Orlando and the Gospel

It’s hard to imagine that our minds have not been drawn to the events in Orlando recently, where yet another act of violence and barbarism has invaded our own consciousness. One is reminded, as if by an unfortunate muscular reaction Sandusky, Virginia Tech, Belgium, Spain, Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria. Acts such as these, and many others, show a world torn by strife, division, and sin. Many of our esteemed brethren have spoken out against such violence, and we commend them. Violence against homosexuals, Muslims, Christians, or anyone is to be deplored as ungodly and abominable. It stands that we, as Christians, ought to look for God earnestly and listen to him attentively.

The Bishop of St. Petersburg, Robert Lynch, had said that, “sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people. Attacks today on LGBT men and women often plant the seed of contempt, then hatred, which can ultimately lead to violence.” He adds, “Those women and men who were mowed down … were all made in the image and likeness of God.” In some senses, it is true. When someone is gay, he or she is part of the “gay community” just as someone who is poor is part of “low society” and so on. We emphasize our differences, many times apart from charity, but rather out of exclusion.

Scripture has fittingly placed before us an appropriate message:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3:26-29). [cf., 12^th Sunday, OT, Year C]

For Christians there are no divisions so wide that Christ has not redeemed them. All have sinned and thus all need Christ to reconcile them. We who follow Him must never forget that our faith, and the healing we have received as a result, is God’s gift, ever and always. What we have been given, we are called to give. Christ is the light of the world, shining in the darkness (cf., Jn 1:5). We too have been called into this marvelous light to live as children of the light (cf., 1 Thes 5:5, Eph 5:8). What is this light? That light is the peace, love, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

           

 The Gospel, my brothers and sisters, demands much from us. We are called to admonish sin, but be patient with sinners. We are called to love our neighbor, but love our enemy as well. We are called endure persecution for the sake of righteousness, all the while giving glory to God. No one is exempt from this calling among us, and all of us are called to build each other up in love. There is a gay person in our midst who is more virtuous in regard to chastity than any of us, there is a wealthy person in our midst who outshines all in humility, and there is one who is sick among us who outshines us in true, Christian love.

Stature, orientation, health, or age does not impede us from living the gospel. Our own strengths and weaknesses simply mean that the Gospel demands different things from us daily, and together our love for God, and His love for us, makes us one. No one is impeded, no one is exempt. In short, “pick up your cross daily, and follow me” (Lk 9:23).

This mass, and this day, let us first pray as David does in the psalms, “Who can discern his errors? Clear me of hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!” (Ps 19:12-13). Then, let us pray for those affected by violence, resolving in our own lives to be Christ’s peace in the world. Lastly, as we celebrate this Eucharist, we pray: “May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation … advance the peace and salvation of all the world (EP III, §113) …That in a world torn by strife, your people may shine forth as a prophetic sign of unity and concord” (EP V1, §7).

Fourth of July Homily

[A homily given on the fourth of July. Some of the more "philosophical" elements, as opposed to the pastoral/moral ones, were added after the fact. This is not a verbatim homily, but rather an approximation]


Brothers and sisters,

On this feast day for our nation we are confronted with many troubling things. The Supreme Court's ruling on marriage, the issues of abortion, contraception, and health care (who provides it and how), are among the many things that affect our hearts and minds. Yet we must be careful, because it is all too easy to focus on ideologies and people.

Archbishop Cupich said it well, I think, calling all of us to respect our brothers and sisters and love them, whoever they are. This love and respect must be "real, not rhetorical." He also says that we must proclaim and preach the Gospel, "hold fast to an authentic understanding of marriage which has been written in the human heart, consolidated in history, and confirmed by the Word of God."

Gay marriage and abortion are contrary to Catholic faith and teaching, but proclaiming the Gospel with respect to life and marriage should not allow us to lose sight of the people to whom we preach.

For we know that there are many homosexuals who are abandoned, mistreated, bullied, and shunned for who they are or what they struggle with. Moreover, many homosexuals who are Christian, who seek to live chastely and grow in holiness are rejected both by Christians and this or that gay community.

Similarly, women who seek abortions are often times scared, coerced, abused, or abandoned.

People such as these need the Gospel as much as we do, and we are called to be Christ to them in a real fashion, not rhetorically.

On this Fourth of July, we celebrate the birth of our nation. It is our home, where our father and mothers of ages past came to seek shelter from persecution, to seek a better life, or to raise their families in peace. We know that just as our homes are not perfect, our home is not perfect. In Scripture today, we see that even the descendents of Abraham were far from perfect. Jacob tricked his father Issac into receiving his blessing, depriving his brother Esau from his birthright (cf., Gen 27:1-29). Esau hunted and exiled Jacob, but later, when Jacob (now Israel) returned, his brother reconciled himself to him. Through our many difficulties we too much seek peace and unity.

Thus, though we disagree with what our country calls justice and equality, we must love our country for our sake as well as theirs. Only love brings forth reconciliation, peace, and truth. Truth cannot be purchased in any other way. Nevertheless, we also recognize that there is no justice, faith, or love without God. We have already learned, again and again, that the justice of our nation is not Justice.

Our laws, Constitution, and courts interpret each other. The notion of equality is not dependent upon them but upon their interpretation, which comes and goes with the tide. We Christians must, all the same, strive for love, faith, and justice that is not temporary, but firmly rooted in God. We must do this is a real, and not rhetorical way.

This is done by concerning ourselves with those who are weakest among us, the sick, the elderly, the imprisoned, and the abandoned. The only equality and freedom that lasts is freedom in the love of Christ.

May God bless us all this day, and may we, His children, strive for unity and peace which can only result from a genuine and real love of Him who loved us first.

A Christmas Message

This season of Christmas we recall the powerful words of Scripture, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14). Christ became man to be with us and to experience life with us. He lived an authentic and real human life with all of its many aspects.

I know during this time of year we often recall our many family members and friends who have died and how, even in this happy time, we miss them. Even I lost an uncle who was very dear to me on December 23rd last year. It is at these times, however, that I ask Christ to be with me. I pray for our faithful departed and families, always asking Christ to be with us as truly as he was a man here on earth.

I began wondering, then, what it means that Jesus experienced life like us in the following way:
Can you imagine how many people came up to tell Jesus about a death in the family, fear because of illness, anxiety because of unemployment, or divisions among their families? Jesus shared a great deal in the pain and hardship of our daily lives with us. Likewise, imagine those who came up to him saying, “I am getting married” and “my wife and I are finally having our first child.” Jesus went to weddings, celebrated at religious events, and spent his time sharing in the many joys of human life.

We can relate to these events that punctuate our lives as well. Jesus through his ministry gives us that divine example. By his words and actions he always expressed the same thing, “I love you” and “Do not be afraid, I am with you.”

This time of year we also remember that Jesus Christ is God Himself. He alone can free us of the chains of sin, misery, regret, and death. Through him everything came into being and he sustains every individual instance in his love. For God is love and his entire being expresses love for creation and, in a special way, for us. Our great God who spoke and created all things became subject to our frail humanity for our sake.

So it is this day that we say, “A king is born to us!” and “God has visited his people!”

He came to us as one of us, and he understands each and every one of us. Yes, he even understands our weaknesses, our regrets, and our sinfulness. He ever and always calls us to himself and calls us to believe in him. For it is in believing in him, putting behind our sins, and following him that he will give us the “power to become children of God” (1:12). Through this power we can endure all hardship and, having run our course in this life, reign forever with him in heaven—a gift he so graciously gave to those who endure with him.

Let us, therefore, follow our great King this Christmastime. His every action has said from the beginning, “I love you and I am with you until the end of time.” Let us, by our lives, say the same.

Apologetics Online II

Please forgive my absence from posting more regularly. Some bloggers keep up with a better regimen and react to news more quickly. I'm beginning to feel as if I'm more in St. John's camp. At the end of his second letter he states that he wishes to speak with his brothers face to face. I'm perhaps the same way.

As I work on other pieces during my break I thought it would be nice to share with you some of my other encounters online doing apologetics. These are a few selections from a number of various topics selected. I give them to you all for your scrutiny and hope we can discuss similar questions together. If you have any additional questions, please ask away.

Much obliged.

As with last time, the person who asks me a question/makes a comment will be in italics. My responses will be in plain text.

[1]

 When someone slags off the church (IE calling them paedophiles) what do you say to them?

Well, it's upsetting because it's ignorant--not ignorant in that there are no pedophiles in the clergy (sad and regrettable)--but sometimes these people only want to be listened to.

The ones who say it as a joke or as slander don't want to be told anything. The best response is patience, really,

Others simply have been hurt by it and need to be heard. Other than that there are plenty of statistics to show that the rate among clergy, especially Catholic clergy, is lower and less frequent than nearly any other populations (e.g., fathers, teachers, etc.).

[2] Note: the wide area a simple question opens up to. It shows, I think, how ready we have to be to approach these subjects specifically and then see the larger picture. In this instance infallibility opens up to questions about truth, veracity, certainty, (Medieval) history, philosophy, and Church procedures. It goes on and on.

(I've done some editing and down-sizing)

Do you believe the pope's word is infallible spiritually or otherwise and how con someone who allegedly have a direct link to an omniscient being be wrong about one thing and not another?

First and foremost Papal Infallibility is limited to the Pope speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals to the whole Church, not just one part. His comments on local affairs or specific concerns in a field, while they carry weight by virtue of his authority, are not considered infallible.

The "direct link" to Omniscience is not like a phone call to God. The Holy Spirit works in the Church and ultimately Christ, rather, the Trinity, leads the Church. The Pope is the living authority of the Church who by virtue of His stature, is said to be incapable of error or deceit when it comes to the contents of faith.

This has been misinterpreted for centuries, even after clarification in the 19th century, and has been taken to mean that whatever he says is free from error. The pope has only invoked infallibility according to our definition about 30 times in our whole history. Likewise, as Scripture states "the one who is wise seeks council." Very rarely, if ever, has the pope just come out and said "I infallibly say..." In fact he never has. He consults with his fellow bishops on matters of faith that concern the peoples from all over the world and when conflict arises they discuss this conflict's subject matter and how it relates to the whole of the faith. It's a very long process and never done flippantly.

Again isn't he supposed to be god's mouthpiece on Earth; why would he need to do all that if he can contact the "all mighty" himself?

Well we would first have to examine any assumptions one would make about it. First, I don't recall us calling him "God's mouthpiece." It's not an official or even theological title.

It assumes how God speaks to men or through men. It assumes how men listen for God. I wish I could give you a formula for how it happens but it's not subject to human control (or invocation). The Pope is elected as leader of the Church by his fellow brothers because they see in him a spirit of governance. He is not perfect, he's human. By virtue of his position he is given great responsibility but also a great number of graces--should he choose to accept him.

Describing how the Holy Spirit works through men is not an easy task, nor is it one many Christians wish to reflect on or think through.

I know it might be hard for you to process but has it ever occurred to you that it's most likely all made up?

Of course, but then again how much effort have you dedicated to seeing if it's true?

Most of my adolescence and all of my early adulthood. There is a logical tool that is used to determine the veracity of a claim called Occam's Razor. I'm sure you heard of it.It is a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct. [someone else, atheist it seems, steps in to say, "Not quite. Occam's Razor is more like "the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions is often correct".]

I've also found that that's the extent of people's knowledge of Ockham.

Let use it in an example then!

Which is the simpler claim: that someone can truly be infallible or that it's a lie?

Asking if he's claiming that it's more probable to tell the truth than a lie he response, "No it is much more likely that someone is telling a lie; especially when making an extraordinary a claim as "selective infallibility". If we are to believe any claim we require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." [I also ask if he's read Ockham]

Can you give me the probabilities on that? If you call what I described as "selective" you might as well call any truth claim "selective truth claiming."

As for evidence in general, who requires it and why? What makes a claim extraordinary? Likewise, are claims of logic, philosophy, or similar branches subject to the same criteria as the physical sciences, or are their various forms of demonstration according to their proper field?

I also like the notion of "extraordinary claims." Extraordinary has a very emotional ring to it, doesn't it?

You see, Ockham's Razor is very popular except people seem to have forgotten that he did believe in God--did he not follow his own rule? That, and his use of the "Razor" was more concerned with the discussion of universals than every time someone wanted to talk about God.

[Here it gets a bit more complicated:]

[1] Truth as most commonly defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

What you are claiming is that the pope isn't just selectively telling the truth but as I was getting at that the pope is allegedly capable of selectively dictating without error the word of an alleged all powerful being that created the universe.

[2] A claim that is mundane or a commonly observed or experienced occurrence (like: I walked my dog) is an easily determinable as either true or false there should be no reason to doubt me and if you do I could present to you evidence that I have a dog. Simply by presenting my dog. That would be considered ordinary.

Extraordinary (despite your attempt to call me on an appeal to emotion) is something that is as the word describes extra-ordinary. Which is defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.

Infallibility would fall under the category of an extraordinary claim.

[3] Because just like Sir Isaac Newton, Ockham's scientific contribution is irrelevant to his religious beliefs. 

Ockham believed that  "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." His theism was based solely on private revelation and faith and that god was an ontological necessity. Which given the century he lived in there was literally no alternative theory of how things came to exist. Essentially Ockham granted god special pleading because when you apply the Razor to the claim of god it really does a number on it.

[I quote what I'm responding to:]

Truth as most commonly defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

Philosophy is often quite good at challenging even these claims as being self-evident, but I won't argue semantics here.

But regardless of our views about the value of fact or the precise definition of reality you seem to be adding complications to it by your evaluations of a given pope's actions, i.e., I don't understand  "selectively dictating without error the word of [x]." It leads me to believe that you take his action to be some sort of prophecy or divination which it isn't. I can't really argue against things I don't believe or the Church doesn't teach/proclaim.

It doesn't quite answer my question about your comment about the probability of truth.

Extraordinary (despite your attempt to call me on an appeal to emotion) is something that is as the word describes extra-ordinary. Which is defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.Infallibility would fall under the category of an extraordinary claim.

Then again, given your dog example, you could claim that you've spoken infallibly about your dog. I only say it's "emotional" in that there usually is some wonder in confronting something extraordinary. The vastness of the universe, stellar motions, and the like can provoke wonder. Sub atomic structures, the formation of organisms from single cells, mitosis, etc. may also be extraordinary in a certain sense. Then again even the act of walking our dog or observing the harmony of an animal's motions can be very captivating. Even something as "ordinary" as ourselves--we are with ourselves most of the time after all--is subject to a great deal of contingency and wonder.

Perhaps this serves as a small example of how easily ordinary and extraordinary can sometimes be confusing, even emotional insofar as they cause us to wonder.

Infallibility is not so extraordinary when one is certain. People seem to infallibly claim things all the time such as:

-the universe is infinite
-the universe is only material (and thus finite)
-any evaluation of the Middle Ages seems to be very extraordinary and many non-historians/Christians/etc. claim many fantastic, infallible things off of weak/unfounded/biased/unhistorical evidence

I use that last example of the ordinary way everyday people speak infallibly about things much larger and more complicated than themselves.

Whenever the Pope speaks infallibly, however, it is not apart from a careful examination of the faith of the people, the content of tradition, and the content of revelation--claims rarely made (as I said) flippantly.

Perhaps you're introducing more extraordinary things into the process.

Because just like Sir Isaac Newton, Ockham's scientific contribution is irrelevant to his religious beliefs.

The thing is that Ockham's claim with the "Razor" was not scientific, but philosophical--a bit of a difference. Likewise Newton's physics (Paschal's too) were motivated by both genuine curiosity, genius, and their faith. It was their belief that creation was orderly, not chaotic, that inspired them to find that order in creation (that's how they would see it--how you see it for them is beside the point).

His theism was based solely on private revelation and faith and that god was an ontological necessity. Which given the century he lived in there was literally no alternative theory of how things came to exist. Essentially Ockham granted god special pleading because when you apply the Razor to the claim of god it really does a number on it.


Are you saying that as a scholar of this particular period of theology and philosophy or just an educated opinion?

Given that he was a member of the Catholic Church he believed in some capacity of revelation throughout history and also through the Church, not just privately. A private faith apart from the Body, the Church did not share clearly or accurately with revelation because a private faith alone is not a part of the Body.

As for alternative theories have you read Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Nicholas of Cusa, or Ockham on their own terms to see if your purported truth claim is, well, true?


I thought the same when I started philosophy, that the Middle ages just said "God" was the answer without any real thought behind it. As it turned out I had to be humbled by my peers and by actual reading to find that, all along, I (me personally) had been the arrogant one and I was wrong. There's a richness and variety that we deny these men by assuming what their arguments are all about.

 [This is the conversation thus far....]

***

Reflection:

Apologetics is a task where one has to get to the heart of what one is asking. In matters of making a defense the first claim is the gateway into a number of further disagreements. If we can be civil and honest about such disagreements we can go a long way. Likewise, we have to carefully see how the other uses his vocabulary--eek out certain assumptions and premises. Very often philosophy is misunderstood, let alone medieval philosophy.

Humility always plays a role in evangelization; we don't know everything. Some people want to argue with us and compete while others simply are interested in how we process the many things that happen. I'm learning to approach both these moments with gratitude. God speaks through our enemies and detractors just as He does our loved ones.

Thanks for reading!

M

The Temptation in the Desert, Part 1

Author's Note: This was originally given as a homily for my classmates, the main points at least. It was meant to be for last Sunday's readings (first Sunday of Lent). I was surprised by the positive feedback despite my own self-criticism. I decided to formalize this a little and organize it as I had originally intended. 

I also decided to split this up into two parts. First, because if I didn't it would be somewhat long, and secondly, because I felt that there might be too much information given out at once. Enjoy, and please leave comments and feedback if possible! ~Matt

===

Christ conquering the devil, putting Satan to shame, and his strength to resist temptation. We often associate the Gospel passage of Jesus in the desert with such notions and not incorrectly. What I propose, however, is to look at this passage in a different way. I will not take this passage as simply a display of Christ's power but rather show how this story in Scripture is a warning and a model for each and every one of us. The season of Lent is a time where we are led into the desert by the Spirit, if we choose to follow Him.

In order to understand Jesus' temptation we must better understand ourselves. In order to understand ourselves we must look at ourselves, not with eyes alone but with our hearts. I hope to facilitate this 'turning toward ourselves' with the following reflection.

The Desert

Some of us are often accustomed to believe that when Scripture or an early text mentions a desert that it's an uninhabitable wasteland. If a hermit were to go to an uninhabitable place, or Christ for that matter, he would surely die. A desert is, as part of the name implies, deserted. Another apt name that describes the desert is desolate, that is devoid of people. A desert was often considered a place apart from society, from community, and from people. It was here that Jesus went. He went in order to be alone.

The desert is a place of silence. When man enters the desert he has no one left to confront but himself. In silence, fasting, and prayer man removes everything that stands before him. The same is true with ourselves. We obstruct our vision of ourselves with noise, with indulgence, and with idle amusements. But, as Augustine said, 'Lord, you turned me around so I could look at myself in all my wretchedness and sin. Even when I tried to turn myself away from my faults you were there to constantly bring me back so I might look upon my sin and hate it' (cf. Augustine's Confessions, Bk. VIII, ch. 7, sec. 16).

Jesus went into the desert before he began his public ministry. He went into the desert to discern the Father's will for him. Here he was tempted, and here he teaches us.

Our Desert

In another manner the desert that Jesus enters is our own desert, the desert of humanity. Recall that the desert is not devoid of life but rather it is a place of simplistic life, straining to survive. Our humanity too is not devoid of goodness but on its own expresses goodness weakly and imperfectly. Christ, the fullness of creation and the wellspring of life, enters the emptiness of the desert.

The devil comes to tempt Jesus because he has put everything else aside in order to be with himself and the Father. The devil often contents himself on our own occupations: we distract ourselves from God and self with food, sex, television, friends, and an array of other things. The devil would rather have us distract ourselves. It is only when we grow closer to God that he visits that person.

The desert, furthermore, is an image of wandering. The famous example being Moses and the Jews wandering in the desert for a very long time. But reflect further that the Jews wandered in the desert so as to reach the Promised Land. The desert was a passageway. Many languished and perished in the desert, pulled equally by their desire to return to Egypt and reach the Promised Land (cf. Ex 16:3). Many did not want to reach the destination promised to them and thus wandered forever.

The devil desires that mankind wander in the desert of their own desires. The “Promised Land” is union with God. When our gaze is turned towards the eternal sun we transform our wandering. When we look to God, and the Cross, our time in the desert is a pilgrimage. When we satisfy ourselves merely with our desires we wander forever. We are all in the desert of our own desires, fears, and insecurities.

Is there a way out? The three temptations of Christ correspond to our the temptations we will experience in a life of faith. Though Christ is our example and strength, He calls us to emulate his actions—not in a literal-physical way, but a literal-spiritual way. For example: where Christ could go without food for 40 days, not all of us could. But if we have some attachment, some habit, or something that keeps us from God we are asked, as best as we are able, to give it up for these 40 days of Lent. Perhaps when Lent ends we continue the discipline we formed for ourselves.

Next time we shall look at the three temptations the devil presented to Jesus, what they mean, how Jesus overcame them, and the lesson we can learn from it.

Did We Miss Something?

Reflection on Sunday's Readings (01/27/2013) Link

Ezra told the people “Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the Lord must be your strength!” The people before Ezra had been scattered and abandoned for a time, but they had been reunited. Their heritage had been lost and their home was in ruins. Now, all of a sudden, they were back together and their greatest treasure, the law of the Lord, was being taught to them again. The people, filled with emotion, began to weep—perhaps they wept at what they had lost. Perhaps they wept because forsaking the law cost them their home. Whatever the reason Ezra and the other leaders urged them to eat good food and drink sweet drinks. Here we see that returning the word of God brought joy, but also sadness, to those who were present.

The Psalm today states that the law of the Lord “refreshes the soul” but the leaders of the people in the Old Testament needed to urge everyone to refresh themselves. Nehemiah and Ezra asked them to 'party', so to speak, in order feel the joy that they should be feeling. It's odd advice to tell someone to “be happy” after they've cried—have they just missed something?

We may also notice that the crowd gathered at the synagogue in today's Gospel reacted in a peculiar way. Luke recounts that Jesus was praised for his power and teaching. He stood up among those present and read from the prophet Isaiah where he proclaimed that this was a “year acceptable to our Lord," greater than the holy 'day' proclaimed by Ezra. As he sat back down everyone else sat in stunned silence. They maybe thought to themselves at the moment—“did we just miss something?” Jesus satisfies their curiosity by saying “this passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Both of the stories today continue beyond this point, but it's worth pointing out why we've decided to stop at these particular points in both. The Old Testament shows the fulfillment of the prophets: the people have returned to Jerusalem. The New Testament proclaims fulfillment from God to those who need Him most. 

These accounts both present the fulfillment of a message and a reason to be happy, yet both groups present are not happy. 

It is strange that neither of these groups are particularly happy. The Jews longed in their heart for the word of God. Scripture says that it was explained to them plainly. When they heard it, they wept. The children of Israel waited for a savior, one who would lift the burden from the oppressed. When they saw Him, they remained silent. It's not unlike us nearing the end of a good book and we don't want to finish because it would mean leaving that world. It seems that when their aspirations and innermost hopes were manifested before their eyes they acted as if they were looking for something else.

Some people have said that the 'journey is better than the destination,' but while the journey is necessary the destination is the reason for that journey. Scripture today relates to us that when our senses come into contact with God we hardly believe it—sometimes because it's too good to be true, as with the Old Testament, and so we doubt; other times it's too true to be real, as with Christ, and so we brush it off. Is the same true with the Eucharist? Has God really visited his people in simple bread and common wine?

Jesus coming into our life should be an occasion for happiness precisely because he comes to us in the smallest of things. It stands to reason that he comes to us in a great number of things beyond it. If we deny Christ who is present before our eyes, who are we looking for instead—what are we looking for? There are those who suffer here in each of our communities and those who struggle right in front of us. They are the people who are urged to be most happy because God is with them. They are looking for God in the smallest of things. Do you think they would doubt or fail to recognize Him when they saw Him, even if it was through you?

Those who consider themselves fulfilled know they really aren't, but they look for that one perfect thing to complete them. Those who are starved are thankful with the smallest amount. 

Scripture is perhaps telling us to be hungry. But then it tells us to eat rich foods and drink sweet drinks. What fulfills us is here to be experienced: the consolation of the poor, the joy of those who mourn, and Christ fully present. We must believe that this is true and that this will make us happy, otherwise we'll always be looking for something else. Don't miss it.