How I Prepare a Homily and More on the Readings for the 11th Week, Year C

Yesterday I offered some thoughts on the Gospel reading for the 11th Sunday in Ordinary time, year C (that is, today). It wasn't a complete homily, but more like a rough sketch - scattered thoughts on the reading. 

A suggestion Bishop Barron made once to priests getting into blogging was to post their Sunday homilies. We don't always have time to write original content, so it's an easy way to kill two birds: since we have to prepare a homily anyway, why not put it up it and let that be the post for the week? That's really great advise, but my problem is that I don't write out my homilies. I don't even write an outline. I prepare, alright. I use a sort of quasi lectio divina method of meditating on the scriptures throughout the week, picking out a line or lines that hit me and building something from there. Once I get a basic idea of where I want to go with the homily, I'll check a few trusted commentaries to both double check that I'm not going in the wrong direction, or if I'm stuck, to get ideas moving. I might tap out a few thoughts on my iPad's word processing app during morning meditation, but for the most part it's all worked out in my head. 

There are pros and cons to not reading a written homily. The main positive is that people feel I'm speaking more naturally. I almost always hear complaints from people when a priest reads his homily. And the ironic thing is, I've found that the better the homily is in terms of content and structure the more they will complain when its read (unless the preacher is very skilled in public speaking). In spite of speaking extemporaneously, I follow a pretty well planned mental script, yet if I wrote it out and read it I guarantee there are those who would complain. 

Speaking in a well planned - off the cuff style also gives me the freedom to digress if something hits me. Since I know what I'm going to say I have a place to comeback to, while at the same time not feeling bound to stick to a text. Everyone is different: some preachers can digress gracefully from a prepared text, it's just a skill I ever developed.

But if there is one thing that is absolutely essential to good homily prep, whether you prepare a written text or not - it's prayer. And my prayer is simple. When I begin the process I ask Jesus what he wants to tell the people. What is it that they need to hear? I'm not saying that I always get it right - I'm still just a fallible man - but I do believe that the Lord helps me in the process with the gift of His Spirit. And this prayer helps me to stay focussed on what preaching is all about: I'm not here to proclaim the gospel according to Fr. Tom, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I find that many times when I'm stuck with a case of preacher's block, the problem is that I'm caught up with what I want to say, or how eloquent I'm sounding - or not. When I stop and spiritually recalculate, asking Jesus what it is that He wants to say, things start flowing much more smoothly. Sometimes when the homily is over I'll wonder where the words came from, they come to me in such a mysterious way. All this is possible only when prayer is at the center of the process.

As for the readings this week, I spoke already about the passage from Luke, so I'll turn my attention to the Old Testament reading from 2 Samuel. 

We are given a very narrow periscope of a larger passage about King David and his grave sins of adultery and murder. Briefly, David had an affair with the wife of one of his military officers who was off at war. Bathsheba - the wife - got pregnant as a result, and the King tried to cover it up by sending Uriah - the husband - home on leave. Uriah was what I like to call a U.S. Marine type: totally dedicated. While his men were out on the front, away from their families, in harms way, he wasn't going to go home and enjoy the pleasures of the conjugal bed. After twice failing to get the iron age leatherneck drunk and home to the wife, so as to give plausible deniability to any misbehaving, David arranges it that Uriah is put way up at the front of the front, undefended. He dies in battle, Bathsheba becomes one of David's wives, and no one's the wiser.

Accept, you can't hide from God. 

The prophet Nathan gets a message from the Lord, and relays it to David by way of a parable about a poor man who has his only beloved lamb stollen by a greedy, heartless, wealthy neighbor. David, enraged by the story, calls for the offender's death. When Nathan reveals the this little tale was an allegory of David's own crime, the king repents. 

But Nathan also reveals something ominous. While the sin is forgiven, and David will not suffer the full punishment due for such villainy (eternal damnation), he will still have to make some reparation for his sin. God declares that the "sword shall never depart from your house." This meant that David, no stranger to war, would never cease to have to defend his kingdom from enemies from without, as well as usurpers from within, including attempted coups by two of his sons - one violent, the other bloodless.

(There is another detail that the editors of the Lectionary decided to leave out. In the next verse Nathan declares that the child born to them would die. I don't deal with that in my homily, and will leave the point undeveloped for right now. It is a hard passage, and if I have one criticism of how the Lectionary is organized, it's that the difficult bits are too often omitted. All I'll write for now is that God in His being is simple, but his ways are mysterious and hard to understand, and I'm not sure we're helping people by glossing the difficult parts over.)

David had been given many gifts in his life. He was a lowly shepherd, the youngest son in his family, who was not the obvious choice to be king. He was taken from the flocks and made a hero of Israel, later king. He had lands, wives, concubines, glory and honors. Yet his return to the Lord was these acts of ingratitude. Much was given, and so much was expected. When he fell in such a deliberate and wanton manner forgiveness had to accompanied by penance. 

Notice, as well, that unlike the woman from the Gospel, David didn't willingly approach the Lord looking for pardon, but had to be slapped across the face. David was content to go on, convinced that his crime was successfully covered up. As a wise man once said, God loves us as we are, but he loves us too much to leave us that way. Even if David's love wasn't sufficient to keep from sinning, or even enough to motivate him to seek out God's mercy, God's loving mercy reached out to him. But God's is a strong love, a challenging love. Some times Jesus comes as the Good Shepherd to gently call us home, but sometimes, especially if we are obstinate and spiritually blind, he comes as the Hound of Heaven pursuing us "down the nights and down the days," as Francis Thompson put it.

If, like David, our sin is the product of pure ingratitude and lack of love, He shake us up, then builds that love back up. That's the real purpose of reparation: to break down our pride and self reliance so we may not simply avoid sin out of fear, but do the right out of love. God's punishment is never about chastisement for its own sake. It always has a point: it is always to perfect love.

If we are like the woman who anointed Jesus' feet, maybe our sin, while still sin, came after a series of hardships. Maybe we didn't have all the advantages that David did. Maybe because of the circumstances of life we weren't strong enough to resist temptations when they came our way. Maybe we were wounded somehow, victimized, and it effected how we see the world and ourselves for the worse. Maybe our sin is the product of self loathing, and while we knew it was wrong, somehow we were convinced that we "deserved whatever we got"(a demonic deception). In this case, Jesus reaches out His hand to convince us otherwise. If we persist in sin, we will indeed be lost, but we shouldn't despair that the Lord comes in the moment of repentance as a harsh judge, but as a merciful Savior.

Which brings me back to what I wrote last time about the women who followed Jesus on the way. I speculated that maybe each had some vice that Jesus released them from. In their following Jesus, forgiveness, reparation and love join together. They abandoned their old ways of sin, but they surely also left good things. One was the wife of a court official, so I have to imagine that she led a rather comfortable life. In abandoning the old way, both the good and bad, they were risking much. But they were cooperating in the saving mission of Jesus. Their efforts made it possible for Jesus and the 12 to support themselves and continue spreading the proclamation of the Kingdom. They were motivated by love and gratitude, and each hardship encountered, discomfort suffered, doubt confronted and overcome served as reparation for past sins, but also deepened their love for God. If we are open, Jesus makes that same invitation to us: to repent, yes; to do reparation; yes. More importantly, it's a invitation to grow in love.

Why Were the Women Tagging Along?: Scattered thoughts on the Gospel Reading - 11th Sunday, Year C

As I was preparing for this week's homily, I was struck by a small detail in the Gospel reading that could easily, and understandably be overlooked. In the passage from Luke 7:38-8:3, we hear that Jesus at once forgives the penitent woman, while shaming the Pharisees for being judgmental and lacking mercy. It's a beautiful story in which the unnamed woman interrupts the meal to bathe Jesus' feet with her tears, then anointing them with oil. The implication is that this woman had been forgiven much, so was now making a return to the Lord. It is a tender gesture of thanksgiving, adoration and deep love. 

While the scene is playing out the head Pharisee, Simon, thinks to himself what a no-acount false prophet Jesus is for letting this public sinner touch him like this (and a woman! Why, if he were really a prophet...). Our Lord, as always turns the tables on his accusers, showing that he is a prophet, and much more. Reading his mind, he points out, by way of a parable, that those who are forgiven much tend to love and appreciate the one who forgives more than others, who's sins may be less serious. But more than that, he points out that Simon had neglected the basic rules of hospitality by not offering his special guest water to wash his feet, or perfume for "freshening up" after walking the dusty roads. He concludes by declaring the woman forgiven of her sins for the great love she has shown. In the Lord it is truly the lowly who are raised while the rulers are thrown down, as our Lady put it (Lk. 1:52).

The detail that struck me is that the first three verses of the next chapter are tacked on to the end of the reading. If your priest or deacon decides to, these "extra" verses can be omitted. They mention that several women, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna, traveled with the twelve and took care of their needs out of their own resources. Yes, it shows that Jesus was unusually inclusive, and that these women were dedicated to Jesus. At least one was well connected, seeing that her husband was an official of Herod's court - thus showing that the Gospel was already spreading deeply into all corners of the society. As telling as this passage is, it still seems a bit out of place considering where we just were. What do these verses have to do with forgiveness and mercy?

Maybe nothing. 

I've consulted a few commentaries and saw nothing to connect the two parts. But there had to be a reason the editors of the Lectionary decided to pin these three verses on to the end of the reading, no?

What I think is that maybe, in some way, each of these women (three are named, but the exact number isn't given), were either forgiven by Jesus of some great sin, or shown some other great mercy in their lives. Pope St. Leo the Great always identified the unnamed woman here with Mary Magdalene, though modern scholars disagree. Whether its her or not, the person who anointed Jesus' feet and dried them with her hair was probably guilty of some sexual sin: possibly prostitution, most probably adultery, whatever the transgression, it certainly caused a public scandal. Even if she and Mary Magdalene are two separate people, the latter was liberated from seven demons. I tend to take that pretty literally, but even if you want to say Luke was writing metaphorically, there was something grave, be it illness, addiction, or vice, or a combination of the three that she was freed from. The rest were freed from evil spirits and infirmities. Maybe one was an inveterate gossip who ruined people's reputations. Maybe another had cancer. Maybe another had a problem with drink. There are countless possibilities, but in each case Jesus touched their lives in a profound way - profound enough that they left home, took to the road, and cared for Jesus and the 12 out of their own pocketbooks. 

Could there be another reason that Luke highlights the presence of women in Jesus' entourage? I believe so.

I have seen men, after living unholy lives, turn it around and become very dedicated to Jesus and the Church. But I've seen it more intensely in women. I don't want to be misunderstood with what I'm about to write. Men and women are both capable of selfishness and cunning, and of ingratitude. But if you were going to ask me which, men or women, are more likely to be victims of sin, it would be women (forgive me if I leave that point undeveloped, for now). 

When it comes to sexual sin, I just believe that women feel the weight of guilt over it more than men do. I'm definitely not saying its right, just that that's what I've found in my experience. Men rarely come to me lamenting their lost virginity, where as often - not always, maybe not even mostly, but often - women are in tears about it. Men will feel deeply guilty over marital infidelity, and I've seen more than my share of tears there. But if I were to say who feels the effects overall of sexual sin it's women. So when the shackles of sin, of whatever sort, are removed women seem more likely to respond by becoming dedicated to Jesus in an extraordinary way. Again, not all women, and maybe not even most, but enough that I've noticed it over the years. 

So, yeah, I can see Luke giving a special mention to this group of dedicated ladies. It's also in line with the Third Evangelist's tendency to highlight Jesus' special care for those on the margins. Women were most certainly second class citizens in the society of time, and it wasn't really questioned. Here Luke brings out two important points, that women have an equal standing in the Church, and that they do tend to respond with greater gratitude to Jesus when they experience his mercy. The first point is always important to point out, and the second is in line with the overall message of the reading.

This is just the rawest of sketches for Sunday's homily. I'll also be bringing in the first reading from the Second Book of Samuel, another haunting passage on forgiveness, but also reparation for sin (a neglected aspect of mercy). 

Feast of the Most Holy Trinity from AOP

The Third and Fourth Commandments // Columbia Catholic Ministry

The Second Commandment from Columbia Catholic Ministry

The Ten Commandments: Columbia Catholic Ministry

Here are the first two in a series on the Ten Commandments by Fr. Dan O'Reilly at Columbia Catholic Ministry.

Pondering Evil, Yet Again, Wearily

The Old Testament prophets tended to be very harsh when times were good.  They tried to remind people that life wasn't all about parties and wealth creation; that in the midst of the fat years there were still poor people not sharing in the prosperity, and not to be deluded into thinking that wealth, pleasure and power were substitutes for God.  The prophets reminded Judah and Israel that all things pass, and that chastisements eventually come for injustices and immoralities, so they shouldn't come to depend on their excess, and make a good examination of conscience.  Then, once the bottom fell out they changed tone, assuring the people that God hadn't abandoned them and the present trials wouldn't last forever.  In other words, they didn't kick people when they were down.  For us today religious figures who come out after a tragedy and get their Isaiah up, blaming a terrorist attack, a natural disaster or some other traumatic event that takes human lives on the sins of the people comes off as cruelly tone deaf.

We are still left with questions though.  We are not so accustomed to having the prophetic finger pointed at us as we are to point the finger at God, asking, "where were you?"  I weary of the question, not because it's a bad one, but because it has no response that can satisfy us.  The standard Thomistic answer is that God permits evil so that a greater good can come out of it.  In the big picture this is true, but I doubt that this explanation would make any sense to the parents who just lost their eight year old son in Copley Square.

I have adult nieces, some of whom work in and around Boston, one of whom is an RM who was called in to help at a hospital in the city treating victims.  After thanking the Lord that "all the girls are where they're supposed to be," as my father put it, I felt heart broken.  My eldest niece, the nurse, works in a children's burn hospital.  She sees terrible things on a day to day basis already, and all I could think of were the fresh hells she was being subjected to now.  She'll be thirty in a few months, but all I could see in my mind's eye was the baby wrapped up tight the way they do in hospital nurseries.  I still thought of her, and the others, as they were as children.  We want to protect our children from ugly things, and now it's impossible.  Even though they're not children anymore, it's a helpless feeling, to say the least.

I long ago reconciled myself with the problem of evil.  That people make wicked choices doesn't effect my faith in God.  That God permits evil is wrapped up in the gift of freedom; that He allows us to do good and accept Him means that he also allows us to do wrong.  Without that possibility we are slaves.  It doesn't mean my heart wasn't in my throat thinking about what could have happened if someone I loved was where they "weren't supposed to be" at 2:50pm Monday.  It doesn't mean I didn't feel rage seeing what had happened to people I've never met.

As for the cosmic reasons, I thought about when people came to Jesus asking about an incident when Pilate had slaughtered a group of Jews indiscriminately (Luke 13:1-5).  Jesus told them that they, and an unfortunate 18 who had died when a tower fell on them, were not singled out for destruction because they were "greater sinners" than anyone else.  He instead pointed out the need to repent for everyone, because murderous tyrants, falling towers or terrorists' bombs don't discriminate.  Evil is a part of our human condition.  We work for justice and peace, but mustn't be shaken in our faith when there are those who are for war.  It is for us to walk in the light of Christ so that we are always ready to meet him.  We pray for a happy, provided for exit from this life, but are ready for the unexpected.

In the end words do not suffice.  I do not know what greater good can possibly come out of this.  I was not there when God created the stars and set the earth on it's foundations, as He reminded Job when he asked a similar question.  I, like most of us, am numbed by the evil, and take solace in the random acts of kindness and heroism of performed by ordinary people on the scene.  And while these victims were certainly not being punished for their sins or those of their fathers and mothers, I am convinced that this darkness that covers us right now won't lift until we return to the Lord with sincere hearts and a repentant spirit. 

The Office of Readings and the Book of Revelation

Priests and religious are required to pray the Divine Office, also known as the Liturgy of the Hours, everyday.  It is also referred to sometimes to as the breviary, the book that contains the prayers themselves.   These are liturgical in nature, which implies that they are recited publicly and in common, though diocesan priests normally pray it in private.  There are seven individual "hours" that are to be prayed at various times of the day, though there is some leeway on that.  Monastic religious normally pray all seven, secular clergy and active religious can choose one of the three "small hours" that are prayed during the daytime period.  As Salesians we pray Morning Prayer (Lauds) and Evening Prayer (Vespers) in common, while the priests have to find time on their own to fit in the other hours. Salesian Brothers are not required to pray the other hours, though they are free to. 

I make this brief introduction because periodically I'll be sharing reflections on one of the Offices in particular, the Office of Readings.  This is one of the major Hours, though it isn't attached to a particular time of day like the others are. It can be prayed at anytime, though most priests either pray it first thing in the morning before Lauds or, like I often do, treat it as a night office and pray it before saying Night Prayer and going to bed.  Like all the Hours the Office of Readings involves the praying of the Psalms (the usual three, though often it is a longer Psalm divided into three parts).  Then there are two lengthy readings, one from Sacred Scripture and the other from one of the Fathers of the Church, the writings of a saint on his or her feast day or, on occasion, a document from Vatican II.  This assured me that no matter how busy I get during the day, I am reading the Word of God daily and being nourished by the wisdom contained in Tradition.  One down part right now is that the English addition, which hasn't been revised since the 1970's, only has one cycle of scriptural readings where as the Spanish edition, updated in the '90's, has a two year cycle, thus containing a greater selection from God's Word.  Just as the Roman Missal was revised a recently, I understand a new English breviary is being worked on, and I hope that this deficiency is corrected.

The Office of Readings usually tackles a book at a time, spreading the selections out over a period of days or weeks.  From this Second Week of Easter through about the sixth we'll be reading the Book of Revelation.  I will be offering reflections as we go along.  But these will be personal reflections.  I will not be trying to answer questions of the controversies of the book, and I am certainly not offering anything scholarly.  What I will offer is something more along the lines of a Lectio Divina;  this is the way I heard the Lord speaking to me and how I believe he wants the Word to influence my life as a disciple.  This is probably the most difficult book of the Bible to do this with because of its obscure symbolism and wild imagery.  We tend to look at the universal meaning first, but I do believe God is saying something to us, not just about the End of Days or the plight of empires, but about our lives here and now in the micro setting of our lives.  

I've taken enough time on the setup.  Soon my first reflection on John, Patmos and the Seven Letters.

Apocalypse When?

The weather here in Jersey has been a bit erratic; Friday, December 21, for instance, it was stormy in the morning, followed by blue skies before noon, and then rather raw and overcast in the afternoon.  Nothing, though, to the suggest the much hyped Mayan end times that was supposed to go down that day.  Well, it's Sunday the 23rd, and we're still here.  I'm shocked at how many people I know, all rather sensible souls, who have been truly edgy over the impending apocalypse that wasn't. 

I believe it was St. Augustine who wrote that every age is allowed to think that they are the last in order to keep them from complacency.  While ours is not the only age that thought the end was nigh, there is no doubt that we are in a period of heightened expectations concerning the End of Days.  It seems that right now there are two schools of thought in Catholic-Christian circles concerning the eschaton.  One reads the Bible, and the Book of Revelation in particular, with an absolute literalism that ignores the obvious metaphorical and symbolic aspects of the book.  These people create elaborate time lines and try to match up current events with Biblical prophesy to determine where we're at in relation to the Second Coming.  The other side totally spiritualizes the notion of the end of the world, claiming the Bible speaks of events that have already past and posits that these oracles are talking allegorically or metaphorically about the continuing change of epochs and ages; for the first century Jews the fall of Jerusalem was like the end of the world, as was the sack of Rome for 5th century Romans.  Our society will pass eventually as well and it will seem like Doomsday to those living through it.  At best what we are hoping for is some kind of "golden age" where people return to God and form a truly just society.

I'm no scholar, I'm just a humble parish priest, but both ends of the spectrum seem off.   Second Peter mentions that the "elements will be dissolved by fire" (3:10).  The letter speaks specifically of a new heaven and new earth where the just will live.  That all humanity will share in the Resurrection, and that there is a Final Judgement that goes along with it is central to Jesus' teaching.  We should beware not to try to treat the Scriptures like a newspaper, at the same time not everything in the Bible is a metaphor.  Both Peter and Paul, especially in the fourth chapter of the latter's First Letter to the Thessalonians, write in rather unambiguous terms about the last things.  Jesus spoke in parables and John saw amazing visions, but the two Pillars of the Church broke it down quite plainly.  But remember, Jesus told us that no one knows the day or the hour of his return.  He does seem to mix prophesies about the end time with those concerning the fall of Jerusalem.  People have made a living off of trying to predict the End of the World based on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict or, back in the day, the progress of the Cold War.  It's a fools errand, so don't be duped. It's not that both views are completely wrong, but that they are by themselves incomplete and tend to lead people into erroneous views on our collective and communal destiny.

So, what's the answer?  Simply be ready.  Follow your vocation in life the best you know how.  Do your daily duties with diligence and care.  Be faithful to your commitments.  The rest will take care of itself, because in the end it's all in God's hands.  But most of all, Be Not Afraid!

And, just for a little fun, and Oldie but a Goodie by our friends at REM

Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States

 

Today we celebrate the great Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, which here in the United States is our patronal feast.  I've often wondered why Mary under this title was chosen to be the patroness of our country. It was declared so in 1846, by the Council of Baltimore.  That's eight years before the doctrine was actually defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.  That does not mean that the belief that Mary was preserved from the moment of her conception from all stain of original sin isn't a very ancient one in the Church, but it was simply at that moment that the Pope, prompted by the Spirit, decided to make a formal doctrinal pronouncement on the matter.  One could say that the dogma was given heavenly approbation when the Blessed Mother identified herself to St. Bernadette with that very title at Lourdes four years later.  But still the question persists: why did the United States bishops make the Immaculate Conception our Patroness?  On the one hand Mary is an obvious choice.  Who wouldn't want her motherly protection? Or, put better, what sane person wouldn't want it?  But why under that title?  Why not Our Lady of Perpetual Help, or Our Lady of Victory, or even Our Lady of Guadalupe, for the apparition that happened in our very hemisphere?  Even though the decision was made long ago, I've come to see that it wasn't an accident.  The U.S. bishops may have made the choice, but the Holy Spirit is the one who knew who we needed as a nation, not so much in 1846, but right now, on the doorstep of 2013.

Mary under this title has been used in the Church to promote the virtue of sexual purity.  From the beginning of his work with young people Don Bosco, for example, implored his boys to seek her protection against sexual temptations.  In general he promoted purity as the virtue Salesians should be known for, much like Franciscans are known for poverty and Jesuits for obedience.  As religious and priests, chaste celibacy frees us to be more docile to the Spirit.  With our hearts committed to no one else but Christ, we are free to serve all we meet.  We have no particular earthly love, and are so made channels of the Divine love, which took on flesh and gave His life for the salvation of the world.

There is another aspect to the virtue of purity as well.  From the Beatitudes we read, "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." (Mt. 5:8)  This has traditionally been seen as a reference to sexual purity.  Any sins of a sensual nature though, be it gluttony or drunkenness as well as sexual sins, lead us inward.  They are about satisfying a longing that can never be filled in this life.  Eating, drinking and sex are good things, in there place and under our control.  But when they become the object of our lives they take control.  We become like addicts.  We order our lives around them, caring little who we harm as long as we get our fix.  In the case of sex we can view other people as objects to be used instead of persons to be respected.  But we not only hurt the other, we hurt ourselves.

Two examples from surfing the web recently:

There is an article I read the other day extolling the virtues of the "friends with benefits" culture.  The author seemed rather proud of the fact that people in those kinds of relationships were more likely to employ "safe sex" measures, the virtue of the hook up age.  But buried at the end was the line that more of these people said they were less satisfied sexually than those in committed relationships, who were also less likely to be worried about "safety."  Another thing that got me thinking was an excerpt from a recent biography of Mick Jagger that ran in a newspaper.  His ex-wife, Jerry Hall, reflecting on the turmoil that follows Jagger, whose womanizing is legendary, stated, "I feel sorry for Mick.  Sexual promiscuity just leads to chaos, and you have to clear it up. I wish he’d find happiness, but I’m not churning inside about it.”

What both these anecdotes point to is the fact that making sex the central object of our lives, or, in a way, reducing it to just another bodily function, leads to unhappiness and a profound sense of dissatisfaction with life, and all around emotional confusion.  But what's more it keeps us from seeing spiritual realities around us.  As we sow more and more in the flesh, we fail to see the wonders all around us.  We stop seeing the world with the eyes of a child, and are less trustful and desirous of the things of God.  We also become suspicious of the promises of prospective life partners.  As Catholic philosopher Janet Smith has said, those who are promiscuous, even moderately so, have lied and been lied to so many times over they find it hard to trust once the "right one" when he or she comes along.

In the end we lose the vision of God because we stopped looking for him.  We become so caught up in the latest pleasure (that never really satisfies) we fail to seek that which is eternal.  Because the treasure we have put our entire self into attaining has turned to rust we stop believing that there is anything genuine.

I could continue, but I've rambled on too long.  I will return to this at a later time, because there is much more that could and should be said.

But back to the main question; Why is the Immaculate Conception the Patroness of the United States?  I believe that it is because we have become embroiled in a radically over sexualized culture.  The bishops in Baltimore in 1846 didn't know the Sexual Revolution was coming, but the Holy Spirit did.  Mary Immaculate is here to remind us, not simply of the ugliness of vice, but of the beauty of virtue.  Her purity enabled her to say yes to God freely.  Bernadette's innocents and transparency allowed her to hear the Virgin's words and report them without guile or doubt.  Don Bosco's single hearted devotion to Christ allowed him to start a movement, by Mary's inspiration and the Spirit's power, that continues strong to this day.  They knew not to confuse contentment, which passes, with true happiness, that is eternal.  This is a lesson we as a people need to learn as well. 

Mary Immaculate is more than the patroness we may want; she is truly the one we need. 

Fr. Barron comments on NBC Taking "One Nation Under God" Out of the Pledge

He Must Increase; I Must Decrease

When the story about John Corapi's forced leave from active ministry broke, on my birthday no less, I was disappointed.  I didn't want the charges against him to be true, and indeed the accusations made by a former employee are still hanging out there, yet to be proved. For the uninitiated, John Corapi is a Catholic priest and popular evangelist who has appeared on EWTN and Relevant Radio.  He has given retreats, missions and lecture tours, usually attracting large crowds.  His is a story of conversion from drug addiction, materialism and sins of the flesh to the Catholic priesthood.  He can be fiery and on target.  Or I should say was on target.  Impatient and disillusioned with the canonical process, he chose to make his leave permanent, announcing his decision by way of a You Tube video on June 17.  On June 20 he followed up with a second video (both are audio only, with a graphic showing on the screen).  The first announcement was pretty standard, but the second a bit more rambling and made me question his motives, and new information only seems to fan my suspicions.

There are two points, of the many he tried to make, that jumped out at me.  One was that, while leaving the priesthood is not easy, most of his work the past twenty years has been involved in mass media and communications, so it's not like much is going to change.  Oh really?  I'm sorry, to the depths of my being, that he holds the sacramental ministry he was ordained to perform so cheaply.  I am not the only one to be taken aback by this bizarre response from a priest facing the prospects of not being able to offer the Eucharist, hear confessions, baptize babies, anoint the dying or officiate at weddings anymore.  Anything a priest does, by way of a blog he might have, or retreats he preaches or classes he teaches or counseling he offers, to name just a few possible activities he could do, has as it's goal drawing people into greater communion with Christ's community and participation in His life giving sacraments, particularly Eucharist and Reconciliation.  This makes me wonder what Mr. Corapi's motivations were in pursuing his media career, and if they had changed over time.

The second point is related to the first; that in the future the topics he will touch upon are going be broader than in the past.  So what now? Is he hanging up his mission to evangelize to become just another political pundit?  Or is he going to comment on sports?  Is he going to be a cultural critic?  Maybe a new cooking show is in the works?  Or, better yet, a radio talk show.  Just what the world needs, another talking head spewing his or her own opinions.  Will is views be consistent with the past, or now that he doesn't have bishops or religious superiors to be accountable to he can tell us what he really thinks?  (Not that he was terribly hamstrung in the past. ) Again, what was more important to him, his priesthood or his career in the relative limelight of Catholic media?  Now that he has been sidelined, is it that he can't bare not celebrating the sacraments publicly, as would burden just about any suspended priest, or is it his lost soap box that's getting under his skin?  I point you to the paragraph above for the answer.

Today was the Solemnity of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist.  The Baptist was fiery and bold; he kicked cans and took names, and it cost him his head.  John was not speaking for himself, but for Jesus.  He went to great lengths to tell people that One was coming who was greater than he.  He did not seek to build himself up, but prepared the way for the Good News of God's redemption.  This is the model for all evangelizers, whether they speak boldly like Mr. Corapi did, or more gently like Fr. Barron does.  Whatever the style it is crucial to work with a spirit of humility knowing that the internet or cable TV are just tools at the service, not of our own personal message, but of Christ's message of love and repentance for the world.  And this mission always comes with a cross.  There is no avoiding it. 

I do have sympathy for Mr. Corapi's situation.  The process for investigating accusations against priests is flawed.  The bishops conference was besieged in 2002 and they put in place a policy that was more of a reaction motivated by fear than a well thought out response to a very real and tragic crisis.  But it is the policy we have, and it is for us to bare the crosses we are asked to in faith, even as we try to fix what is broken in the present policy.  Mr. Corapi, who wants to be known as the Black Sheep Dog now, made a choice.  Three months was too long to be without his microphone, and so he puts aside his priestly ministry to pursue his own personal goals.  As a priest, I can't think of anything more heartbreaking.  I don't care how unjust the investigative process is, to give up this great vocation so easily is beyond my ability to comprehend. 

Pray for him, and for all evangelizers, that we may always remember Who it is we serve, Whose message we are carrying and Whose glory we are seeking.

A Schizophrenic Age

I once heard Cardinal Francis George of Chicago comment that we live in a schizophrenic age where sex is concerned.  We promote ourselves as an open and tolerant society where the old Victorian rules that defined sexual propriety no longer apply, yet we are quick to point an accusatory finger at the peccadilloes of those in public, and even semi-public, life.  On one hand the taste makers and purveyors of the "new morality" want to say anything goes, but when people actually act out on these revised mores the puritanical impulses in our cultural make-up come out in force, along with lawyers and publicists.  To expand on the idea a bit, we, as a society, are in the midst of redefining marriage beyond recognition but then get upset when people treat the sacred bonds as something less then holy.

Yes, we live in a schizophrenic age, and we long ago lost our sexual moorings.  In 1983 there was a scandal involving congressmen and improprieties with their teenaged pages, and they got off with a censure.  One of them, Gerry Studds, insisted that this was his private life and the press could take a walk.  He only admitted that he shouldn't have been involved with a staff member, but the age of his partner was no one's business since the lad was over 16, the age of consent in D.C. at that time.  And you know, it worked.  He was reelected six times after his censure until he retired in 1997.  Am I the only one to see the irony in that?


If you haven't figured it out yet, this post has been prompted by the Anthony Weiner "sexting" scandal.  That chastity and fidelity are too often casualties of political life should not shock us.  This is not to excuse politicians who cheat on their spouses, much less abuse the help, but leaders as diverse as King David, Charlemagne and John F. Kennedy have found sexual continence a challenge.  And no, I'm not one of those who says, "well it's their private life and has nothing to do with their ability to govern."  David's infidelity influenced his military decisions and ended in murder.  Many have questioned if JFK's escapades didn't indeed compromise his ability to govern, considering that at various times in his life he had paramours connected with Nazi Germany and the Mob.  Adultery is destructive, and we should expect our leaders to be faithful to their commitments, both private and public, because they represent us.  They represent the best, hopefully, of what we want to be as a people.  


Beyond this there is something especially disturbing about the recent spate of scandals that we have witnessed in the last few years.  These aren't simply powerful men with mistresses or unhappy women cheating on their husbands.  These things have been happening for time immemorial.  We're not talking about tragic love affairs or people in unhappy marriages falling in love with another, and fate is either keeping them apart or forcing them to keep their love a secret.  Those are the stuff of epic poems and romantic legend.  While we never condone sin, there is a humanity to some of those situations that draw our sympathy, even as we disapprove of the behavior.  On the other hand the Anthony Weiner, Chris Lee and Tiger Woods scandals seem to have more to do with an arrested development than with star crossed love.  While the public response does bare some of the strange, puritanical voyeurism that marks our age, I believe that deep down people know that these people are just plain weird and need to get a real life.

Yes, cheating happens, but what the three people I mentioned above have engaged in is simply adolescent foolishness.  St. Augustine is famous for his struggles with chastity in his early life, but the days when his reputation was made were actually pretty short.  When he was about 17 he found himself away from home, away from parental supervision and made a two or three year weekend out of it.  By the time he was in his early twenties he was settled into a monogamous relationship that lasted thirteen years before his eventual conversion.  Woods, Lee and Weiner either had more partners than the population of a small Third World Country, sent silly images of themselves to strangers or downright pornographic images to every female on his buddy list.  And whats more they are between the ages of 35 and 47, well past the point where they could pull the youthful indiscretion card.

We not only live in a schizophrenic age but an adolescent age.  Our collective sexual development seems to have been arrested and I see two main reasons for this: the glorification of youthfulness and the mainstreaming of pornography in the culture.  As you can see I have my next two topics picked out already. Stay tuned.

Reflections on the Death of OBL

It's been over a week since Osama bin Laden was killed, and its taken me that long to reflect on the event.  Not that I've been struggling over whether the world is a better place without him; it clearly is.  But it is the manner of his death that has preoccupied me.  There have been some Catholic clerics weighing in on bin Laden's death, and most have in some way echoed a Vatican official's comments that, while the action was justified considering the evil this man had perpetrated in the past and the threat to world peace he still posed, it shouldn't be taken as an opportunity to gloat, but rather to reflect.  There has been some debate over the justification for killing bin Laden, considering conflicting reports that have him unarmed when the SEALs came charging into the house.  Couldn't we have captured him?  Some ask, though admittedly not many: was this really a just use of lethal force?

My gut reaction was not not very theological to be honest; I simply didn't care how it was done, I was just content that it was finished.  Osama bin Laden was a man of violence, an apostle of the the culture of death who got caught up in his own whirlwind of hate.  It wasn't that he got what was coming to him, so much as he got what was going to get to him sooner or later.  When Jesus told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword I don't believe he was making a sweeping pacifist statement, as many theologians today would claim.  There is a legitimate right to self defense which the Church has always acknowledged in word and action (let's remember that the Swiss Guards don't carry water pistols).  We live in a fallen world where not everyone wants to live in peace, and where some see those who do as weak and contemptuous.  So we have guns and fighter planes and bombs while working for the day we never have to use them again.  A perfect world? Not by a long shot, and all the protests and binding resolutions won't make it so.

So what does Jesus mean by warning Peter not to live by the sword?  I believe Jesus was speaking of those who make violence a way of life, who have adopted the ways of war and terror as their primary option when faced with conflict and injustice.  They unleash powers beyond their control, because once the cycle of violence has been started no one knows where it will end.  War can make good people do evil things because nothing ever goes by plan once the bullets start flying.  While we were justified in going to war with the Axis Powers in World War II, and I don't believe there is a moral equivalency between the two sides, we shouldn't think atrocities weren't committed all around.

I met a man recently who was in Vietnam who told a story I shall not repeat in detail here.  Even though it wasn't a confession; the man didn't know I was a priest when he told me the story, I'm not sure I can get myself to type the words.  It was a story of revenge and murder on a large scale.  By the time he came home after his tour of duty he had already lost God, abandoning himself to a life of dissolute living.  It was years before he could come to grips with what had happened on that dark night half a world away.  He eventually found Christ again, and now dedicates his time and money to helping at risk youth.  Even though he didn't say it, I knew it was his way of trying to make amends for the sins of his past life.  This is a good, decent man who willingly participated in a horrendous thing.  If but for the scourge of war this nightmarish detour in his life wouldn't have happened.

War destroys and perverts innocent lives, but for those who are the masters of war the end often comes swiftly and unprovided for.  Whether it's Hitler in his bunker, Mussolini being hung upside down in the city square or bin Laden in his hideout last Sunday, there is usually no trial, no due process, no peace.  In these cases we have the forces that were unleashed by their hatred eventually coming back to visit them.  Is this God's vengeance?  I would say it's closer to what Eastern religions call karma. More precisely it's natures way; the type of end that comes to a person who makes living by the sword his defining habit. 

Does this mean we shouldn't question the means used to bring bin Laden to his final end?  No it doesn't.  We should never lower ourselves to the level of the unjust aggressor, and always strive for greater justice.  I must admit that my initial reaction was not the right one. But I still can't say that I lament this man's passing either.  He set upon a course long ago that only had one logical conclusion; the question was only from what direction the bullet was going to come from.

Why I'm a Catholic 2

 

Sorry for the blue tint.  I'm working with some new equipment, and need to get the kinks out.

Pope Benedict, The Jews and the Death of Jesus

 

Note:  I do need to make one correction on something I said in the video.  I mentioned that all the popes going back to at least Pius IX (1846-1878) have tried to clarify the Church's teaching on who was responsible for Jesus' death, speak in a conciliatory way about the Jewish people.  I meant to say Pius XI (1922-1939), who condemned anti-Semitism as being contradictory to discipleship in Christ, and called all Christians, by virtue of the fact that we claim the Patriarch Abraham as our father in faith, "spiritual Semites." 

Heaven, Hell...and Purgatory

Heaven and Hell?

Fr. Barron comments on Is Hell Crowded or Empty?

I know it looks like I'm shilling for Fr. Barron, but I got an e-mail from a Salesian about a popular book about hell by an evangelical preacher named Rob Hill.  I Saw that Padre Steve put this video up on Da Mihi Animas about Hill's book and figured it was my cue to weigh in myself.  I will eventually; I'm in the middle of reading the Pope's latest volume "Jesus of Nazareth: Part 2,"  and will comment on that first.  Until then, Robert Barron's thoughts on the subject.

Stations of the Cross- The Way of Love

An online Stations of the Cross for those who can't make it to church today.  There are a bunch on You Tube, but I decided to share one that just had a musical accompaniment.