain challenging. It probably is skewed more toward outright hilarity, and less toward the profundity that always finds it way into her productions. But the increased laughs detract not at all from the show; I suspect most people would find “Movie Bingo’s” heightened emphasis on generating a good belly laugh a plus.




While I wish that Ms. Quade would have worn her usual habit and played a sister in the show, I understand her appearing as a lay person (substituting for the absent priest, of course, just as “Sister” did in her previous productions!). The Church is changing; younger members of the Church, and of Ms. Quade’s audience, probably have never seen a sister in her habit. And we “older” Catholics, who’ve lived “Late Nite Catechism” and its fellow Quade creations lose nothing by Ms. Quade’s appearing as a lay person in “Movie Bingo.” Still…next time, Ms. Quade…PLEASE bring Sister back!



Congratulations to Vicki Quade on another hit that should have them rolling in the aisles…again. And this from someone who literally did roll in the aisles in sixth grade at St. Walter in response to a joke told by my buddy Mike Graber…and incurred the wrath of Sister Agnes for doing so!



And thank you, Ms. Quade, for all you do for the sisters who have done so much for us.





For more information on “Movie Bingo: Good, Bad, or Condemned?”, please go to Nuns4fun.com. One of Ms. Quade’s mottos is “Have nun, will travel;” she puts on these shows in venues across the nation.

HOW THIS CHRISTIAN WOULD FEEL ABOUT HOLDING MY KID’S GRADUATION CEREMONY IN A “JEWISH TEMPLE” OR A “MUSLIM MOSQUE”

5/12/13




The Supreme Court is currently considering a church and state case from the 7th Circuit. The case concerns the Elmbrook School District, which is located just outside Milwaukee. The district has been holding it graduation ceremonies in the evangelical Elmbrook Church for the last decade because the high school gym, in which the ceremonies had previously been held, is small and lacks air conditioning. The Elmbrook Church, on the other hand, is modern, large, bristles with modern amenities, and is therefore physically ideal for a graduation ceremony.



Several non-Christian parents have sued, however, stating that they didn’t want their kids’ graduation ceremonies held in a church that, not surprisingly, prominently displays a Christian cross. The 7th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, the school district appealed, and the Supreme Court is considering whether to take the case. How this case will come out is, of course, important for church and state reasons but also, one might argue, as a test for how far our society has traveled down the road of the craziness that ensues when people look for reasons to be publicly offended and therefore aggrieved.



The focus of this post, however, is not on the outcome of the case, but on a statement made by Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the plaintiffs. Ms. Khan advised Christians to



“…stop and think about how it would feel if their high school graduation ceremonies were held in a Jewish temple or a Muslim mosque, where diplomas were handed out beneath a looming Star of David or Islamic crescent.”



(A side note…I’m not an expert on Judaism, but wouldn’t it be impossible to hold a graduation ceremony in a “Jewish temple”? Isn’t, or wasn’t, there only one temple, in Jerusalem, which is currently in ruins? Aren’t the modern places of worship in Judaism therefore not temples but synagogues? I might be wrong here; Jewish congregations are often called, for example, “Temple Beth Israel,” so maybe that is what Ms. Khan is referring to. But, technically, are these places really temples? I’m not trying to belittle Ms. Khan here; I’m genuinely curious because I’ve heard both sides of this question. Perhaps those of you with a stronger knowledge of Judaism can enlighten me and my readers.)



I could tell Ms. Khan directly how this Christian would feel if my, or my kids’, “graduation ceremony were held in a Jewish temple or a Muslim mosque, where diplomas were handed out beneath a looming Star of David or Islamic crescent.”…



I would be honored, and so would most Christians.



I would be honored that a Jewish, Muslim (or Buddhist, Hindu, or most any other faith) congregation would share their most sacred space, the place they go to worship God, with me. And I would take the opportunity to say a prayer not only for the graduates but also for the congregation that was so generous and magnanimous as to let us share their holy place.



Further, in the case of a graduation in a synagogue, I would be especially honored and awed. I would feel that my kid’s, or my, graduation was being held in the same setting that Jesus’ graduation would have been held if he indeed had graduated from school. (We don’t know whether Jesus had any formal education; while Mark 6, 2



“When the Sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said ‘Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him?’”



and Matthew 13, 54, which is based on it, might be interpreted to mean that Jesus was wholly uneducated, they might merely indicate that he was not trained as a rabbi.)



Honored and grateful…that is how I would feel about a graduation ceremony in a synagogue or a mosque. And I suspect that most Jews and Muslims would, and do, feel the same way about a graduation ceremony held in a Christian church. Further, I suspect that everyone would share my feelings about holding graduation ceremonies in a hot, stuffy, cramped high school gym.

“I WISH YOU HEALTH, AND MORE THAN WEALTH, I WISH YOU (THE HOLY SPIRIT)”?

4/25/13




How many of us don’t feel a little disappointed after reading Luke 11, 9-13?



“And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? Or hand him scorpion when he asks for an egg? If you, then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Emphasis mine)

Reading the first for sentences of this very oft quoted passage, we start to get excited. We start to think something like



“All I have to do is ask, knock, and/or seek and I will get what I want? Wow! Money, fame, a McMansion, a nice car are mine for the asking? Okay, okay, maybe I’ll ask for something more noble: health for me and my family, wisdom, respect, okay, maybe even something really admirable for world peace. Hey, it can’t hurt to ask for something like that if I want to get what I really want, right? But this is great…Jesus says all I have to do is ask! Hand me that Lexus full line brochure!”



Then it hits us



“…how much more will your Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?”



The holy Spirit? Is that what the Father will give us if we ask Him? The holy Spirit? This is like the kid who asked for the train set for Christmas and got a football, a few books, and some socks instead. He’s really disappointed because he didn’t get what he wanted, but he acts excited, or at least contented, because he didn’t get what he wanted. So, yeah, the holy Spirit; that’s good, that’s cool. Thanks. But how about that couple million bucks, the nice place downtown, and the Lexus?



There are plenty of people out there, maybe some of you, who would say something like



“ I am overjoyed to receive the holy Spirit. That was, after all, Jesus’ promise to His disciples at the Last Supper and, ultimately, it was all that they needed and more than they could ask for. So how could I possibly ask for more? Thanks, God, for sending me your Spirit.”



If indeed that is your attitude, congratulations. You are a close follower of Christ and an exemplary Christian. Seriously; I’m not being sarcastic here. If you were given the chance to ask for anything in the world and genuinely and honestly would ask for the holy Spirit in response, you have genuinely opened your heart to Jesus.



Yours truly, on the other hand, would like to think that I would ask for the holy Spirit rather than money, power, or something more noble, like health and prosperity for my children. But, even though I’m working on it, I’m not there yet.

“(OUR NEW AND WONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES”

3/31/13, Easter Sunday




The Jesuit Pope Francis assumed the chair of St. Peter to the delight and enthusiasm of multitudes (See my 3/13/13 piece POPE FRANCIS: THIS IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A MIRACLE!) of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and the new pontiff continues to enthrall and surprise most…and unsettle, even frighten, many.



The Pope has tossed aside customs and set precedents on almost a daily basis:



--He has refused to live in the very comfortable, if not posh, Vatican apartments, choosing instead to live in two room quarters in the guest house he occupied during the conclave. When he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he refused to live in the archbishop’s palace, favoring a simple apartment, so this perhaps should not have come as a surprise.



--Francis refuses the gold cross, the ornate head gear, and the fancy designer shoes traditionally worn by the pope, the last of which were a special favorite of the Pope Emeritus.



--He included in the traditional Holy Thursday washing of the feet women and Muslims, making Francis the first pope to wash the feet of either Muslim or a woman. That he celebrated in a juvenile detention facility, rather than the Vatican, the Holy Thursday Mass at which this precedent was set itself broke precedent.



--Francis has called for priests to get out of the rectories and to get out among the people, to be true shepherds among the sheep.



--He has called for a “poorer Church.”

Even without making any changes in doctrine, and few think he will, the Pope has already sent shivers, with both connotations, down people’s spines. While most of us are delighted in what the Pope has done so far, many aren’t. As the Wall Street Journal reports this Easter weekend (March 30-31, page A8), a Father Joseph Kramer, a traditionalist in Rome who says Mass in Latin, says,



“We’re stretching tradition. Things are mutating.”



One suspects that Father Kramer is not overflowing with joy when making that statement; note the choice of the verb in the second sentence.



To go a step further, the a “traditionalist” Catholic website Rorate Caeli  Caeli (“drop down the dew, you heavens,” from Isaiah 45, 8, and used in the Divine Office during Advent) published its version of the Holy Thursday foot washing story with the headline “The Official End of the Reform of the Reform-by example.” The Reform of the Reform is the backlash against much of Vatican II by those who seem to wish it never happened.



Why the consternation in some quarters over Pope Francis? As we have been made painfully aware over the last thirty years or so, the Church is not composed entirely of good people, and ordination, or the desire for ordination, does not necessarily make one holy…or even good and decent. There are plenty of people, some powerful, some less so, in the Church who are in it primarily for its gaudier and showier aspects that the Pope eschews. These people like to dress up like priests and bishops, to lord it over people, to wear the expensive finery and the gold. They like the pomp and circumstance and crave the respect, the awe, that they feel their offices bequeath them. They have little desire to get out among the people; rather, they prefer to be placed above the people. They have even less desire for a “poorer Church;” the very notion offends their skewed sense of piety and reverence.



There are, to put it bluntly, sinister forces in the Church, and there always have been. The continuing existence of these forces in the Church is one of the conditions Jesus was addressing in His parable of the weeds among the wheat (Matthew 13, 24-31). These forces are doubtless displeased with the direction Pope Francis would like to take the Church. Most of these priests, bishops, and their lay henchmen are not, or at least not yet, expressing their displeasure in the open, but these are not courageous people; they prefer to work in the shadows, to talk behind people’s backs, and blindside their targets. But they didn’t take their jobs to work among the people or to be “poorer.” And many of them would just love to live in the luxurious Vatican apartments and wear fancy red designer shoes. These people will do all they can to make life difficult for Pope Francis. They simply cannot fathom even the possibility of another John XXIII (Again, see my 3/13/13 piece.); such a shake-up would spoil their very comfortable lives.



While there is much wisdom in the old expression that you’re not paranoid when they ARE out to get you, I’m not being paranoid here I am just counseling our good Papa to be very careful. To quote Michael Corleone in the much, and overly, derided Godfather Part III, “This Pope has powerful enemies.”



Blessed Easter to our new and wonderful Papa and to all of you.

FOLLOW THE RULES…OR SEEK WHAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT?

3/29/13, Good Friday




Something to think about as we read the accounts of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection on this Good Friday…



Luke tells us that, after Jesus was crucified



“The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.” (Emphasis mine) (Luke 23, 55-56)

Luke begins Chapter 24 with



“On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but, when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.” (Luke 24, 1-2)



Note that the women had missed the resurrection. By the time they got there, Jesus was already risen and gone. Indeed, the resurrection itself is not recounted in any of the canonical gospels and, as far as we know, there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection.



This is a shame, but…



what if the women, instead of “rest(ing) on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment,” had instead gone right to the tomb as soon as they prepared the spices and perfumes? Did they miss the resurrection because they were being attentive to the commandment? Does therein lie one of the many “sub-lessons,” if you will, of the passion, death, and resurrection stories? How often do we miss what’s really important because we are too narrowly focused on following the rules, on adhering to what are construed as the commands of the church to which we belong?



Blessed Easter, all year, to all of you!

HOLY THURSDAY AND GOOD FRIDAY: THE APOSTLES STAMPEDE FOR THE EXITS

3/27/13




In my last post, 3/19/13’s WERE THE APOSTLES COWARDLY, AVARICIOUS, SLOW…OR ALL OF THE ABOVE?, I wrote about the weaknesses of two of the apostles, James and John, the sons of Zebedee. In an earlier post, 11/21/12’s WAS ST. PETER AN ALCOHOLIC?, I discussed the shortcomings of the most prominent of the Apostles. Holy Week, besides its obvious lessons and implications, gives us an opportunity to indict, and ultimately exonerate, just about all the apostles on similar lines.

We all know that one of the apostles, Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus. (Matthew, 26, 14-16, et. al.) The first among equals, if you will, of the apostles, Peter, denied Jesus three times when the chips were down. (Luke, 22, 54-62, et. al.) At His point of greatest danger, all of the apostles abandoned Jesus liked terrified children; one was in such a hurry that he left all his clothes behind and ran off into the night naked. (Mark 14, 50-52). This was a pretty sorry lot.

The only apostle who came off looking even remotely brave during the events of Holy Thursday night and Good Friday was John. John was not afraid to enter the high priest’s courtyard during Jesus’ first trial and even used his pull with the high priest to get Peter into the courtyard (John 18, 15), after which Peter denied even knowing Jesus when things got hot, literally and figuratively. John also was the only male disciple at the foot of the cross. (John 19, 26-27). Not to take anything away from John, but one could argue that he was able to be so brave, at least in a relative sense, and even to be at the foot of the cross, because he was so young that both the Roman and the local authorities were willing to cut him some slack. But, all in all, the Apostles look like a petrified, pathetic lot. The women disciples…Jesus’ mother, Mary, Mary Magdalene, the mother of the aforementioned James and John, Salome, and possibly others…look a lot stronger in the accounts of the passion and death of Jesus than do the men. Again, this may have been because the authorities were willing to be even more lenient with women than they were with young men like John but, nevertheless, the women look great here, the men look like abject cowards.

Even the appearance of the resurrected Jesus does not do much to man up the Apostles. If one reads the story of “doubting Thomas” (John 20, 24-29) carefully, there is an interesting sub-plot concerning the lack of transformation of the Apostles in the wake of the visit of their newly risen Lord and Savior. That is grist for another mill.

So what caused these lily-livered lilliputians to become the great, strong, and brave men who went on to suffer deprivation, torture, and, with one exception, martyrdom so that we might hear the Good News of Jesus Christ? Clearly, it was the visit of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost that got these guys out of the upper room in which they had been cowering and into the business of facing down fearsome opponents to spread the word of God. If one ever needs testimony to the power of the Holy Spirit, one need only compare the pathetic state of this band of very limited men before the Spirit’s arrival with their near superhuman strength and courage after the Spirit paid them a permanent visit. No wonder Jesus spent so much time at the Last Supper discussing the Advocate (i.e., the Holy Spirit) that the Father was about to send to the disciples (John 14, 15-31).

The Holy Spirit, far and away, and, sadly, the most underrated of the three Persons of the Trinity, has continued to work until this very day. An example of the work of the Spirit can be found in today’s headlines: in the midst of the financial troubles in Cyprus, it is the Cypriot Orthodox Church, doubtless inspired by the Spirit, that is handing out food and other essentials to those who are suffering and offering to put up its own assets to aid in that island nation’s financial recovery. (See my posts on the Cyprus situation in my political/financial blog, Mighty Quinn on Politics and Money. Today’s is entitled JEROEN DIJSSELBLOEM’S COMMENTS ON CYPRUS: “THE DUTCHMAN’S NOT THE KIND OF MAN WHO KEEPS HIS THUMB JAMMED IN THE DAM THE WHOLE DAY THROUGH”; it will direct you to the others.)

The Holy Spirit, despite being the Person of the Trinity that is hardest to comprehend, is not something abstract or far removed from us. The Spirit is alive and active in us on a day to day basis and is available to each of us. The Spirit is especially close, or at least would like to be especially close, when we most need the Spirit, when we are feeling weak in our faith…or just plain weak, ordinary, and uninspired.

The Pentecostal churches seem to have the firmest handle on the power of the Spirit and have the fewest qualms about invoking the Spirit and the aid, comfort, and power that Spirit provides. I am again reminded of the Blues Brothers (See my 3/9/13 post, THE PHARISEES TELL JESUS TO FIX THE CIGARET LIGHTER), specifically the scene in the Reverend Cleophas James’ church in which Jake Blues realizes he is getting a message from God, when I think of the power of the Spirit. While that most entertaining scene is over the top, and most of us, and certainly not yours truly, are going to be dancing and somersaulting around the church and tossing our colleagues to the rafters, the Spirit does manifest Itself in many different ways to many different people.



The Spirit made the apostles, a pack of rather slow weaklings, wise and strong. The Spirit can do the same for us, especially when we are feeling neither wise nor strong or especially inspired. We just have to ask and perhaps, and only perhaps, be patient. Miracles don’t have to happen quickly to be miracles.

WERE THE APOSTLES COWARDLY, AVARICIOUS, SLOW…OR ALL OF THE ABOVE?

3/19/13




It’s often said that Jesus chose very ordinary men for His apostles. Their ultimate greatness, manifested in their spreading the gospel and, with two exceptions, giving up their lives for the sake of their Lord and Savior, was therefore not attributable to any innate abilities of the men involved but, rather, to the grace of God. The message is clear: we can do little on our own. The type of greatness that Jesus demands can be achieved only through His grace and therefore is available to anyone, even the simplest of us. Legions of saints, in addition to the apostles, were very, er, ordinary people.

One might easily take the argument about the ordinariness of the apostles a step further and contend that, in almost all cases, to call these guys ordinary would be giving them too much credit. See my 11/21/12 post WAS ST. PETER AN ALCOHOLIC? for an expostulation on the weaknesses of perhaps the greatest of the apostles. Another example of the shortcomings of the apostles can be found in one of my favorite gospel stories, Matthew 20, 20-27. In this story, the mother of James and John comes to Jesus and asks



“Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.” Matthew 20, 21



Jesus goes on to pull the old switcheroo, and asks



“Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” Matthew 20, 22



James and John, of course, say that they can. Then Jesus tells them, effectively, okay



“My cup you will indeed drink…” Matthew 20, 23



and we all know what He meant by that…these guys were in for some major league trials and suffering. But then He turns around and says



“…but to sit at my right and at my left is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” Matthew 20, 23



So He tells James and John that they’ll pay the cost but won’t get the reward. This would have either made them angry or bewildered them. If the latter, one can almost hear them saying to each other “Wait a minute; what did He just do there?” They probably wished they’d never asked the question, though, in all likelihood, they didn’t fully understand at that stage what “my cup” entailed.



But it is not this latest manifestation of the wisdom of the adage “Be careful what you wish for” that illustrates the shortcomings of James and John. Note who it was who asked Jesus that they get the best seats in the throne room…yes, it was their mother! This may have been just a case of a stereotypical Jewish mother working too hard for the best for her children. But one gets the impression this was a case of a couple of guys who were too timid, to put it nicely, to ask Jesus such an important, and potentially embarrassing, question and instead hid behind their mommy’s apron strings, or whatever the impression is, and had her ask the big question.



Not only does this indicate a shortfall in the manliness quotient for James and John, it shows a lack of faith and understanding of who Jesus was and what Jesus wanted. Yes, it was natural to fear a guy who had calmed the seas, walked on water, healed paralytics, expelled demons, been transfigured before their eyes, and told the religious leaders of the day to effectively stick it in their ears, if not somewhere else. But Jesus was the same guy who said



“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.” Matthew 11, 28-30



and whose favorite admonition, if one goes by the number of times He is recorded saying it in the gospels, was



“Be not afraid.” (too many citations to list)



Yet James and John were so afraid of Jesus that they had to ask their mother to ask Him for the big prize. This would perhaps be attributable to their embarrassment at asking Jesus for such aggrandizement when He repeatedly preached the virtues of meekness. Either way, they were missing Jesus’ message.



Perhaps I’m being too hard on James and John; Mark’s account of the same incident (Mark 10, 35-45) has them, rather than their mother, asking Jesus to give him the most prominent places in the kingdom to come. But even if I am being too hard on James and John (I’m probably not; Matthew’s reason for including the mom in the story probably transcended the allusions to Bathsheba and Solomon, but I digress.), the story gets better.



After James and John ask and receive not what they had been asking for but, rather, the downside of what they had been asking for, Matthew tells us



“When the ten heard of this (request), they became indignant at the two brothers.” Matthew 20, 24



Maybe I’m slow on the uptake, but for years I thought the other guys were upset that James and John had made such an outrageous, self-serving request. Hadn’t they learned anything?



But then it hit me about fifteen months ago (My note in my Bible says 12/12/10) that the other apostles were not upset because James and John had been so vain. No, the other guys were upset because they wished they had asked first; James and John were asking for something the other apostles felt they deserved! It wasn’t that James and John had made a request that ran counter to everything Jesus was trying to teach them; what angered the others was that they wanted those coveted places for themselves. After all, who were James and John to request the really good seats? Those seats, in the eyes of probably each of the apostles, belonged to him, not to those two guys who were still hiding behind their mommy’s skirt, or whatever that expression is.



Ordinary guys? Ordinary would have been a big promotion for this crowd. These guys were not all that courageous or all that smart and, one suspects but can’t know, probably not all that charming or good looking at that. Yet they went on to do the work that Jesus had in mind for them, and, believe me, it wasn’t those guys who achieved the transformation. It was the strengthening, transforming power and love of the Holy Spirit, manifested most clearly, but not only, at Pentecost, that changed these guys from a pack of cowering, and not all that bright, cowards into heroes of our faith, men capable of holding up under torture and death to proclaim the very Good News that they formerly had such a hard time grasping.



More good news is that we will, in all likelihood, never be asked to endure torture, derision, and death for our faith. But better news is that, despite less being asked of us, that same Spirit that infused these ordinary, at best, apostles with the power and strength to accomplish their herculean missions is available to each of us…and all we have to do is ask.



Being a little more mentally agile than the apostles might seem to help, but won’t; this grace stuff doesn’t depend on the strength of our more human attributes…thank God!

POPE FRANCIS: THIS IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A MIRACLE!

3/13/13




That sure was a shocker.



The Cardinals have selected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, as our new pope. Cardinal Bergoglio is now Pope Francis.

At mass Monday morning, the pastor of one of the churches we attend in Naperville said in his homily that we can’t predict who will be pope. I agreed with that, though I took issue with the examples he used. He said that no one could have predicted that either the Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyla nor the German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would have been selected by the papal conclave. Wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger was the heavy favorite going into the 2005 conclave that selected him, a near shoo-in. Cardinal Wojtyla, though not known much outside Church circles in Europe, was one of the contenders at the 1978 conclave at which John Paul I was chosen. Wojtyla was a favorite, or near favorite, entering the conclave only weeks later that selected him to succeed John Paul I. Anyone could have predicted Ratzinger, and most people, at least inside the conclave, could have predicted Wojtyla.



But just about no one would have predicted Bergoglio, even though he was supposedly the runner-up eight years ago when Benedict XVI was chosen. He was considered, by 2013, too old and having had his chance. He was mentioned almost only in passing as being among the papabile. I was teaching when the announcement was made and, heading home and listening to CNN on satellite radio (Satellite radio is one of the world’s great inventions, but I digress.), I thought someone had made a mistake and meant Scherer of Brazil, not Bergoglio of Argentina, of whom I knew nearly nothing.

This is a terrific selection. A Jesuit (Ad majorem Dei gloriam, to be sure!) of any stripe would delight the Jesuit educated yours truly and ought to delight any Catholic; after being God’s paratroopers since the Reformation, the Jebs deserve to have one of their own in charge. A Latin American is only logical and long overdue. Someone from outside the Curia was necessary with the problems that permeate that organization; selecting someone on the inside would indicate that the Church would be trying to avoid a thorough housecleaning in favor of more sweeping of nastiness under the rug.



Beyond the demographics and relationship to the Curia, it is Francis’s personal traits that make him such a wonderful selection. He apparently eschews, to the extent he can, the pomp and circumstance (Some, including yours truly, would use the term “pompousness.”) that seems to permeate the mindset of elements of the clergy and hierarchy. One wonders what the reaction of the world, both Catholic and non-Catholic, was to the Cardinals’ parading around for the past week or so in expensive, elaborate, and ornate robes among the gold and glitter of the Vatican, being chauffeured around and generally kowtowed to. Such showiness and outright silliness stuck in this Catholic’s craw; it seemed as if they were parodying themselves, and the Church, and not being sharp enough to realize it.



It is utterly amazing that a Church that increasingly seems to thrive on its showier aspects has selected such a seemingly humble man to lead it. The signs are all there: He cooks his own meals and takes the bus to work. His crucifix was utterly simple. His bow to the people as he asked for their prayers as the new pope was extraordinary. His call for fraternity, charity, and simple kindness say much about the man. And his appeal to men AND WOMEN of goodwill? Wow!



At least as important, the new Pope seems to be nearly fixated on serving the poor and the sick. His work among AIDS patients is legendary in Argentina. His upbraiding of Argentinean priests for refusing to baptize the babies of single mothers for “turning away our own” is a great sign, if indeed that story is not apocryphal. Priests couldn’t deny baptism to babies of unwed mothers…can they? Maybe I’m being naïve here.



I, and many of you, would have liked someone less conservative, more likely to make some major changes in the Church regarding the role of women and married people in its structure and hierarchy. But, as I said in 2/12/13 post THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU, POPE BENEDICT, we weren’t going to get a progressive out of this conclave, in which every participant was selected by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Yes, Francis is pretty much a down the line conservative in matters of doctrine, but his personal humility and sense of perspective and mission still make him stand out among his brother Cardinals who share his innate conservatism.



Like many observers, I am reminded, when I consider Francis, of no one more than John XXIII, the greatest pope of my lifetime. John was 77 when he was selected; Francis is 76. John was, and Francis is, expected to be a caretaker, to not make any waves and keep the seat warm for the next guy. It didn’t work that way for John; in his own words, he threw “open the windows of the Church and let the fresh air of the spirit blow through” by convening Vatican II and changing the Church forever. It seemed at times as if John’s successors were working to render Vatican II irrelevant, and it more than seems that of late many elements of the Church of consider Vatican II to be an obstacle that must be worked around or eradicated, like the mustard seed that sprouts, grows wild, and makes life problematical for those who must contend with its voracious growth. But, like that bothersome mustard seed, Vatican II lives on as a testimony to John XXIII who also was a humble man who came to the Chair of St. Peter with few expectations.



It looks as if, besides being a man of the poor and servant of Christ, Pope Francis is a reformer. That reform may not take the direction that more progressive elements of the Church might like. But, in many ways, there is nothing inconsistent with theological and doctrinal conservatism and a spirit of reform. And God knows our Church needs reform. Pope Francis may be the man to achieve it.



Please join me in saying a prayer for our new Papa and heeding his call for fraternity, charity, and kindness.

THE PHARISEES TELL JESUS TO FIX THE CIGARET LIGHTER

3/6/13




Tomorrow’s Gospel reading, from the 11th chapter of Luke’s account, presents, as do most gospel passages, a situation from the time of Jesus with distinct echoes into our time.



As Luke tells us,



“(Jesus) was driving out a demon that was mute, and when the demon had gone out, the mute person spoke and the crowds were amazed.” Luke 11, 14



We don’t see many exorcisms (or instantaneous cures for epilepsy, as many, but not all, of these reported exorcisms of Jesus were) nowadays. But bear with me.

What was the reaction of “some of them,” as Luke refers to a group of people probably comprised of Pharisees and/or Scribes?



“By the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he drives out demons.” Luke 11, 15



Jesus goes on to admonish those who contended that He was an agent of Satan. That admonition, in which He speaks of a “kingdom (in other gospels, a “house”) divided against itself,” was quoted, or paraphrased, by Abraham Lincoln in his speech accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for the Senate in 1858 has thus become part of the fabric of American history. But Jesus’ eloquent retort to His critics is not what I find most interesting about this passage.



Note that the “others” who ascribed Jesus’ power to the devil were the same people who had been constantly asking for a sign earlier in the gospel. And one can understand the demands for a sign; Jesus was expounding some radical ideas, ideas that would change Judaism and shake up the leadership in Jerusalem. When a guy speaks this big, he’d better have something to back up the big talk. So Jesus gives them the sign they seek, though clearly His motives were healing the possessed person, not satisfying the demands of the Pharisees.



What do the leaders of the day do in response to the sign? They dismiss it as the work of the devil. It was as if they were ancient versions of Jake Blues. Jake, as you will recall, was complaining that his brother Elwood had traded in the Bluesmobile (a Cadillac, no less) for a microphone and had replaced the Bluesmobile with a used Des Plaines (I think Des Plaines; it may have been Mt. Prospect.) cop car. When Elwood explains that the car’s



“…got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch mill. It’s got cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks”



and demonstrates the new Bluesmobile’s prowess by leaping over an open 95th Street Bridge, Jake’s only response is



“Fix the cigaret lighter”



when he finds the lighter doesn’t work.



There was nothing Jesus was going to do to satisfy the authorities of the day, just as there was nothing Elwood could do to satisfy Jake.



To further illustrate the obstinacy of the Pharisees and “others,” Luke recounts, right after the Beelzebub comment



And still others to test him, asked him for a sign from heaven. Luke 11, 16



Wait; hadn’t Jesus just performed what certainly looked like a sign from heaven in driving out the demons? The demands just kept coming, and the demands could never be satisfied.



Many of us treat God the same way. Ascribing to the popular theory that God is some kind of cosmic Short Order Cook, we make demands on Him. “Give me this, this, this, and that. And throw in something for my Uncle Bruno and Aunt Bernice.” When He doesn’t give us what we want, we complain, feel cheated, and maybe even challenge His existence. And when He does give us what we want, we aren’t satisfied and ask for more.



Like the “others” in this Gospel, we don’t listen to Jesus’ message, or we do listen but don’t like its implications. So we demand that God “prove” His message by some miracle or gift. If the miracle doesn’t come through, we can continue to ignore the message. If it does come through, hey, our order has been filled and we can go ahead and order desert in the form of something else we think we need. There is indeed limited downside to such a practice of Christianity, or such an approach to God, and plenty of upside. We don’t have to do anything or heed any message, and there is plenty of potential for goodies to come our way.



Things don’t change much over the centuries.