"What is bad they will throw away"

[Originally a homily for 7/30/2015--I hope to have an audio version of this up soon, as an experiment working with audio on this site]

Most of us have had this experience of going to a grocery store or fruit stand, wanting to buy something. We look at, for example, and apple. It has an attractive exterior and so we go over and pick it up, hold it in our hands, and rotate it. After all, we want to make sure we don't waste our twenty hard-earned cents.

But then, all of a sudden, we feel a soft spot or we notice an imperfection of some sort. So we throw it back on the pile and never look at it again or think of it again.

This is the same image Jesus offers as when he speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven, and in this particular example, we are the apples. At the end of the age God will come by and look at all of us--people in these pews like apples on a rack. From the outside we dress ourselves nicely in business suits, beautiful dresses, habits, chasubles, or clerical shirts. Yet all God has to do is pick us up, run his hand over us, and rotate us, and he'll be able to feel all the imperfections. Then He will decide whether or not He wants to spend His hard-earned twenty cents.

So what are we to do? We look to ourselves and how critical we are of minor imperfections on fruits and vegetables. If God is the same, how can anyone be saved?

Unlike the apple, I would argue that we do have some say in the matter. God has taught us how to be acceptable in His eyes. We can clothe ourselves with fancy things or dress our image with pious words, but it is better than we put the armor of faith (cf., Eph 6:11) and our Lord, Jesus Christ (cf., Rom 13:14). By this I mean we must put on a pious inner conviction. It is my view that we do this by heeding the first words out of Christ's mouth in the Gospel of Mark: "Repent, and believe in the gospel" (Mk 1:15).

It is by putting on a spirit of repentance that we cleanse ourselves of imperfection, asking God always to forgive us our sins and faults. Likewise, we must put on faith in the saving work of Christ, giving thanks to Him always for His goodness.

Humbled by repentance and inspired to love by His goodness, we likewise go out, ready to forgive the faults of others and call them to a better and higher way of life by our words and deeds. In doing so, for "love covers a multitude of sins," (1 Pet 4:8), we may hope with a Christian hope that God, at the end of the age, will walk by and see us. He will hold us in His hand, feel us, and rotate us. He will find that we are good and take us home with him.

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.

Jesus Expelled

[This was composed as a homily for Feb. 15, 2015, and modified for a written format. The Gospel is shown below for context and ease of reference]

So he went into their synagogues, preaching and driving out demons throughout the whole of Galilee. A leper came to him (and kneeling down) begged him and said, "If you wish, you can make me clean." Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said to him, "I do will it. Be made clean." The leprosy left him immediately, and he was made clean.

Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once. Then he said to him, "See that you tell no one anything, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed; that will be proof for them."The man went away and began to publicize the whole matter. He spread the report abroad so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly. He remained outside in deserted places, and people kept coming to him from everywhere. (Mk 1:40-45)

In the readings this week we may consider the primary themes that of 'expulsion' and 're-entry.' A man, in Leviticus, when he was declared unclean by the priest or by the community was expelled for the safety of the whole. He had to cry out “Unclean!” to warn others of his passing and live outside the community of believers.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus cleanses a leper who comes to him. He says with heartfelt sincerity, “If you will it, you can make me clean.” Jesus, pitying the man, expresses his divine power and says, “I do will it. Be made clean.” But our Lord also gives him a command: Tell no one. Go to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses provides. Jesus is allowing this man to reenter the community and to join himself fully to the people of God.

Yet the cleansed man disobeys Jesus. We are not sure, but the evidence that the Gospel provides suggests that he did not go to the priest and instead he told everybody of the affair. At first glance, this man would seem to be doing Jesus a favor: he is proclaiming the power of God to the people and others, in turn, flock to him!

But in disobeying Jesus, this man effectively expelled Jesus from that same community he came to serve. The Gospel tells us that Jesus remained in a deserted place. Everyone “came to him from everywhere.”

Initially we may admire those in the Gospel who go to Jesus and seek him out, but the Gospel is framed in a way to make us pause and reflect on the truth it teaches.

Jesus wants to enter the community of believers but, along the way is stopped by a man seeking his mercy and his healing. We too go to mass, receive the sacraments, and seek Jesus in good faith; this I believe. Yet a multitude rush to Jesus when one receives what he desired. In our own hearts we have many competing desires, wants, and pains. While we recognize our need for Jesus, when all of these things in our heart rush to Jesus at once they may indeed be healed, but it also leaves Jesus outside of us.

Jesus wants to enter into our communities, our families, and our hearts. When we go to Jesus with our wants and needs we are, in a sense, in control. When we allow Christ to come to us we allow Him to be in control and to heal what he needs to heal at the core of our being. Our core wound is our separation from the perfect love of God.

Of course we should pray for healing and help, but when we get better or when we weather a storm, how often do we find ourselves returning to the same old sin, the same old habits, and the same old wounds over and over again? Sometimes going to Jesus isn't enough, and it isn't what will actually heal us. We need to allow Jesus to come to us and we need to receive Jesus on his terms.

This is difficult because Jesus may comfort us or he may challenge us. Many of us are in the habit of asking, but few reflect on the act of receiving His love and His grace, which he bestows readily and freely.

How, then, are we to allow Jesus to enter into our community, our homes, and our hearts? It begins, first, with prayer. Getting away for a moment and praying for ourselves, not just for our wants but for something far more important: His mercy. Jesus came to express the power of God, yes, but the power of God is expressed most profoundly in his love and mercy. Prayer prepares our hearts to seek and receive the Lord. Thus silence is also essential to receiving Jesus.

Moreover reading the Scriptures openly and prayerfully helps us to receive God. In reading Scripture without agenda or expectation of one, certain revelation we allow the word of God to speak to us. Scripture speaks to us where we are in our lives and, I guarantee to you, it also reveals to us what we need to hear—whether it is consoling, rebuking, or challenging.

Among other things are spiritual directors, the sacraments, the teachings of the Church—all given to us to allow us to meet Jesus according to His desires and not on our own terms. While some directions, some sacraments, and some teachings may seem contrary to us they work more deeply in that they teach us to be humble and they teach us to reflect on what we truly desire: the desire behind all desires. Namely, the One and True God who desires that we be one with Him as the Father and Son are one.

This day do not expel Jesus from your hearts, but hear His voice, do as He commands, and wait for Him. He will enter the homes of all who prepare a place for him.

Redemptive Suffering

The fear of suffering, pain, and death seem like unconquerable mysteries. My time here at CPE has helped me to understand, via experience, that they are not necessarily things that need to be conquered. No amount of faith excludes us from experience pain, loneliness, and death. Money, power, and other earthly things makes these three experiences even worse. With this in mind, I began to wonder if the words of Qoheleth were not as negative as they appear: “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Ecc 1:2). Earthly things will pass which also means these things, both good and bad, will pass. Yet this does not ease the blow of the mystery of suffering and death. Even if they pass away they still remain with us our whole lives.

For me, this mystery is one that is only solved by the Cross. The cross is, for me, the foundation of my theology the ministry I do. The cross is the Incarnational moment where love and suffering meet. Love because “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16b) and suffering because the human condition is deeply affected by sin and death (Gen 3:16ff). Christ took upon himself the entirety of our human condition. While this expressed itself in his person I believe it was brought to completion by his sacrifice. It was only in his death that he was able to “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20).

How does this inform my theology? First, if Christ chose to take on all of humanity he also took on pain, loneliness, and death in all completeness. He did not run from them but endured them and experienced them to the full. Thus any ministry inspired by Christ must be a ministry willing to encounter and experience all of the human condition. Secondly, did not Christ through His actions reconcile all things to himself? If this is the case he also reconciled what is lowly and base to our human existence. Thus in ministry encountering what is base, disgusting, and disturbing is an opportunity to encounter Christ in the same capacity as that which is lofty, beautiful, and joyful. There is no discrimination in what Christ assumed in our humanity. He became like us in all things but sin (cf. Heb 4:15).¹

As such, in my mind and in my ministry I attempt to approach a Catholic theology of suffering. The primary way is the Catholic view of suffering or, more specifically, redemptive suffering. What do I mean by redemptive suffering? Only this: that our suffering when united to Christ shares in his mission of salvation. How is this so? Christ is married to the Church as his spouse and the “two [have] become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Moreover “no man hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body” (Eph 5:29-30, cf. Eph 5). We are by virtue of our baptism joined to Christ and the Church. We are joined to the body of Christ such that we are one with him. “This is a great mystery” (Eph 5:32). Yet Scripture proclaims that as Saul persecuted the "disciples of the Way" Christ himself said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? … I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:4, 5). Lastly, Paul himself says, “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete² what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24).

Christ entrusted his disciples with his Spirit to carry out his mission of salvation to the whole world and to all ages. The Church was established as his bride and He himself is the head of the body. We are extensions of his body. We share in the sufferings of those to whom we minister (and we ourselves also suffer). Christ identifies with us, especially with those who suffer (cf. Mt 25:40), should we not also identify with Him in turn? Christ assumed humanity so as to redeem it, thus with confidence I say he also redeemed suffering. The suffering we experience can be joined to Christ who even after the Resurrection complained to Saul that He himself was being persecuted. Christ's suffering continues in His Body, the Church, because we live in a world redeemed but not yet saved.³ We too, in joining our sufferings to Christ, suffer for the sake of His Body (cf. Col 1:24). And indeed “he did this once for all when he offered himself” (Heb 7:27b). Thus we too “must present ourselves as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1). This means that the suffering I experience in myself and others can be effective in Christ's saving work for the one who suffers (and even myself). When I share in the suffering of another I attempt to share in the suffering of both Christ and the individual.

1“For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning.”

2In Greek the verb “antanapleiro” also has the sense of “filling up” or “making full.”

3For while this present age is passing away (1 Cor 7:31) it is still in the process of doing so. We await the “glory to be revealed in us” (Rom 8:18).

++

In a special way keep Grace Oliver, 23, in your prayers as she battles cancer in the face of a very difficult diagnosis. While my words may express a cognative struggle with this issue, my words are shadows compared her words in the face of suffering and death. Please pray for her and please read what she has to write: Grace Oliver and Dumb Cancer

Hobby Lobby: Issues at Hand

The popularized conception of the Hobby Lobby case is that it's about contraception and, to a lesser extent, how big corporations are oppressing our women/pushing their antiquated beliefs on them. I hope to reflect a bit on the first and indirectly about the second.

There is a difference between medicines which are contraceptive as a side effect and those things which are contraceptive as for the sake of a lifestyle or sexual choice. Childbirth, and impregnation, are results of sex and thus natural, i.e., part of the natural process and natural conclusion of a natural act. Those things which impede the natural process as a side effect for the sake of a medical benefit are not the issue. Despite moral objections others or I may have to the actual reason for their use we cannot assume in any way that their use is intended for a moral evil. There do exist alternatives, of course, but at that point we can only suggest them.

One issue emerges, however, from paying for contraception not as a health issue but as a lifestyle choice. One example is that someone is likely to take contraception to impede natural processes if they desire to be sexually active. This sexual activity is not necessary for their health or well-being, however much it may (or may not) contribute to, enhance, or supplement their physical and emotional health. Indeed, increased sexual activity may also increase the risk of diminishing one's health. Regardless, this vision of health is not based on necessity but choice, and I think in these instances employers have reason to take issue. Furthermore, contraception that induces abortions, i.e., those contraceptives that disable the fertilized egg from implanting itself on the uterine wall is, according to others and my consciences, terminating a life.

There are strong cases that can be made scientifically that that fertilized egg is a human life, even if it does not have the capacity for action that a fully developed man has. Many argue that pregnancy begins at the moment the zygote is implanted, and that human life likewise begins here. This is based on other scientific reasoning, perhaps, but it is additionally based on popular beliefs that this life is worth “less” than the mother or that the fertilized egg is just “a mass of cells” as opposed to a human being.

No one is forcing anyone to believe one or the other is true by this ruling, but it is forcing those who want these abortofacients that we do not share this definition that they have, even if the phenomena of the fertilized egg occurs in the woman who believes it is not a human life.

Sadly, to us, she may still choose to abort this child. At the very least we who hold very strongly that this zygote is a human life in no way desire to participate formally (by consent) or materially (by providing proximate or satellite means) in that termination of life. This particular ruling with Hobby Lobby confirms this belief.

This being said, matters are not always as clear as they appear, even after bringing about better distinctions about what this case is and is not about.

This ruling, then, is not about denying a woman's health. I also believe that there has been for some time and that there should be a more public discussion about what dissenters of this ruling define “health” as, especially how they describe purely contraceptive/abortofacient means as “health”—I can only see them defining contraceptives as a form of preventative health, which to me is a curious evaluation of health (the term) anyhow.

Likewise, I think the great disagreements over this case, often encapsulated by the popular phrase “Keep my boss out of my bedroom,” also strikes at the heart of the public practice-private beliefs issue. In short, our private beliefs inform our public practices. To claim that they could ever be truly separate is at worst a lie and at best a delusion. Any discussion of justice or rights comes from living together and discovering which values are best for the common good and not which values merely allow each to have what he wants—this perhaps is a biggest disagreement and is an answer that has yet to be found, ever. This claim, however, strikes at the heart of the matter. Where we would like to construct a value system that gave us what we wanted, our values may inevitably conflict with the beliefs and values of others.

We could, as some have tried, to struggle so that our values are so valueless that each gets what he wants. Human beings, however, do not regard beliefs as valueless. Even the desire as some to find the perfect value-neutral rules hold these rules as having supreme legal, personal, or rational value. Ultimately, if the Hobby Lobby case has taught us anything, is that we as men and women living together in society can not escape a serious discussion about values. Public policy and the common good don't make sense otherwise.

 +++

I would also highly recommend this article by Joe Heschmeyer for a more legal-philosophical analysis of the matter. 

Good for its own Sake?

I'm not sure why this came to my mind I was praying Daytime prayer and this line struck me:

Come children and hear
me that I may teach you fear of the Lord.
Who is he who longs for life
and many days, to enjoy prosperity?

Then keep your tongue from evil
and your lips from speaking deceit.
Turn aside from evil and do good
seek and strive after peace.

The Lord turns his face against the wicked
to destroy their remembrance from the earth.
The Lord turn his eyes to the just
and his ears to their appeal. (Ps 34: 12-18, Breviary)

I was struck because I recall a number of conversations I have concerning goodness. Whether it's on the topic of gay marriage, ethical living, a good life, and so forth I get comments ranging from "I don't know if you noticed, but people are very happy without God" (literal comment) and the more understandable "You don't need to believe in God to be a good person."

I'll let it slide that I already believe they're good by virtue of their being created and existing. Those who live according to justice, mercy, and charity are even better for they show their faith by their works. The psalm says, after all, "turn aside from evil and do good." The psalmist has spoken that in order for a long life and prosperity one must do the good. The Bible never shies away from telling us to do good. Note that many days is a long life. The psalmist, however, tells us whoever longs for life itself--the first in the list of life--must do good. Length and prosperity are secondary to life itself which is precisely a life spent doing the good.

It's no wonder that atheists and non-believers of many sorts are happy when they do good. That's the very essence, if you will, to life itself.

The difference here is that the whole of this phrase begins with fear of the Lord. Scriptures say that it is the beginning of wisdom. Fear can take on many forms too. Some fear punishment and do good out of fear. Others do good out of recognition of what is good, loving it because it is life-giving. Some believe that those who believe in God only do the former and those who don't believe only do the latter!

This is the section of Psalm 34 that brought me around to this reflection:

If men who believe in God sin they are doing what is wicked and deprive themselves of life. This is also a choice, but they choose sins because they are advantageous, opportune, or pleasurable despite the risks and (at times) the costs. We who sin do what seems good (or even evil) at the cost of what is truly good. How does the non-believer also not succumb to such temptation of doing what isn't good in favor of his own good? The answer is that he succumbs like all the rest of us; he is not special and we are not special either.

If one were to take the mention of God out of the phrase above it would seem like a normal thing to say: the one who desires a long and happy life should do good and avoid evil. Yet those who truly know themselves know how often their will rebels against their reason--desire trumps reason far too many times.

This is why Sirach says "The knowledge of wickedness is not wisdom, nor is there prudence in the council of sinners. ... there are those with little understanding who fear God, and those of great intelligence who violate the law" (Sir 19:18, 20).

Knowing the good is also not a love of the good and one who says he will simply love the good for its own sake knows in his heart if he speaks the truth or if he is a liar. "There is a shrewdness keen but dishonest, which by duplicity wins a judgment" (19:21).

Some, atheist and Christian, are more disciplined than me but few men will always love the good. Those who believe in God make an appeal to Christ for the helplessness of our dilemma but I do not know what appeal an atheist can make other than that of his own will. We have a tendency in general to glorify the will. The will is important in choosing the good but we are sorely mistaken if we think knowing what is good will make us choose it.

The Psalmist rightly recognizes this. He says that all of wisdom and a good life must come from a fear of the Lord, that is (1) a recognition of His supreme goodness, (2) a recognition that He will, in the end, enforce that Law, namely that goodness and righteousness will endure and wickedness and injustice fall away, and (3) it is He who calls us to do what is good.

(3) is so very important. Goodness as an idea is a concept, one to be apprehended and used. But God is a person and so goodness itself is a personal relationship--it is something experienced and grown. No one apprehends a person by simply knowing him but by being in a relationship, a loving one, with the other. Sin is betrayal. In fact it's labeled as infidelity in marriage.

Those who say they will do good for its own sake may do good for the sake of someone else (society, human beings in need, loved ones) but I do not think the phrase is accurate: "I do good for its own sake." No, they do good for the sake of something else.

It's still good, but it's not a relationship with good, merely knowledge. And the Christian who sins acts against both person and knowledge, something far worse.

An idea can be forgotten and remembered, but little changes.
A person may hurt another but there is great power in reconciliation. There's a great growth of love in forgiveness.

Marriage as Status

When marriage is viewed as a sacrament, the one who affirms gay marriage is simply wrong. But this is because the sacrament is clearly (or to some, narrowly) defined. There are those who do not recognize the sacred, however, and there are those who see no value the vocabulary of sacrament. That's fair, and it's also the world/culture we happen to live in. It requires those of us to who see it as both religious and social to further reflect on what we mean by marriage in the social sphere.

Marriage as a legal concept is a status, and since many have condemned and pushed aside any religion—perhaps justly or unjustly—their main thrust in the arguments surrounding this situation is equal status among heterosexuals. It's not so much that I feel homo- and heterosexuals do not have equal status in the United States insofar as I think good strides have been made to reaffirm that homosexuals (all persons for that matter) are, in fact, human beings and treating them with dignity and respect is a right. Those who don't, for “religious reasons,” do so at the peril of their souls— those who bully, mistreat, attack others, and marginalize people do violence to their brothers and sisters. They deface the very image of God. But there is also a difference, let's be clear, between arguing for marriage and against gay marriage as opposed to doing violence to someone (spiritual, psychological, physical, or otherwise).

Marriage as a foundation for a natural, nuclear family is something based on natural potential. Marriage is a status only insofar as it affirms this natural union—both social and sexual. Hence saying “marriage is between a man and a woman” describes a relationship, but that it is also a relationship for a purpose. The status that attends this relationship also indicates publicly what the couple is supposed to be in private.

Marriage, however, is being redefined as a “relationship between persons.” Is it two? Is it more? The language is by design ambiguous or, at the very least, one cannot truly defend any sort of clarity. One may say “a consensual relationship between persons” implies adults, but does it? Does the moment of consent imply a lifetime, or is the duration of consent the contract itself?—once I no longer consent to being in a relationship is the marriage hereby dissolved? Law is silent on this issue and divorce solves this dilemma, clearly.

Nevertheless, “a relationship between persons” is descriptive of an event. The potentiality of marriage in this instance (i.e., that plateau one could reach) points to a social status. Legal aspects come into play (e.g., finances, visiting privileges, etc.) but the prospect of family makes this even more difficult.

Many homosexuals no doubt desire the stability of what marriage offers for their lives and for the sake of raising their own family. A woman or man's desire for progeny likely exists in some equal fashion for homosexuals as it does heterosexuals despite the easily recognized fact that a child requires a sperm and ovum. In these relationships adoption or some form of in vitro fertilization is necessary—already it adds third parties to the process of having a family in the first place. One can perhaps only guess the difficult legal battles that might lie ahead. Regardless of this aspect marriage opens up a whole new set of questions regarding family, custody, and child-rearing.

People are generally swayed by the very emotionally-convincing speeches given by children or young-adults who speak before politicians or debates extolling the good life they have with two mothers or fathers. This is, for them, some proof that there is simply no difference between one's situation growing up. In the case of homosexual families it seems as if lesbians have an easier route—they can be inseminated and develop the child in their own womb. For men, however, neither of them can easily be involved in the process.

Yet it is also odd for me to hear the common reply that whether from gay or straight households the child can grow up healthy. I certainly suppose that the child can grow up healthy, but we simultaneously hear (especially on the radio here in Chicago) of the importance of the father's positive role in a child's life. The government website on the well-being of children likewise indicates this fact (Child Welfare). So we hear both that “it doesn't matter” and that “it matters.”

I suspect that many will begin arguing that these facts are, in the end, simply an assumption about what perspective we want children to grow up with (that is, with their natural mother and father).

Those of us who believe in God often get run out of the argument for allegedly forcing God into this argument, but I think we have real points in the argument of gay marriage on legal grounds (what will it look like when expanded upon?) and family grounds (children growing up with parents).

Objectors may bring into light the fact that there are deceased parents, deadbeat fathers, drunk mothers, etc. as an indication that heterosexual marriage isn't all beautiful and perfect—a valid point. But in this argument it ceases to be valid when it takes the weak example of marriage and compares it to a normal or strong example of gay marriage. It becomes a false comparison and simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a way marriage and family should be. If there were 20 toys, but 19 were broken, would we reassess how the toy actually functions because the data tells us that 19 are simply broken after all. Rather, wouldn't we judge the 19 by the 1 that actually did work as it was intended? So too with marriage in arguments like this—we cannot judge what is less than right and proper as normative.

There are many other situations that I would like to treat but require greater space: impotent couples, couples that do not want children, couples that do not value marriage (though they are married), among others. Many advocates of gay marriage that I've come across are only concerned with the legitimacy of their own definition and that their views on marriage are protected and sanctioned by the law. Many others, however, realize that many different ideas of marriage cannot simply be reduced to every last person thinking marriage is something different. Everyone would do well to distinguish particular expressions of marriage (which are as numerous as people, e.g., Hindi, Muslim, Christian, secular, etc.) and the purpose of marriage (something that is far more unified among a great number of peoples).

Is marriage something that demands equal status? In the case of gay marriage and marriage I answer no. This comes with the caveat, however, that civil marriage as it stands has no standard by which it says this or that person should get married. In the legal world marriage is simply the desire of two individuals and they are then bound legally to one another. There is very little “quality control” (so to speak) nor is there counseling that goes into determining whether or not a couple are prepared emotionally and relationally for marriage. This is a weakness of our system.

The benefit of the religious conception of marriage, alongside its insistence on it being sacred and for the family, is that there is certain counseling and guidance along the way that helps couples understand the conflicts that arise from living together and raising a family. It is a system with weaknesses, to be sure, but one that often produces more stable marriages. That it urges self-sacrifice that mirrors Christ on the cross while also emphasizing that their union mirrors the love of the Trinity is itself something of great importance.

Marriage, when used as a status, often leads people to say that their love is now validated, but marriage viewed in this way seems less about the triumph of love and more about the triumph of how one wants the world to view them. The desire of many is to be treated equally under the law but this desire extends beyond equal treatment. The argument is that “My view of marriage is equally as valid as yours and thus it deserves to be protected by law” but this argument only has legs when marriage is reduced to a piece of paper. Marriage reduced to a status produces this argument. One ought to look, rather, at what he means by marriage and not what he wants to get out of it. In this manner I feel more fruitful dialog can begin.

Similarly, I personally would care less about my view or “opinion” on marriage because I don't raise my opinion to the level of belief on matters social and sacramental (should you see it that way). I trust rather in what I've been given by my Tradition on the one hand while also applying what I've been given with reason and experience. Does everyone's opinion carry the force of “belief”? I don't think so—but such is the way many people see it.

Medical Ethics: An Absent Church, God

With the advent of possible military action in Syria as well as a number of other issues, the HHS mandate and the controversy surrounding it has shifted to the background. As we began our medical ethics class I recalled the words of Cardinal George (Chicago) where he said,

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? ...  A faithful ministry must choose between selling itself to a non-Catholic group, paying “exorbitant annual fines” until going bankrupt, breaking its ties to the Church’s “moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop,” or closing down. ...

[Its] long-term effect is that the Catholic Church will be stripped of the institutions that are her instruments for public service. ...

This is the first time in the history of the United States that a presidential administration has purposely tried to interfere in the internal working of the Catholic Church, playing one group off against another for political gain. (courtesy of Lifesite news, Feb 2012)

He also said,

What is touted as “progressive” turns out to be the sinful ways that the Church first confronted publicly two thousand years ago. At the present moment, Catholics in this country are facing challenges to our institutional existence and our mission that we thought would never arise here. Real personal liberty is possible interiorly, but it is less than authentic if public liberty is curtailed more than is necessary for the common good. (Changes on the Horizon)

LifesiteNews.com also wrote that Cardinal George, "urged people to purchase a copy of the Archdiocesan directory “as a souvenir,” pointing to the page containing a list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions. ... “Two Lents from now [2014], unless something changes, that page will be blank.”

Certainly a living voice in the Church today.

The Church will stand against such injustice to the point that she may very well disappear. It may very well fade from public life. It could fade from private life too. Out of sight, out of mind. We have, however, a precedent about this type of situation in Scripture. God remains silent or, rather, his wrath is meted out by the self-destructive tendencies we adopt for ourselves.


"Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the fatherless, and the widows cause does not come to them" (Is 1:23).

Politicians "evolve" their notions of what is right and just at seemingly opportune times. Those who claim success are not warriors of justice or right but the tools and objects of ambition. Given a false sense of worth, they find themselves to be right because they are endorsed. "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horseman ... [he will take much from you] and in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you on that day" (1 Sam 8: 11, 18).

Some Catholic hospitals have caved in to such pressures, seeking to procure honor for being "understanding" to the demands of abortion, contraception, and the like. In order to continue their work they compromise the vision and purity of the Church for the sake of honor--and Catholicism slowly disappears from the world.

Similar to God, the Church grows silent in a place that abandons her. In those places we push God out of our lives, it's no wonder He's become silent, we don't bother to listen. Some will rejoice in the absence of God in public, but they too will no longer rejoice when they become old and marginal. They will sooner seek death and destruction before they accept that they were wrong. They will sooner find death in the world they built. Those who judge the world according to usefulness will soon become useless in the eyes of that world. "Evil will kill the wicked" (Ps 34:22a).


What are we to do then, those who seek to remain faithful? We cannot be silent, nor should we allow evil to prosper even though it may very well prosper. The gospel message carries with it power. It can convert hearts to those who listen, but we need those willing to speak it. The absence of God would seem to be unjust to those oppressed, but "near is the Lord to the broken-hearted" (Ps 34:19a). The injustice lies with those who wanted their own way and pushed God aside.

The Church absent in the world is like God being absent in the world. Jesus founded the Church to be an extension of His saving mission. We all share in His mission because of Him and because we have become a part of Him through baptism.

Benedict XVI says in Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) that the "deepest nature of the Church is expressed in three-fold responsibility: proclaiming the word of God, celebrating the sacraments, and exercising the ministry of charity" (sec. 25).

The HHS mandate jeopardizes the first and the third essential aspect of the Church: public witness and exercising charity in a Catholic-Christian manner. In this sense the celebration of the sacraments is diminished because our witness to the Gospel is subdued.

The power of prayer must not be underestimated. Pray for peace in the Middle East and pray for justice in the United States.

St. Basil the Great (330-379 AD) quotes Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." He says, "By our creation we [share in God's image], and by our free will we [share in His likeness" (On the Human Condition, sec. 16). All humanity shares in the image of God by being a rational creature. We only share in God's likeness when we endeavor to act like Him, to act like His Son: a concern for the poor, a commitment to prayer, fidelity to the Father, and loving what is good. When we do this in our own lives we dispel the mist that is so much modern thinking.

Rather, what we face is not "modern" at all. It is prideful thinking, something else that is ever-ancient and ever-new. Redefining health, life, and marriage among other things have their consequences. As we are all human we will share in these consequences, but we do not need to share in the guilt. If we give no warning, if we do not stand up for what is right, and persuade others from what is wrong with courage and gentleness we will be held just as accountable as those who commit various evils (cf. Ez 3:16-21).

"Do not grow weary of doing what is right, brothers" (Gal 6:9).

It's Easy to Blame Someone Else

I am not necessarily a disciplined person. When I set out to do one task I get distracted by the thought of 100 others. I worry about time management, am at times anxious about the future, and at other times prefer to do what I want instead of doing what I need to do.


Recently in the news Heisman trophy winner Johnny Manziel apologized for missing a meeting. He eventually was asked to leave a football camp he was asked to help at. He claims that his alarm didn't go off while others were wondering if the 20 year old was out drinking or something else. Whatever the truth may be his comments were more revealing. He was a young man thrust into the spotlight because of his abilities and seemingly annoyed that such a big fuss was being made over what seems like a small event to him (there were, of course, other events surrounding this).

He commented that he's "just 20 years old" and that he's "going to live his life to the fullest." He said he apologized to one of his coaches for, basically, 'everyone else making a big deal about it.'

I never got the sense the apology was entirely sincere or self-referential. He wasn't particularly sorry about missing the meeting. He was more sorry everyone had to notice.

He said what he said was because of outside pressure. This came to mind because today I wondered about how I say "I'm sorry" when I make a mistake. Do I blame my circumstances? How busy I am? Do I say, "I'll just make mistakes"?



In spiritual direction I've talked about how I'm trying to listen to my conscience more. Rather, I find that I can hear it compelling me to this or that and yet, all the same, I choose to ignore it because "I'm busy" or some other excuse.

Over the past few months, maybe even a year, there have been periods in my life where I don't feel God's presence, or I get bogged down with worries about the future. These worries keep me from prayer. I would go to spiritual direction or try and figure things out and it would seem nothing was working.

I began to question. I said, "I probably need a new spiritual director," or "If only I had more time," and other times, "If only I didn't let myself get more distracted."

All of these were fancy ways of rationalizing to myself why I didn't pray. I realized that perhaps God isn't far from me because He'll let me sort myself out. Perhaps He's farther away because I'm not going to Him.


It's very simple, really. It's just difficult to execute because in the process we have to accuse ourselves.

I notice often that there are times when I'm going about the tedium of my day and right in the middle of my heart there's a voice that says, "You should pray." Many times it forces me to stop right there. On days where I am stronger, more courageous, I respond. I stop idling and pray--and often times I come across something profitable and useful. Other times I shake my head and continue about as normal--I was too busy, no doubt.


I think the same is true for all of us:

"I don't get anything out of the mass."
"I have too much going on."
"I just pray differently, you know?"
"It doesn't fulfill me."
"I could be doing something else."


When our heart tells us it's time to do something we should, naturally, reflect on it. Plenty of people act on impulse and do stupid or wicked things.  We can feel compelled to eat, to go out and drink, to have sex, to sleep, or any other sort of bodily pleasure. People follow them to relax. Many people follow them to escape. Yet the impulse to prayer is one that's harder to explain away.

Prayer costs nothing and forces us to look at ourselves deeply. What do we really want? What do we really need? Are we who we ought to be?

All of us have a conscience, inspired by grace, to lead us to God. When we come to recognize what's right that's one battle. Doing it, on the other hand, that's the war.

Pray for me, and pray for all of us, that we listen to the voice of God constantly speaking to the deepest corners of our heart. Pray even more that we act upon those words.

Reaction to Pope Francis on Redemption, Salvation

Seeing all these posts about Pope Francis' comments on redemption, and then the follow-up posts/reporting from various sources (atheist, Christian, Catholic, etc.), some thoughts came to mind:


A) I enjoy quotes like, "For a brief moment there it was possible to imagine a brave new world of compassion, generosity and acceptance, not qualities we have come to associate with the Holy See" (IrishCentral) wherein when the Church says things I like, they are good. When they say things I don't like, 'they're so misguided/stupid/bigoted/etc.'

This article's view on infallibility is also telling of what they understand of Catholicism. How far this daughter of the Church has fallen.


B) It seems like all Christians have been made afraid to consider hell, or in other cases we ourselves don't even want to consider it.


C) People consider themselves 'good,' and then I wonder by what standard they judge themselves. Not killing, not murdering, generally not being an asshole? I recall when I was a boy and did something I was told. I asked for a reward afterward and the Sister told me, "You don't get a reward for doing what you're supposed to do."

'But I thought,' some may say, 'being a good person is what really matters?'

I don't disagree, but then again there's a difference between a meal that satisfies hunger and is soon forgotten and a meal that is "good," don't you think? There are many who do good when it suits them, no matter who, and so can we say that satisfying 'good' is a merit to that person?


D) Many reflect on the truths of redemption and salvation with little mind for the whole picture surrounding them. On the one hand, "A tree is known by its fruit" would suggest that one is judged according to his deeds. In fact, "God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Ecc 12:13). Furthermore, "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done" (Rev 22:12).

This would seem to me that all men, regardless of creed (even those with only a human creed) are judged according to their deeds. The man of faith who sins is subject to a hotter fire than the non-believer. Those who believe ought to be wary since it says, "Do not say "His mercy is great, he will forgive the multitude of my sins," for both mercy and wrath are with him, and his anger rests on sinners" (Sir 5:6). All men, regardless of what they believe, are sinners in need of prayer--myself included: "remember, we all deserve punishment" (8:5).

Those who live according to the natural law live according to God, no matter who believes. Grace is with nature and grace "builds upon nature." All have grace by virtue of being, all do not respond to grace and thus grow in it.


On the other hand, what then is the purpose of faith, the role of faith? Unbelief is for those who believe and do not believe. What do I mean?

Those who believe and yet do not believe for it says of them "an evil, unbelieving heart, [leads] you away from the living God" (Heb 3:12) and that "For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end, while it is said "Today when you heard his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion" ... to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but those who were disobedient?" (3:14-15, 18).

For those who do not believe it is not only pride on their part. In many cases it is wickedness on our part. Have we been quick to anger? Quick to ridicule? Quick to hate? Then you and I have made the narrow gate narrower and we have not been dutiful watchmen.

Even those who do not believe must humble themselves before God eventually. If they do not practice humility and obedience in this life, they should consider the hope they have for the next. Indeed, "the affliction of the proud has no healing" (Sir 3:28). The same can be said of those who believe.

Those who are good according to their estimation of what is good, or are good at their convenience are sometimes good out of pride, which means their works are good, not them. Doing good requires sacrifice, loss of self, and both humility and obedience to do that good in the face of opposition.

All the same, we may do something that has all these elements, how do we know it's good?


E) Pray for all mankind, for all have been purchased by the Blood of Christ. No one lives according to the sacrifice made for us if those who share most fully don't do it.

Teach Them to Hear His Voice

This was a reflection I gave at all Sunday masses. As part of my training in seminary we are asked to preach, usually at daily masses. We all have one Sunday mass where we preach and are evaluated by both parishioners (selected ahead of time) and the priests. This received good marks, so I hope you find it useful. The readings may be found here, and because of this I didn't cite my quotations.

6th Sunday of Easter

“Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” For some these words represent a hardheadedness or desire of some to control the lives of others. I would rather have you believe that these men had all the right intentions. These were Jewish converts to Christianity and taught that the law of Moses is what leads to Christ. In their minds, having all people follow the law of Moses was not only necessary, but it was the best way to live.

As is the case with so many things in life, what we believe to be the best and proper disposition may in fact be the most burdensome. We devote a great deal of our time to planning and working out many things to our advantage. Dedicating ourselves to our work and providing for ourselves and those we love are important. We say things such as “I want to do my best” and “I want what's best for my children.”

At the same time, in the few quiet moments we're given, have you asked yourself “What does God want for me?”

The Apostles responded to their brothers and to the whole Church: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond [the] necessities [we all share]” (cf. Acts 15:28).

The Apostles give a pronouncement that is sound advice up to this very day: do nothing that impedes the will of the Lord God. My brothers and sisters, while certainly our sins block out the words of Christ in the world, even our good intentions and motives can do the same. Like these men who urged others to follow the Mosaic Law, we also say “When I do this....” or “When he or she does that” then they will be happy.

As parents, allow your children to hear God's voice; teach them to hear His voice. He does not always speak in a thunderclap but many times He speaks in a quiet whisper.

His voice is simple and his call is clear: “Follow me. Take up your cross and follow me.” The cross is not only the struggles we face in life but also the task that he has appointed to each and every one of us.

Parents, teachers, and adults: if you see the qualities of priesthood or religious life in young men acknowledge it, for you may be the voice of God speaking to their hearts. If you see the qualities of religious life in young women, acknowledge it, for they yearn in their hearts to serve God.

All of us, whether married or single, are called to spiritual fatherhood and motherhood. No priest, brother, or sister is without children and the Lord provides abundantly for them.

Therefore, do not be troubled, for Christ says, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you.” The peace and security we promise on our own is a raging storm compared to the tranquility Christ promises. Indeed, “not as the world gives” does Christ give peace to us.

Do not be afraid, troubled or hesitant if a child or someone you know seeks priesthood or religious life. This is a blessing, and there is no greater peace or security than discerning God's will at a young age. God forms each of us during our lives so that we become the person he wants us to be.

There are those who do not listen to His voice. For some, it is because the Word was never spoken. For others, they never listened.

Jesus says in our gospel today, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.”

How can we keep His word, my brothers and sisters, if we do not listen or call others to listen? His word is found here, at the holy mass, and proceeds out to the world from its source, the Eucharist.

But if we keep His word, responding to it little by little, the Father will love us with that same intense love that He loves Christ with for all eternity. In that growing love the Spirit dwells in us—our bodies become a temple.

When we receive the Eucharist we should not only place him in our mouths but also place Him in the tabernacle of our hearts. We then carry a place of repose in us and here we find strength for the task appointed to us. Return to Him and He will speak to you.

The Eucharist is Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Listen to Jesus and let the Word remain in you. As the Psalm says, “So may your way be known upon earth; among all nations, your salvation.” We, everyone gathered here, are called to make His way known to all nations. It begins in our hearts and in our homes, opening them both to Him: “Lord, let your face shine upon us!”

The Early Church II-1: The Martyrs

(This is the extended, written version of a presentation I gave on 4/30/2013. 

This is II-1. If you haven't read "The Early Church I" yet, I would recommend it. All links are at the bottom of this article.)

Prologue

Last time we examined the message of Christianity and how it was presented to both Jew and Gentile. The message of Christ was a message of dignity, divine sonship and daughterhood, and a noble mission, namely the salvation of all in the name of Christ Jesus.

This, however, came with many difficulties. There were many who refused to hear the message. Others simply saw God as one among many appropriating what was profitable to them in the Christian message. Others reacted violently. Of these three, it may seem strange to hear that the second problem, corrupted teaching, was actually the most destructive to the Church. While there were those who were outside the Church who simply selected a few points and incorporated them into their pagan theology there were plenty of Christians who, because of culture, (both abundance and lack of) learning, and zeal, caused a great deal of trouble by their words.

In order to counteract these false teachings and bad influences the Church, beginning with the Apostles, established very quickly a structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in order to preserve and protect the content of the Apostolic faith. The bishop was a direct descendent of the Apostles, a relationship we'll explore later on. It was through the office of the bishop that we became known as “Catholic” and it was only around such a man that the Church was said to be. “Tradition,” likewise, properly understood was not only the words and actions of Christ but also the words and actions of the Apostles and their successors who were given a unique office (cf. Acts 1:20) by Christ (cf. Jn 20:19-23). Peter among the Twelve was given an important ministry and office. The title bishop means “overseer” and Peter was appointed overseer of his brothers. He exercised this authority clearly in Scripture yet, as Christ proclaimed, he did not lord over them (cf. Lk 22:25) but rather acted as a supreme example to his brothers and his flock (cf. 1 Pet 5:5).

Christians were likewise persecuted in waves of varying intensity from the Church's inception at Pentecost until 313 AD, after the persecutions of Diocletian. Christ, however, said it plainly: “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me … whoever loses his life for my sake will save it” (Lk 9:23-24). Peter said his disciples, “Since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same attitude” (1 Pet 4:1) and “Do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening. Rather, rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly” (1 Pet 4:13). Paul says it even more simply, “All who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12).

This brings us to the opening of our discussion: the martyrs. In what manner did their witness to Christ shape the early Christians and the Church? Likewise, what problems did they cause for the Church moving forward?

II-1: The Martyrs

The word martyr literally means “witness” yet that witness is more than proclaiming Christ with our words or good deeds. This is the witness that testifies to Christ crucified in the most concrete way: by giving up one's life in the same manner Christ did. Christ died for love of us, the martyrs died for love of Christ and neighbor—even persecutor.

Death is something that was trivialized in the Roman Empire just as it is today. The delight in the fall of one's enemies, the desire to oppress those who fought but no longer can, to see those whom we hate suffer cruelly for their injustice are all forms of bloodlust. The Romans were desensitized to blood, perhaps more than we are, because their violence was very real and designed, at its worst, to humiliate and break their captives. 

Not to mention entertainment.

Imagine, now, a group of men and women who stood in the face of death proudly. Rather than cowering in fear and succumbing to cruelty they openly proclaimed Christ. They prayed for their enemies and would not let death itself keep them from the One they loved. They acted as if life itself was an obstacle to their ultimate goal and that the threat of death held no sway. To a people soaked in blood and self-centeredness this was a shock to their system. With such a sharp contrast to their way of life two responses resulted: (1) even greater and inflamed hatred or (2) a complete conversion of heart. Very few could stand by indifferent to the example of the martyrs.

Before we examine the martyrs we should keep in mind a few aspects: not every Roman leader hated Christians, nor did every governor or provincial enact laws of persecution—Christians were in many places model citizens, and in many cases Romans sought to dispel a sect or a cult by killing their leaders. There was little effect to killing scores of common men and women. Priests, bishops, deacons, and those admired by the community were sought above the laity (Courtesy of Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom, 222).

Let us examine in sort, then, how the Church viewed martyrdom. While we ourselves can say many nice things about the martyrs it is worthwhile to examine how our Church Fathers and Scripture regarded the power and significance of them. It will help us, in turn, understand how Christians of that period responded to and sought the martyrs.

Justin Martyr, an apologist and martyr of the Church was a well educated man with an extensive knowledge of philosophy. Justin cited one of the reasons for his conversion in his 2^nd Apology: “I was delighted in the teachings of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are counted fearful, [I] saw that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate person, or whoever counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments[?]” (2^nd Apology, sec. 12).

The common conception of Christians at this time (2^nd century) was that they were atheists and cannibals. All manner of slander and myths were circulated about Christians so that they seemed to be enemies to humanity and to the state. For example: Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, said that Christians were “a sect that hates the human race” (Annals 15:44). Yet in the face of hatred many men and women showed love. In the face of cruelty is was the Christians who showed themselves to be civilized. It remains an important lesson for us today; the world will see us as enemies and fools and in these instances our words and actions should be as blameless as they can. When our adversaries comment on our faults, sinfulness, and errors accept them as a blessing. When we can present His message without fault—as best we can—the the words of others against His message are destined to fall. Time will reveal their lack of wisdom.

Modern examples exist in abundance.

Scripture likewise conveys this to us. The first martyr, Stephen the deacon, stands before a hostile crowd speaking in the Spirit. It says “his face was like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15) and yet his words of condemnation to the wicked were like a sword. “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. … You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it” (Acts 7:51, 53). As the crowd raged toward him he looked up to heaven, giving thanks that he should suffer for Jesus' name. He forgave those who killed him and, after his death, “devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him” (Acts 8:3).

Interestingly in this story is that Scripture says “I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” and “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit” (7:56, 59). Would there be any doubt his spirit was received? Christ on the cross proclaimed to the repentant thief “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43, cf. Mt 37:45-56). If Christ said this at the request of the penitent sinner do you think he would deny the request of the one who, filled with His Spirit and dying for His name, would be refused any request?

To this effect, and to answer this question, I present a story relayed to us by Eusebius, the earliest 'historian' of the Church. Writing in the 4^th century he was considered the “Father of Church History.” All histories written around this period and after him by other Christians begin at the end of his work as if to acknowledge his writing (cf. Penguin Classics version, xviii, 1989).

He writes many accounts of persecutions and martyrs, one which I think will be useful to consider in brief:

Potamiaena was a virgin and martyr who was condemned along with her mother for being Christian. She “and her mother Marcella found fulfillment in fire.” Her mother was killed and she was subject to a number of humiliations and tortures. A soldier in her midst, Basilides, seized her and led to her to place of execution. The crowd pressed around her seeking to strike her while insulting her but Basilides drove them back and showed this woman “the utmost pity and kindness.” Potamiaena, accepting his sympathy told him that “when she had gone away she would ask her Lord for him, and it would not be long before she repaid him for all he had done for her. … She face her end with noble courage—slowly, drop by drop, boiling pitch was poured [over her]. Such was the battle won by this splendid girl.”

Some days later Basilides was asked by his fellow soldiers to take again the military oath by which they all swore. He refused saying he was a Christian. They thought he was joking, but he asserted all the more of this fact. His comrades threw him in prison and those from the Church visited him there asking him the reason. He told them that “three days after her martyrdom Potamiaena stood before him in the night, put a wreath about his head, and said she had prayed for him to the Lord, had obtained her request, and before long would place him by her side.” At once those present baptised him and on the next day he was beheaded. It was said that in Alexandria, where all this took place, many other came to believe having seen this same girl in their dreams calling them to Jesus Christ. (see Eusebius, EH 6.5).

In this brief story that I've paraphrased we see a number of things: the courage of a martyr, her influence while living, and her power when she had life eternal. The martyrs were said to work miracles after their deaths and be catalysts to many conversions. Such interactions, that is saints speaking to others after their death, are not explicitly in Scripture, however, so how shall we consider this story?

We recall that in Revelations that there were those who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason they stand before God's throne and worship him day and night” (Rev 7:14-15). But it says later on that “I saw thrones and those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God … They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years [that is, for this Age] … blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first Resurrection. … they will reign with him for [the] thousand years” (Rev 20:4-6).

Prayer to the saints is effective not because the saints have power on their own, but because in their total loss-of-self in martyrdom they were given a share of the throne of Christ in this Age. All of it is for our benefit.

The first thousand years is not a literal time but an expression of forever (or, for the duration of this Age). We remain in this period of the first “thousand years” whereas the new heavens and new earth is the Age-yet-to-come, the Resurrection of the Body. Indeed, while we remain as pilgrims here on earth there were those, as Scripture attests, who sit on thrones with Christ. The ones on thrones are the ones martyred in the name of Christ. That they sit on a throne means they have power, and their power is precisely their intercession with Christ on behalf of all souls on heaven and earth. For it was not Christ himself who converted Basilides, but rather Christ through a young girl who converted him. This story relates that the ever-living martyr did not desire power nor did she seek revenge on her persecutors. Like Christ who proclaims “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15) she called others to do the same. All of us too are called to be witnesses to Christ—some will witness by our lives, others by our deaths.

Martyrs across the whole empire produced this effect. Perhaps one of the most famous martyrologies that has come down to us is the Martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop to the Church in Smyrna (which was a Greek city in Ionia at the time). He was an old man when he was martyred, perhaps 80 or 85 at his death.

This account, however, was written in the 4^th century (perhaps 310 AD) while he is believed to have been martyred in the 2^nd century around 155 AD). This account has been shown, over time, to not give us any real historical knowledge of Polycarp, but the story itself allows us to see a number of things: (1) the great character of the man written about, (2) the practices concerning such men and women by the faithful, (3) the pride communities took in such examples of their faith. Much of what we get about Polycarp can be gathered from the letter to the Philippians attributed to him, what Ignatius of Antioch says of him in his letter, of various fragments, most notably by his great admirer and fellow bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.

With this being said as an aside, I will select a few quotes that, while not strict history insofar as the exact events described are not historical, they are history insofar as they convey the attitudes of a Christian people. I think you'll see how it correlates with the story above.

Concerning Polycarp's martyrdom it says that the act was “certainly a mark of true and steadfast love, not only to desire one's salvation, but that of all the brethren as well” (Martyrdom, sec. 1).

Those who martyred Polycarp kept his body from those who sought it because “many … were eager to [lay hold of him] and have a share in his holy remains” (Martyrdom, sec. 17). This one indication of relics we have early on, but such an indication also comes from Scripture—that the articles of holy men and women, and that which touched them, had power associated with them. It says “So extraordinary were the might deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face clothes or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

The reverence given to and practices concerning the martyrs is encapsulated nicely here: “[We] took up his bones, more precious than costly stones and more excellent than gold, and interred them in a decent place. There the Lord will permit us, as far as possible, to assemble in rapturous joy and celebrate his martyrdom—his birthday—both to commemorate the heroes that have gone before, and to train and prepare the heroes yet to come” (Martyrdom, sec. 18).

Of Polycarp himself it was said “Of the elect the most wonderful Polycarp was certainly one—an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our times, and a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna” (sec. 16).

"Your life among the Gentiles must be beyond reproach; thus by your good example you will win praise for yourselves, and the Lord will not be blasphemed on your account" (Letters to the Philippians, sec. 16).

Next, we shall see how even with such courageous witnesses the Church faced problems as a result of their impact. We'll examine how such difficulties arose and the response, in brief, of the Church.


===

Links to "The Early Church I: "History, Morality, Being Called Catholic, and the Papacy"

I-1: Prologue and History
I-2: Organization of the Early Church 
I-3: Why are we called "Catholic"?

I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons)

Links to "The Early Church II"

II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-3: Bishops and Succession
II-4: The Rule of Faith 

The Measure of Justice

A reflection I gave today (I've been doing a lot of those lately). They are on today's (3/25/2013) readings which may be found here (Is 42:1-7, Ps 27, Jn 12:1-11)

How has Jesus brought justice to the nations? The Gospel warns us that if we view justice as 'everyone having more than what they had' we will be like Judas. It it interesting to note that those who demand justice the most are often those who, in equal measure, neglect mercy.

Justice is not having everything be the same but rather everyone having what he needs. Jesus restores sight to those who are blind, but we should reflect on his words: “those who have eyes ought to see and those who have ears ought to hear.”

Some of us need to hear his voice: Jesus comes to us to speak through a multitude of things.

Some of us need to see him: He meets us in his creation and in his sacraments.

But those who are healthy do not need a doctor, and furthermore those whom God loves he will test. Some of us will want to hear him, but we won't. Some of us will want to see him, but it will appear as if he is hidden. In these instances God is not being unjust—he knows and gives each of us what we need, the very definition of justice.

Justice is not about merely satisfying some agenda or making all of us feel comfortable with our idea of what's fair—for some justice demands more and gives more, for others, less. Be content this day with what God has given you and be generous with others.

God has been gracious in making us a light to all nations and that, in our joys and afflictions, he is always with us. For this it is truly right and just to give him thanks and praise.

More than Enough to Win

A reflection on Sunday's readings (2/10/2013)

They may be found here, or if you go to mass! 

Coach Tom Thibodeau of the Chicago Bulls has battled a lot of injuries on his team the past two years. Reporters constantly ask him what he can do to win the next game—should they trade for a new player? Should they attempt something different and new? Thibodeau responds, without fail, every single time with this phrase: “We have more than enough to win.” He can say this because of the simple mantra he teaches his team every day, every practice: know your role, know your job, do your job. In the context of today's Scripture readings we can see these words as a great spiritual insight. With God we have more than enough to win.

When we look to Isaiah, today's first reading, he beholds the face of God and immediately laments. He cries out that he is a man of unclean lips in a land of unclean lips. Then God takes the initiative. His seraphim came and purged Isaiah's sin. Notice that it did not say Isaiah was blameless, but when he recognized his sins the Lord came to him. God strengthened him, but with that new strength God calls out 'Whom shall I send?' Isaiah leapt up, ready to do God's will. God does not leave us to our own devices when we respond to Him, but this works in two ways. When we turn to God we recognize our weakness and seek strength. In that newfound strength, however, God does not let us rest—he puts us to work. We pray to Him so we can know our job. He gives us the strength to do our job.

St. Peter is our model, as he so often is, in the Gospel reading. The Gospel writer adds a bit of a wrinkle that makes it different from Isaiah in an important way. Peter, his brother, and their companions had been working all day. We see how Peter was already predisposed toward Jesus because when he came to them Peter allowed Jesus to use his boat. Peter was a good man ready to serve the Lord. But then Christ asks a bit more of him: “Cast your nets into deep water.” Here we see, simultaneously, Peter's strength and weakness. He replies that 'I've been working hard all day, but at your command I will do as you say.'

He says, in a way, “I thought I was doing it right, but have nothing to show for it.' He believed himself full, but his net was empty. When he listened to Jesus his nets were not only full for himself but for everyone around him as well. This is when it strikes Peter: his nets were empty when he was empty—that is to say that his was empty until Christ was a part of it. Christ was not with him as a thought, or as some disinterested person. Christ was with Peter in his work and, with Christ, Peter had more than enough fish. In fact, the boats “were in danger of sinking.”

Peter's life before Christ may have been empty but with Christ it's almost too much to bear.

Peter, feeling that weight, falls to his knees. He recognizes his emptiness. His confidence turns to contrition the moment he witnesses Christ's power. He says “Depart from me for I am a sinful man.” Jesus, however, in showing Peter what he would accomplish with Him said 'Do not be afraid.' Then he gave Peter his job, “You will be catching men.” Then Peter, emptying himself and leaving everything behind, follows Christ and gains everything.

Don't just sit there. God has work for you to do too!

Brothers and sisters, we see in both the Old Testament and the New that God did not radically change Isaiah or Peter—he did not change who they were. They were not transported to another world nor were either of them told to simply sit in fear of their unworthiness before God. They were made to recognize what they weren't—perfect, sinless; they were shown what (or rather, who) they had—God; then they were sent to do their job—preach God to the whole world so they might do the same. In our studies and in our work we must do the same. We must not separate God from our work, for if we do not accept God into our work then our nets will be empty. When we do, however, we'll have more than we know what to do with., and that's all for the better. Do not be afraid of the work before you, do not be afraid of your sinfulness, nor be afraid of what you lack—if you find Jesus Christ and stay with him you'll have more than enough to win.