I'm trying to track down an answer to a question: can someone who is a "venerable"* or a "blessed"--but not a "saint"--be honored with an image in a church? Last night, I went looking through the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and Built of Living Stones, the document the U.S. bishops put together several years ago on church architecture, but didn't find the answer there; nor was an Internet search helpful.
Any suggestions?
Update: I may have found my answer...I read an article at the Catholic Encyclopedia about the distinction between beatification--declaring someone "blessed"--and "canonization," after which one it termed "saint." It made the point that once one is beatified, s/he can be venerated as a saint, but not universally; canonization makes the permission--or mandate--universal. Hence, depending on the locality--and perhaps with ecclesiastical approbation, I'm guessing a Blessed can have an image put on display for veneration; once canonized, no permission would be needed.
I'm not saying this is right; if anyone can shed light on it, I'd be grateful.
* I realize not everyone is familiar with the distinctions the Church makes about someone being "venerable," "blessed" or a "saint." This is not a subject I can address in detail, but here's a quick summary: the Church has a formal process for declaring someone a saint--i.e., "canonizing" a saint. It involves initially recognizing someone as a "servant of God," which is the very beginning step, after which "the cause" has begun.
Part of the process is to investigate fully the individual's life and writings, if any. The faithful are invited to ask the Servant of God to pray for various things, and then the Church waits to see if anyone can show a miracle happened as a result. Proof is demanded, and insofar as it involves a healing, medical experts are consulted. The idea being that if we ask the late Pope John Paul II to pray for a miracle, and God grants it, that is evidence of the late pope's sanctity and being in heaven--and thus, a saint. But the Church requires more than one round of that, hence the steps of being declared "venerable," then "blessed," and then "saint." The reason for it being deliberate is, of course, to try to get it right. I probably got some detail wrong in describing this--this is a very quick, "not ready for wikipedia" version of the process!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Ash Wednesday starts early...
Starting last year, I began having a 6:15 am Mass on Ash Wednesday. The origin of the idea was my desire to have Mass periodically for the hardy souls who show up each morning at that hour for a communion service. Given that the folks who come for that early communion service are on their way to work, Mass must be quick.
It may be I'm not skilled in the art of a "quick" Mass because as it was, with no homily, Mass took about 25 minutes. But we had a nice crowd of about 25 at that early hour, not bad considering it is something new. We'll have many more later, especially at 7 pm.
After having my morning "collation"--i.e., on a day of fasting, one has but a single full meal, but one can have two "collations" (snacks) that together do not equal a full meal--of coffee and a bagel (I had a coupon for a free one) from Tim Hortons, I'm thinking about my homily for Sunday, which is my usual Wednesday morning ritual, but which has fallen into desuetude lately.
Later, we'll have extra time for confessions--from 5-6:30 (or longer if needed), prior to Mass at 7 pm. Then while our retired priest has the evening Mass, I'll be having our Bible study, beginning the Gospel of John. We meet in the Caserta Center next to St. Boniface Church every Wednesday evening.
We did have Mass planned for the schoolchildren at 9:15 am; however, school is delayed two hours, meaning they can't come to Mass at that hour. So we're going to have the younger children come to 12:10 pm Mass--which happens at St. Boniface, where their classes are--and we'll have a prayer service this afternoon for the older children, who attend classes at St. Mary, at which they can receive ashes.
It may be I'm not skilled in the art of a "quick" Mass because as it was, with no homily, Mass took about 25 minutes. But we had a nice crowd of about 25 at that early hour, not bad considering it is something new. We'll have many more later, especially at 7 pm.
After having my morning "collation"--i.e., on a day of fasting, one has but a single full meal, but one can have two "collations" (snacks) that together do not equal a full meal--of coffee and a bagel (I had a coupon for a free one) from Tim Hortons, I'm thinking about my homily for Sunday, which is my usual Wednesday morning ritual, but which has fallen into desuetude lately.
Later, we'll have extra time for confessions--from 5-6:30 (or longer if needed), prior to Mass at 7 pm. Then while our retired priest has the evening Mass, I'll be having our Bible study, beginning the Gospel of John. We meet in the Caserta Center next to St. Boniface Church every Wednesday evening.
We did have Mass planned for the schoolchildren at 9:15 am; however, school is delayed two hours, meaning they can't come to Mass at that hour. So we're going to have the younger children come to 12:10 pm Mass--which happens at St. Boniface, where their classes are--and we'll have a prayer service this afternoon for the older children, who attend classes at St. Mary, at which they can receive ashes.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Some events in the life of a priest...
Some recent commenters have suggested I must not be busy about parish business because I've offered teaching and comments on the true nature of marriage here in recent days.
Well, anything is possible, and a parish priest's work is never done; but here are some things I've been busy about lately, for those who enjoy an insight into the life of a parish priest...
> With others' help, I've been conducting job interviews for a position for one of the parishes. We're not finished; but soon I'll have a decision to make about hiring someone.
> I've been able to help--at a critical time--the same family as it experienced the death someone special. Two deaths in a matter of weeks. Twice recently I've been at the bedside, at the hospital, offering the final sacraments and prayers of commendation in Espanol. I am very sorry to have butchered the pronunciation, but it was the best I could do.
We had a funeral Mass last week, offered by a visiting priest, who is fluent in Spanish; and I just got off the phone, having made arrangements for a funeral service later this week for the second person in that family who died.
As it happens, I was called to the man's bedside around 1 am this morning--I had gotten back from a holy hour a little after midnight, and was about to head to bed when the call came. When the nurse rushed us to his bedside, she said, "hurry, hurry"; I was momentarily thrown off--I was going to do the prayers all in Spanish, but I couldn't find them quickly in the book, so I just said the words of absolution, the apostolic blessing and the prayer of anointing in English, and we prayed the final litany in Spanish. He breathed his last a few moments later.
> I also got called to the cemetery for a graveside service on Saturday morning, before some of the job interviews I mentioned. But for the family's privacy I'll say no more. As you might imagine, I have lots of conversations and encounters with parishioners that I never say a word about here, because its private.
> After Mass last night, the parochial vicar and I went out to dinner at a local eatery; as often happens, I saw many of our parishioners, some couples and families out for St. Valentine's Day.
> I have a parishioner to visit at the hospital this afternoon, I'll head there shortly. I came back home to have a bite to eat, post my homily, and then had the phone message about the funeral service (which I expected), and some calls to make.
> This evening, we'll have an "XLT" with the High School group. "XLT" is high-school-speak for "exalt"; we'll have time of praise and worship of the Lord before the Most Blessed Sacrament on the altar of St. Mary. Which meant that I had to remember to consecrate a host for exposition. I was going to do it at 5 pm Mass last night; I forgot, so I left a note for the vicar to do it at 9 am Mass, which he did. I've been thinking a bit about the talk I'll give as part of that.
> Amidst all that, we had a bulletin insert to prepare--for this weekend--that describes the many opportunities for prayer and confessions during Lent, as well as other opportunities such as my weekly Bible study (Wednesday at 7 pm at St. Boniface), which will be on the Gospel of John, starting this week; also we have Gospel reflection groups in folks' homes during the week, and so forth. We got a late change of another parish's penance service, so we had to throw out the copies we'd made and fix them.
> Oh, there were certainly many other things I could describe, but you get the idea.
Off to the hospital in a bit.
Well, anything is possible, and a parish priest's work is never done; but here are some things I've been busy about lately, for those who enjoy an insight into the life of a parish priest...
> With others' help, I've been conducting job interviews for a position for one of the parishes. We're not finished; but soon I'll have a decision to make about hiring someone.
> I've been able to help--at a critical time--the same family as it experienced the death someone special. Two deaths in a matter of weeks. Twice recently I've been at the bedside, at the hospital, offering the final sacraments and prayers of commendation in Espanol. I am very sorry to have butchered the pronunciation, but it was the best I could do.
We had a funeral Mass last week, offered by a visiting priest, who is fluent in Spanish; and I just got off the phone, having made arrangements for a funeral service later this week for the second person in that family who died.
As it happens, I was called to the man's bedside around 1 am this morning--I had gotten back from a holy hour a little after midnight, and was about to head to bed when the call came. When the nurse rushed us to his bedside, she said, "hurry, hurry"; I was momentarily thrown off--I was going to do the prayers all in Spanish, but I couldn't find them quickly in the book, so I just said the words of absolution, the apostolic blessing and the prayer of anointing in English, and we prayed the final litany in Spanish. He breathed his last a few moments later.
> I also got called to the cemetery for a graveside service on Saturday morning, before some of the job interviews I mentioned. But for the family's privacy I'll say no more. As you might imagine, I have lots of conversations and encounters with parishioners that I never say a word about here, because its private.
> After Mass last night, the parochial vicar and I went out to dinner at a local eatery; as often happens, I saw many of our parishioners, some couples and families out for St. Valentine's Day.
> I have a parishioner to visit at the hospital this afternoon, I'll head there shortly. I came back home to have a bite to eat, post my homily, and then had the phone message about the funeral service (which I expected), and some calls to make.
> This evening, we'll have an "XLT" with the High School group. "XLT" is high-school-speak for "exalt"; we'll have time of praise and worship of the Lord before the Most Blessed Sacrament on the altar of St. Mary. Which meant that I had to remember to consecrate a host for exposition. I was going to do it at 5 pm Mass last night; I forgot, so I left a note for the vicar to do it at 9 am Mass, which he did. I've been thinking a bit about the talk I'll give as part of that.
> Amidst all that, we had a bulletin insert to prepare--for this weekend--that describes the many opportunities for prayer and confessions during Lent, as well as other opportunities such as my weekly Bible study (Wednesday at 7 pm at St. Boniface), which will be on the Gospel of John, starting this week; also we have Gospel reflection groups in folks' homes during the week, and so forth. We got a late change of another parish's penance service, so we had to throw out the copies we'd made and fix them.
> Oh, there were certainly many other things I could describe, but you get the idea.
Off to the hospital in a bit.
World values v. God's values (Sunday homily)
Here is my homily for this weekend; I worked from notes, so this is more or less a reconstruction of what I said at 5 pm and 10:30 am Masses this weekend...
Folks sometimes ask me how I come up with my homilies each week...
this Sunday I can give you some insight into that.
This week, I was talking to Father Tom about the readings--
he often gives me good ideas about homilies,
I don't know if he ever says that about any of my observations!--
and we were discussing what to draw out of them.
Later on, I was sitting, reflecting on the readings, and I took some paper--
here it is, you can see it was post-it notes!--
and I drew a line down the paper.
One one side, I wrote, "what the world values";
on the other, "what God values."
Now, if you don't take anything else away from this homily,
that right there wouldn't be a bad exercise for anyone to do on your own--
when you get home, try that: write each on a piece of paper, and see what you come up with.
Here's what I came up with.
What does the world value?
For one, how we dress, or the appearance we make.
When you show up for a job interview, or a party,
people will fault you if you're dressed the right way.
I was at a restaurant last night, and I saw someone and I thought,
"he's not dressed very well!"
Then I thought, maybe I should focus on eating my meal instead.
What does God value? I don't think our appearance matters to him.
But whether we walk humbly; whether we tell the truth with love;
and above all, is my heart and my life open and ready to receive God wants to give?
I think those are things God values.
Saint Augustine said that God has wonderful gifts for us,
but sometimes our hands our full--and he has to knock things from our hands,
so we can receive his gifts.
So when our Lord talks about being hungry...
being hungry means I'm ready and grateful for something more;
but if I'm full, I say, "no thank you."
If I have all I need or want, how ready am I for something more?
The Lord said, "woe to the rich"--what does that mean?
Does it mean they are going to hell? That God hates rich people?
I don't think so. What does it mean?
Perhaps it means this: if we find our meaning and purpose in stuff,
in what we have, that's a woe, not a blessing.
On the other hand, to be free of stuff, and its power over us,
to be free of worry these things, to be free of worry about what others think--
or what we have to lose for doing what is right...this freedom, that's a great blessing.
I remember when I left Washington, and drove back to Cincinnati to enter the seminary;
I'd sold my house, and I no longer had a mortgage, no more worries about that!
I missed it--yet it was very freeing.
Now I've come full circle, and I have all this (gesturing to the church) to care for!
But it's all yours, it's not mine; so I'm still free.
This was the insight of that great theologian, Janis Joplin, who had a great insight:
"freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."
Freedom...what does the world think about freedom?
The world's idea of freedom is, "let me do what I want, leave me alone,
even if I'm destroying myself, that's not your business."
There's something to that--we don't want to run anyone else's lives.
But I don't want to live in a society that sees other people on a path of destruction, and says, not my problem. How heartless! How soulless!
God's idea of freedom is different: true freedom is nothing has power over me.
Free of the power of appetite, free of the power of stuff;
free to give myself away, to God and to others. No fear.
Lent--which starts this week--is our time to grow freer in these ways.
We fast to be freer of appetite;
we pray more to be freer from from the urgency of this world's demands,
and be reminded of the eternal, which is always there, but not always so apparent;
we give ourselves away--our money or our time--so we are freer from the power of things.
We might look at the two sides (holding up the paper) and wonder where we are--
the world's values or God's values.
I wasn't all that happy with where I found myself, either.
But in six week's time, where will we be?
Folks sometimes ask me how I come up with my homilies each week...
this Sunday I can give you some insight into that.
This week, I was talking to Father Tom about the readings--
he often gives me good ideas about homilies,
I don't know if he ever says that about any of my observations!--
and we were discussing what to draw out of them.
Later on, I was sitting, reflecting on the readings, and I took some paper--
here it is, you can see it was post-it notes!--
and I drew a line down the paper.
One one side, I wrote, "what the world values";
on the other, "what God values."
Now, if you don't take anything else away from this homily,
that right there wouldn't be a bad exercise for anyone to do on your own--
when you get home, try that: write each on a piece of paper, and see what you come up with.
Here's what I came up with.
What does the world value?
For one, how we dress, or the appearance we make.
When you show up for a job interview, or a party,
people will fault you if you're dressed the right way.
I was at a restaurant last night, and I saw someone and I thought,
"he's not dressed very well!"
Then I thought, maybe I should focus on eating my meal instead.
What does God value? I don't think our appearance matters to him.
But whether we walk humbly; whether we tell the truth with love;
and above all, is my heart and my life open and ready to receive God wants to give?
I think those are things God values.
Saint Augustine said that God has wonderful gifts for us,
but sometimes our hands our full--and he has to knock things from our hands,
so we can receive his gifts.
So when our Lord talks about being hungry...
being hungry means I'm ready and grateful for something more;
but if I'm full, I say, "no thank you."
If I have all I need or want, how ready am I for something more?
The Lord said, "woe to the rich"--what does that mean?
Does it mean they are going to hell? That God hates rich people?
I don't think so. What does it mean?
Perhaps it means this: if we find our meaning and purpose in stuff,
in what we have, that's a woe, not a blessing.
On the other hand, to be free of stuff, and its power over us,
to be free of worry these things, to be free of worry about what others think--
or what we have to lose for doing what is right...this freedom, that's a great blessing.
I remember when I left Washington, and drove back to Cincinnati to enter the seminary;
I'd sold my house, and I no longer had a mortgage, no more worries about that!
I missed it--yet it was very freeing.
Now I've come full circle, and I have all this (gesturing to the church) to care for!
But it's all yours, it's not mine; so I'm still free.
This was the insight of that great theologian, Janis Joplin, who had a great insight:
"freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."
Freedom...what does the world think about freedom?
The world's idea of freedom is, "let me do what I want, leave me alone,
even if I'm destroying myself, that's not your business."
There's something to that--we don't want to run anyone else's lives.
But I don't want to live in a society that sees other people on a path of destruction, and says, not my problem. How heartless! How soulless!
God's idea of freedom is different: true freedom is nothing has power over me.
Free of the power of appetite, free of the power of stuff;
free to give myself away, to God and to others. No fear.
Lent--which starts this week--is our time to grow freer in these ways.
We fast to be freer of appetite;
we pray more to be freer from from the urgency of this world's demands,
and be reminded of the eternal, which is always there, but not always so apparent;
we give ourselves away--our money or our time--so we are freer from the power of things.
We might look at the two sides (holding up the paper) and wonder where we are--
the world's values or God's values.
I wasn't all that happy with where I found myself, either.
But in six week's time, where will we be?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A primer on marriage, the state, the Church and gay rights--part 1
As I wait for the storm to settle--and having written my column for the bulletin--this seems as good a time as any to write this post.
It won't be as good or as carefully researched as it might be, but it will do till that happens. Perhaps a reader can provide a link to a resource somewhere that does a better job of what I'm going to attempt here.
But since my comments at a Washington Post blog, and then a subsequent post here, have generated many comments--including questions from (mostly anonymous) visitors who seem to be genuinely puzzled about what I'm saying about marriage, so-called "same-sex marriage," and what the state and the Church have to say about all this, I guess there are some things I'm taking for granted. So I'll outline some thoughts here.
1. What is marriage? Who says?
Marriage is an institution that arises out of human nature itself. It is not the creation of government, nor of religion. So--surprise!--marriage is not a religious institution at all! The proof of this can be seen so easily that I suppose it's so big we don't even see it at all, sort of like the sky: marriage--I mean between men and women--has existed everywhere, older than memory, in every culture, regardless of religion. The Christian Church did not present this idea to the pagan world; the Jewish People did not do so before Christianity. Men and women figured it out a really long time ago.
Now, it is true that monogamy does have a religious component: while marriage involving men and women is a universal practice, having it involve a single male and a single female is not universal. Since I am not an expert in world religions, I cannot say if other religions teach it; but it is clear enough that it existed at one time among Jews, and among pagans in the vicinity of the Jewish people, because the Bible bears witness to it.
It is also clear that monogamy emerged within Judaism, and Christianity has carried that forward. If I were doing exegesis on the Bible, I would explore here how the Jewish Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) implicitly, if not explicitly, favor monogamy. That isn't directly on point here, but it is of interest, because sometimes folks will assert that the Bible "approves" of polygamy, and I think that's not really the case, but it is the sort of thing someone might think I was presupposing here.
So as a matter of history and universal human experience, marriage is heterosexual.
Those who favor so-called "same-sex marriage" would certainly have a powerful argument if they could point to examples of human societies that developed along different lines. And while there was a day that you could say, "oh the evidence exists, but we can't get our studies published"--but those days are long gone.
The question has to be asked: if this assertion that heterosexual marriage is a universal fact of history is wrong, why has no one disproved it? The best one gets is either citation of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or some other citation of an obscure culture where some sort of homosexual behavior seems to have been winked at or even encouraged to some degree.
But take the case of the Greeks and Romans: the fact remains that even in this example, where--we are told--there was open tolerance, if not encouragement of homosexual relationships...even here, marriage was heterosexual. And this is actually very telling, because if there were a place where you'd be likely to find the sort of history you'd want, if you favored same-sex marriage, this would be the place. Yet the gay-friendly Greeks and Romans (I'm sidestepping the argument about whether this is truly accurate) still didn't see any reason to create same-sex marriage.
Now, at some point, someone will say, why haven't I appealed to the Bible for what Jews and Christians believe about God's role in marriage?
The answer is because Christians do not believe they--or the Jews--"invented" marriage; another way to put it: heterosexual marriage (the only kind there is) pre-existed both Christianity and Judaism; if the Bible never existed, this would be just as true a statement. Christianity (I won't speak for the Jewish people) never asserts marriage to be an essentially religious institution, but rather a natural one that takes on religious meaning within our own faith.
Be aware that those who now seek to deconstruct marriage operate from the premise that this is a religious issue; and we are foolish--and factually wrong--to go along with that. It's like saying that because we use water for baptism, water was invented by Christianity; rather, Christianity takes a natural reality and invests it with a new meaning. And in the case of baptism, we invest the natural reality with rather more meaning than we do the natural institution of marriage.
Back to "what is marriage" and "who says." Some might say, my claims are arbitrary. How can this be? Marriage arises out of fundamental human nature--human sexuality and the need to procreate. Biblical religion asserts these are good things; does any society uninfluenced by the Bible believe otherwise?
Of course, reason would say that the burden does not lie with me to prove these things. I do not accept the burden of proving what is patently obvious and has always been held to be true, until the curious, recent phenomenon of folks acting as if this is all some thing that came out of the catechism. Those seeking to reinvent marriage are the ones who have the burden of justifying making a radical (i.e., to the root) change in a universal, old-as-humanity reality.
Update: when I dashed this off, it was one, very long post. I came back and broke it into three posts, and bolded the questions, and fixed one small error. Otherwise, same content.
It won't be as good or as carefully researched as it might be, but it will do till that happens. Perhaps a reader can provide a link to a resource somewhere that does a better job of what I'm going to attempt here.
But since my comments at a Washington Post blog, and then a subsequent post here, have generated many comments--including questions from (mostly anonymous) visitors who seem to be genuinely puzzled about what I'm saying about marriage, so-called "same-sex marriage," and what the state and the Church have to say about all this, I guess there are some things I'm taking for granted. So I'll outline some thoughts here.
1. What is marriage? Who says?
Marriage is an institution that arises out of human nature itself. It is not the creation of government, nor of religion. So--surprise!--marriage is not a religious institution at all! The proof of this can be seen so easily that I suppose it's so big we don't even see it at all, sort of like the sky: marriage--I mean between men and women--has existed everywhere, older than memory, in every culture, regardless of religion. The Christian Church did not present this idea to the pagan world; the Jewish People did not do so before Christianity. Men and women figured it out a really long time ago.
Now, it is true that monogamy does have a religious component: while marriage involving men and women is a universal practice, having it involve a single male and a single female is not universal. Since I am not an expert in world religions, I cannot say if other religions teach it; but it is clear enough that it existed at one time among Jews, and among pagans in the vicinity of the Jewish people, because the Bible bears witness to it.
It is also clear that monogamy emerged within Judaism, and Christianity has carried that forward. If I were doing exegesis on the Bible, I would explore here how the Jewish Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) implicitly, if not explicitly, favor monogamy. That isn't directly on point here, but it is of interest, because sometimes folks will assert that the Bible "approves" of polygamy, and I think that's not really the case, but it is the sort of thing someone might think I was presupposing here.
So as a matter of history and universal human experience, marriage is heterosexual.
Those who favor so-called "same-sex marriage" would certainly have a powerful argument if they could point to examples of human societies that developed along different lines. And while there was a day that you could say, "oh the evidence exists, but we can't get our studies published"--but those days are long gone.
The question has to be asked: if this assertion that heterosexual marriage is a universal fact of history is wrong, why has no one disproved it? The best one gets is either citation of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or some other citation of an obscure culture where some sort of homosexual behavior seems to have been winked at or even encouraged to some degree.
But take the case of the Greeks and Romans: the fact remains that even in this example, where--we are told--there was open tolerance, if not encouragement of homosexual relationships...even here, marriage was heterosexual. And this is actually very telling, because if there were a place where you'd be likely to find the sort of history you'd want, if you favored same-sex marriage, this would be the place. Yet the gay-friendly Greeks and Romans (I'm sidestepping the argument about whether this is truly accurate) still didn't see any reason to create same-sex marriage.
Now, at some point, someone will say, why haven't I appealed to the Bible for what Jews and Christians believe about God's role in marriage?
The answer is because Christians do not believe they--or the Jews--"invented" marriage; another way to put it: heterosexual marriage (the only kind there is) pre-existed both Christianity and Judaism; if the Bible never existed, this would be just as true a statement. Christianity (I won't speak for the Jewish people) never asserts marriage to be an essentially religious institution, but rather a natural one that takes on religious meaning within our own faith.
Be aware that those who now seek to deconstruct marriage operate from the premise that this is a religious issue; and we are foolish--and factually wrong--to go along with that. It's like saying that because we use water for baptism, water was invented by Christianity; rather, Christianity takes a natural reality and invests it with a new meaning. And in the case of baptism, we invest the natural reality with rather more meaning than we do the natural institution of marriage.
Back to "what is marriage" and "who says." Some might say, my claims are arbitrary. How can this be? Marriage arises out of fundamental human nature--human sexuality and the need to procreate. Biblical religion asserts these are good things; does any society uninfluenced by the Bible believe otherwise?
Of course, reason would say that the burden does not lie with me to prove these things. I do not accept the burden of proving what is patently obvious and has always been held to be true, until the curious, recent phenomenon of folks acting as if this is all some thing that came out of the catechism. Those seeking to reinvent marriage are the ones who have the burden of justifying making a radical (i.e., to the root) change in a universal, old-as-humanity reality.
Update: when I dashed this off, it was one, very long post. I came back and broke it into three posts, and bolded the questions, and fixed one small error. Otherwise, same content.
A primer on marriage, the state, the Church and gay rights, part 2
Continuing from part one...
2. How can you say marriage is about procreation when not all marriages involve procreation. Does that mean that those who cannot conceive cannot marry? What about Mary and Joseph?
That many families exist without a father and a mother doesn't negate that a family, normally, includes a father and a mother. That some people's eyes and ears do not see or hear, does not call into question the truth of saying that eyes are meant for seeing, ears are meant for hearing.
Likewise, that when a man and a woman are drawn together by natural attraction, and enter into marriage, yet they cannot conceive--and maybe they know it, maybe they don't--doesn't negate the origin and natural reality of where marriage came from and what essential purpose it serves for the human race, to the moment I am finishing this sentence.
3. You say marriage arises out of human nature--but doesn't homosexual attraction also arise naturally? So why doesn't that justify same-sex marriage?
I'll answer the question, but it's not really a question that challenges defenders of marriage-as-heterosexual; it actually is a problem for "gay marriage" advocates. If, as you say, homosexual attraction is nothing new, then how is it that only in the late 20th century, in one part of the world, has it suddenly become "obvious" that marriage has always been arbitrarily, and too tightly, restricted to heterosexuals? Blaming the Bible for stigmatizing homosexual behavior only explains what cultures influenced by Biblical prohibitions have done. How does one explain why all other cultures, whom the Bible has only recently influenced, yet have never had such a thing as same-sex marriage?
Once again, we might look to the example--so frequently cited by the other side--of the supposedly gay-friendly ancient Greeks and Romans. The usual narrative goes like this: they didn't harbor the narrowness that Christians are blamed for introducing into western civilization, and which is only now being overcome. So then, how explain they still didn't develop same-sex marriage?
4. What is the role of government in this matter?
This is an important and interesting question, and to a great degree, it depends on your understanding of the role of government.
As an American, with conservative and some libertarian views, I hold that our government is one whose powers are neither arbitrary nor unconstrained. I didn't invent that view, of course, but there are some who seem to think this a novelty. They view government more expansively and practically: if something needs to be done, it might be just as well to have government do it.
I asked the question in the comments in another thread, who gave the city of Washington, D.C., the authority to create "same sex marriage"? The other commenter seemed to be puzzled--as if to say, something needs to be done, the city is as good a way to do it as any other.
A lot of wish to live in a society in which the powers of government are tightly restrained. The Constitution doesn't specify our rights; it presupposes them, and specifies what powers government may undertake in our name. Only to the extent specified, may government restrain or step upon our rights. We retain our natural rights, even if unenumerated in the Constitution. Interestingly--although I fundamentally disagree with it--the line of Supreme Court decisions leading to Roe v. Wade included this argument, in explicating an unenumerated "privacy" right in the Constitution.
2. How can you say marriage is about procreation when not all marriages involve procreation. Does that mean that those who cannot conceive cannot marry? What about Mary and Joseph?
That many families exist without a father and a mother doesn't negate that a family, normally, includes a father and a mother. That some people's eyes and ears do not see or hear, does not call into question the truth of saying that eyes are meant for seeing, ears are meant for hearing.
Likewise, that when a man and a woman are drawn together by natural attraction, and enter into marriage, yet they cannot conceive--and maybe they know it, maybe they don't--doesn't negate the origin and natural reality of where marriage came from and what essential purpose it serves for the human race, to the moment I am finishing this sentence.
3. You say marriage arises out of human nature--but doesn't homosexual attraction also arise naturally? So why doesn't that justify same-sex marriage?
I'll answer the question, but it's not really a question that challenges defenders of marriage-as-heterosexual; it actually is a problem for "gay marriage" advocates. If, as you say, homosexual attraction is nothing new, then how is it that only in the late 20th century, in one part of the world, has it suddenly become "obvious" that marriage has always been arbitrarily, and too tightly, restricted to heterosexuals? Blaming the Bible for stigmatizing homosexual behavior only explains what cultures influenced by Biblical prohibitions have done. How does one explain why all other cultures, whom the Bible has only recently influenced, yet have never had such a thing as same-sex marriage?
Once again, we might look to the example--so frequently cited by the other side--of the supposedly gay-friendly ancient Greeks and Romans. The usual narrative goes like this: they didn't harbor the narrowness that Christians are blamed for introducing into western civilization, and which is only now being overcome. So then, how explain they still didn't develop same-sex marriage?
4. What is the role of government in this matter?
This is an important and interesting question, and to a great degree, it depends on your understanding of the role of government.
As an American, with conservative and some libertarian views, I hold that our government is one whose powers are neither arbitrary nor unconstrained. I didn't invent that view, of course, but there are some who seem to think this a novelty. They view government more expansively and practically: if something needs to be done, it might be just as well to have government do it.
I asked the question in the comments in another thread, who gave the city of Washington, D.C., the authority to create "same sex marriage"? The other commenter seemed to be puzzled--as if to say, something needs to be done, the city is as good a way to do it as any other.
A lot of wish to live in a society in which the powers of government are tightly restrained. The Constitution doesn't specify our rights; it presupposes them, and specifies what powers government may undertake in our name. Only to the extent specified, may government restrain or step upon our rights. We retain our natural rights, even if unenumerated in the Constitution. Interestingly--although I fundamentally disagree with it--the line of Supreme Court decisions leading to Roe v. Wade included this argument, in explicating an unenumerated "privacy" right in the Constitution.
A primer on marriage, the state, the Church and gay rights, part 3
Part 3 of my "primer" on same-sex marriage, the Church, the state, and gay rights...
5. What is the role of the Church in this--or any religious body?
The Church--any religious body--has the same rights under our Constitution as any individual or group of individuals. Because we are a church, we do not have fewer rights.
Our tax-exempt status constrains our actions to some degree, but far less than people think. That tax-exemption means some limitation on political involvement, but only some. In practice, it means the Church cannot endorse or oppose candidates. It certainly does not constrain freedom of speech; nor does it constrain the Church from petitioning government on legislation (protected by the First Amendment) that affects the Church directly.
It certainly does not constrain me--I can say whatever I feel like, I can be as political as I wish, without running afoul of tax law...provided I am acting as an individual and not in my role as a part of the corporate body. For example, my posts on this blog. No court would ever find that my blog is "official" in any sense, any more than if I sat at a table in a restaurant, and gave my political views, that that represented "the Church" taking a political position.
Further, there is a very good argument to be made that the Church can, in fact, be as political as she wants, provided she is communicating internally to her own members. I.e., the government has no authority to regulate what is said within the organization; but it may place conditions--related to the tax status--on what the Church communicates to outsiders, i.e., society at large.
There are those who appeal either to the tax-status, or to an unspecified principle of "separation of church and state," as a basis for saying the Church should shut up about public policy. But there is a big difference between this unspecified principle and what the law--the Constitution, statute and their construal by courts over the years--actually says. And the actual state of the law is on the side of the freedom of action by religious bodies, constrained only to some degree by the tax status.
Periodically, politicians angered by the Church or other religious bodies winning on a point of public policy will issue threats to revoke that tax-exemption, but that comes to nothing. You can easily look this up: you will find that actual examples of tax-exemption being revoked came because of very specific and egregious violations. It is rare. I'm not saying the Church shouldn't obey the law; but the law is what the law says it is, not what people who don't like the Church's influence imagine it is.
6. What's the "harm" of allowing same-sex marriage? Why not go along with it?
Well, that's a good question. Someone said in another thread that he couldn't see how allowing "gay marriage" has hurt his marriage. (Shrug.) That doesn't really answer anything. Does that mean only a law becomes a bad law when it affects him? Does a law have to hurt everyone before we decide it was a bad idea? Silly argument.
Others may have other points to make, but I would offer these thoughts on this for now.
a) The "harm" comes in imposing on everyone a new definition of (part of) reality. It is an act of aggression.
"Marriage now means such-and-such." "Well, I don't agree with that." "Well, you're wrong--the city/state/courts voted. Once again, I ask--who gave any of these folks the right to change what marriage is? Instead of these these proposed laws and ballot measures, how about something like this: "I favor giving the state of Ohio the power to decide what marriage is, rather than merely regulate it for good order" or some verbiage like that. Government did not create marriage or family, these things pre-existed government. Government regulates these matters, as may be necessary. Personally, I prefer less such regulation than more.
After all, it is not true that two men or women cannot "marry" each other in an absolute sense. They can find a minister to perform a ritual of marriage, and they can deem themselves married to each other.
They can tell family, friends and neighbors that they deem themselves married, they can live as a married couple, and others can choose to treat them that way. They can even, to a great degree, create legal relationships to carry this out. (One argument used here for legalizing "same sex marriage" is to point to problems of access to hospital visitation, power of attorney, and other legal arrangements. I strongly suspect if these matters were tackled directly, it would be very easy to enact changes in state laws to eliminate these problems. I, for one, do not have much energy for preventing this.)
But what one cannot do in most states, and what is at issue, is to have the civil authority, i.e., society in a formal way, affirm that this is marriage.
If you want to call a sheep's tail a leg, and say a sheep has five legs, go ahead. I'm not going to make a thing about that. But when you pass a law saying I must agree, then I'm going to have a problem with that, as do most people, judging by the outcome of these legislative ventures in most states thus far.
b) The harm comes to the degree that it is even important that there be some social notion of marriage, as opposed to merely private notions. And this, I think, is the major harm: i.e., harm to the very cohesion of society.
What makes a society? What makes one society, one? One can give a lot of answers, but ours, in this country and in our western tradition, tends to be, a common set of values.
And really, those seeking approbation of "same sex marriage" seem to get this, because they either try to appeal to some other common value to justify this, or else they sense that in order for this to succeed, a new value has to displace an old one.
Hence, for example, when the District of Columbia created "same-sex marriage" in D.C., it also imposed obligations on others to go along--in this case, obligations on those accepting tax funds to carry out programs. Those programs had to go along with this new value; something the Archdiocese of Washington would not do, because it could not. And don't kid yourself--the further we go down this road, the expectations and compliance imposed on others will only increase. This is the narrow edge of the wedge.
c) So what is happening here is "radical" change in the truest sense: radical not meant as a pejorative, but meaning, change at the root. Marriage is at the root of society; it's primordial; it goes to basic human identity. What is at stake is redefining what these things are for all of us as a society, because if such fundamental things are "privatized," then the cohesion of society falls apart.
d) An additional harm lies in what comes through the door once opened. I.e., the law of (unintended) consequences.
This is a legal argument, for which I am not fully qualified, but I think I'm on good ground. As mentioned, marriage-as-heterosexual is not, as some claim, religious in origin. But monogamy is. So, supposing the campaign for "gay marriage" prevails, especially as a product of litigation, then one is left asking, why--if we liberalized marriage laws to allow what was forbidden--are polygamous marriages still not allowed.
This is not speculation; there are people who practice polygamy, at home and abroad. Unlike fictional "same-sex marriage," there is a real history and tradition to polygamy. And our laws against it do not rest on appeal to universal human experience. They rest on a claim that social order demands no polygamy; or else they rest on an attenuated relationship to Christian tradition. (And while we don't like to say it out loud, a lot of our laws, that's where they come from.)
Another "what's next" issue: once we sever any remaining essential connection between marriage and procreation, then why should we defend any essential connection between marriage and sex? I.e., why should the law prohibit any two people, any at all, from "marrying"? Two friends--with no sexual interest whatsoever--nonetheless wish to be married, to have the "benefits" of marriage (this is the argument we hear now)...who are they hurting by being recognized by our laws as "married"?
At some point, when marriage may be anything, then it is nothing. Then marriage has been successfully deconstructed. And it may be that we will find--if this is how it plays out--that it won't matter. Perhaps we really don't need marriage to be a certain thing as a fundamental feature of our society--or perhaps after all this experimentation, the truth of what marriage is will remain largely undimmed, or even triumphant.
But it strains credulity to suppose that all this experimentation will have no real-world effect on anyone. What effect have other social and legal changes--such as easing divorce laws--had on men, women, children, families and society? Don't know? Google it and find out.
It is quite true that I am unable to predict these matters. No matter. Instead of having to show the harm, or else the venture goes forward, I insist: why should we engage in this sort of wholesale restructuring of society? That's a lot to ask. The burden is on you to make the case--and given how much change you want to effect, I'd say the threshold should be set rather high.
5. What is the role of the Church in this--or any religious body?
The Church--any religious body--has the same rights under our Constitution as any individual or group of individuals. Because we are a church, we do not have fewer rights.
Our tax-exempt status constrains our actions to some degree, but far less than people think. That tax-exemption means some limitation on political involvement, but only some. In practice, it means the Church cannot endorse or oppose candidates. It certainly does not constrain freedom of speech; nor does it constrain the Church from petitioning government on legislation (protected by the First Amendment) that affects the Church directly.
It certainly does not constrain me--I can say whatever I feel like, I can be as political as I wish, without running afoul of tax law...provided I am acting as an individual and not in my role as a part of the corporate body. For example, my posts on this blog. No court would ever find that my blog is "official" in any sense, any more than if I sat at a table in a restaurant, and gave my political views, that that represented "the Church" taking a political position.
Further, there is a very good argument to be made that the Church can, in fact, be as political as she wants, provided she is communicating internally to her own members. I.e., the government has no authority to regulate what is said within the organization; but it may place conditions--related to the tax status--on what the Church communicates to outsiders, i.e., society at large.
There are those who appeal either to the tax-status, or to an unspecified principle of "separation of church and state," as a basis for saying the Church should shut up about public policy. But there is a big difference between this unspecified principle and what the law--the Constitution, statute and their construal by courts over the years--actually says. And the actual state of the law is on the side of the freedom of action by religious bodies, constrained only to some degree by the tax status.
Periodically, politicians angered by the Church or other religious bodies winning on a point of public policy will issue threats to revoke that tax-exemption, but that comes to nothing. You can easily look this up: you will find that actual examples of tax-exemption being revoked came because of very specific and egregious violations. It is rare. I'm not saying the Church shouldn't obey the law; but the law is what the law says it is, not what people who don't like the Church's influence imagine it is.
6. What's the "harm" of allowing same-sex marriage? Why not go along with it?
Well, that's a good question. Someone said in another thread that he couldn't see how allowing "gay marriage" has hurt his marriage. (Shrug.) That doesn't really answer anything. Does that mean only a law becomes a bad law when it affects him? Does a law have to hurt everyone before we decide it was a bad idea? Silly argument.
Others may have other points to make, but I would offer these thoughts on this for now.
a) The "harm" comes in imposing on everyone a new definition of (part of) reality. It is an act of aggression.
"Marriage now means such-and-such." "Well, I don't agree with that." "Well, you're wrong--the city/state/courts voted. Once again, I ask--who gave any of these folks the right to change what marriage is? Instead of these these proposed laws and ballot measures, how about something like this: "I favor giving the state of Ohio the power to decide what marriage is, rather than merely regulate it for good order" or some verbiage like that. Government did not create marriage or family, these things pre-existed government. Government regulates these matters, as may be necessary. Personally, I prefer less such regulation than more.
After all, it is not true that two men or women cannot "marry" each other in an absolute sense. They can find a minister to perform a ritual of marriage, and they can deem themselves married to each other.
They can tell family, friends and neighbors that they deem themselves married, they can live as a married couple, and others can choose to treat them that way. They can even, to a great degree, create legal relationships to carry this out. (One argument used here for legalizing "same sex marriage" is to point to problems of access to hospital visitation, power of attorney, and other legal arrangements. I strongly suspect if these matters were tackled directly, it would be very easy to enact changes in state laws to eliminate these problems. I, for one, do not have much energy for preventing this.)
But what one cannot do in most states, and what is at issue, is to have the civil authority, i.e., society in a formal way, affirm that this is marriage.
If you want to call a sheep's tail a leg, and say a sheep has five legs, go ahead. I'm not going to make a thing about that. But when you pass a law saying I must agree, then I'm going to have a problem with that, as do most people, judging by the outcome of these legislative ventures in most states thus far.
b) The harm comes to the degree that it is even important that there be some social notion of marriage, as opposed to merely private notions. And this, I think, is the major harm: i.e., harm to the very cohesion of society.
What makes a society? What makes one society, one? One can give a lot of answers, but ours, in this country and in our western tradition, tends to be, a common set of values.
And really, those seeking approbation of "same sex marriage" seem to get this, because they either try to appeal to some other common value to justify this, or else they sense that in order for this to succeed, a new value has to displace an old one.
Hence, for example, when the District of Columbia created "same-sex marriage" in D.C., it also imposed obligations on others to go along--in this case, obligations on those accepting tax funds to carry out programs. Those programs had to go along with this new value; something the Archdiocese of Washington would not do, because it could not. And don't kid yourself--the further we go down this road, the expectations and compliance imposed on others will only increase. This is the narrow edge of the wedge.
c) So what is happening here is "radical" change in the truest sense: radical not meant as a pejorative, but meaning, change at the root. Marriage is at the root of society; it's primordial; it goes to basic human identity. What is at stake is redefining what these things are for all of us as a society, because if such fundamental things are "privatized," then the cohesion of society falls apart.
d) An additional harm lies in what comes through the door once opened. I.e., the law of (unintended) consequences.
This is a legal argument, for which I am not fully qualified, but I think I'm on good ground. As mentioned, marriage-as-heterosexual is not, as some claim, religious in origin. But monogamy is. So, supposing the campaign for "gay marriage" prevails, especially as a product of litigation, then one is left asking, why--if we liberalized marriage laws to allow what was forbidden--are polygamous marriages still not allowed.
This is not speculation; there are people who practice polygamy, at home and abroad. Unlike fictional "same-sex marriage," there is a real history and tradition to polygamy. And our laws against it do not rest on appeal to universal human experience. They rest on a claim that social order demands no polygamy; or else they rest on an attenuated relationship to Christian tradition. (And while we don't like to say it out loud, a lot of our laws, that's where they come from.)
Another "what's next" issue: once we sever any remaining essential connection between marriage and procreation, then why should we defend any essential connection between marriage and sex? I.e., why should the law prohibit any two people, any at all, from "marrying"? Two friends--with no sexual interest whatsoever--nonetheless wish to be married, to have the "benefits" of marriage (this is the argument we hear now)...who are they hurting by being recognized by our laws as "married"?
At some point, when marriage may be anything, then it is nothing. Then marriage has been successfully deconstructed. And it may be that we will find--if this is how it plays out--that it won't matter. Perhaps we really don't need marriage to be a certain thing as a fundamental feature of our society--or perhaps after all this experimentation, the truth of what marriage is will remain largely undimmed, or even triumphant.
But it strains credulity to suppose that all this experimentation will have no real-world effect on anyone. What effect have other social and legal changes--such as easing divorce laws--had on men, women, children, families and society? Don't know? Google it and find out.
It is quite true that I am unable to predict these matters. No matter. Instead of having to show the harm, or else the venture goes forward, I insist: why should we engage in this sort of wholesale restructuring of society? That's a lot to ask. The burden is on you to make the case--and given how much change you want to effect, I'd say the threshold should be set rather high.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
A (winter) day in a pastor's life...
I'm cooling my heels (almost literally) this morning as the latest snowstorm blows over. Seems like a good time to give you another peek into how things are for a pastor.
The big project these days is snow. Everyone got hit last Friday and Saturday, then again yesterday, and more today. Here in Piqua, the mounds are pretty high. The job of clearing snow in such situations is more than any one person can do; whether you are out and about, or staying home, say a prayer for all those who are clearing snow in these storms.
That included me this time. I am a little chagrined to admit it, but until recently, I haven't been all that familiar with how a snow blower operates. Before I entered the seminary, I always used a shovel to remove snow, and so I did since. A few times, here in Piqua, I've asked someone to show me how to use a snow blower, but it didn't happen. Well, last night I finally got a tutorial, and managed not to mow down a bush or run into anything; but I can't say that I was all that efficient.
We had a funeral this morning--with a priest scheduled to come up from Cincinnati, at the request of the family. About 8:15 pm last night, the four of us who were cleaning up the snow all around St. Mary Church and the school--pretty much a full city block--we're looking with satisfaction at every walk cleared, the lot cleared, and all the walks and steps salted.
Then this morning, I didn't even look that closely right away...but when I did, oops! So we got out and cleared things up again. The other folks did most of it, I did a little, because I was also checking in with the family that arrived around 9 am, along with the funeral home, for a visitation in church before the Mass. I didn't look very priestly, I'm afraid, because I'd put on work clothes that were going to get soggy while working in the snow. After doing a bit with the snow, I came back, cleaned up and dressed appropriately, and went over to see if the visiting priest had made it. If not, I was there to offer the Mass.
But he had made it, as had two of the four servers. The Mass was to be in Spanish, which I cannot do; I can manage a few words, that's all. I chatted with him, making sure all was in order, then left him to take care of things.
Meanwhile, I'm making calls around to folks. We have a 24-hour chapel, that usually never closes, but when we have bad weather like this, we do close it. I called the retired priest who was scheduled for Mass this evening, and suggested I take the Mass, since I will have to be out and about, and that way he doesn't take any chances.
The question comes up, what about cancelling Mass? My answer is, if the priest can get there, we'll have Mass; what is the alternative? If I don't show up, someone else, who didn't get word Mass was cancelled, may still show up. So even if I put it on TV and radio...I still have to be there, "just in case." Besides, the Mass must be offered for the intention designated--if not that time, then on another occasion. So as I say, it comes back to, if the priest can get there, Mass will happen. In my situation, St. Mary is a few steps away, St. Boniface is a half-mile away. It would have to be very bad for me not to be able to walk that distance.
In a moment, I'm going to write my column for the bulletin; meanwhile, I'm fielding calls about this and that, but not going anywhere till the storm settles down. The city crews are out on the roads, and they don't need me getting in their way, and besides, everything is cancelled. The vicar and I are here, deciding who is going to handle the burial for the funeral this morning (the visiting priest cannot go), and who will take care of a visit to a nursing home that needs to happen sometime later today.
The big project these days is snow. Everyone got hit last Friday and Saturday, then again yesterday, and more today. Here in Piqua, the mounds are pretty high. The job of clearing snow in such situations is more than any one person can do; whether you are out and about, or staying home, say a prayer for all those who are clearing snow in these storms.
That included me this time. I am a little chagrined to admit it, but until recently, I haven't been all that familiar with how a snow blower operates. Before I entered the seminary, I always used a shovel to remove snow, and so I did since. A few times, here in Piqua, I've asked someone to show me how to use a snow blower, but it didn't happen. Well, last night I finally got a tutorial, and managed not to mow down a bush or run into anything; but I can't say that I was all that efficient.
We had a funeral this morning--with a priest scheduled to come up from Cincinnati, at the request of the family. About 8:15 pm last night, the four of us who were cleaning up the snow all around St. Mary Church and the school--pretty much a full city block--we're looking with satisfaction at every walk cleared, the lot cleared, and all the walks and steps salted.
Then this morning, I didn't even look that closely right away...but when I did, oops! So we got out and cleared things up again. The other folks did most of it, I did a little, because I was also checking in with the family that arrived around 9 am, along with the funeral home, for a visitation in church before the Mass. I didn't look very priestly, I'm afraid, because I'd put on work clothes that were going to get soggy while working in the snow. After doing a bit with the snow, I came back, cleaned up and dressed appropriately, and went over to see if the visiting priest had made it. If not, I was there to offer the Mass.
But he had made it, as had two of the four servers. The Mass was to be in Spanish, which I cannot do; I can manage a few words, that's all. I chatted with him, making sure all was in order, then left him to take care of things.
Meanwhile, I'm making calls around to folks. We have a 24-hour chapel, that usually never closes, but when we have bad weather like this, we do close it. I called the retired priest who was scheduled for Mass this evening, and suggested I take the Mass, since I will have to be out and about, and that way he doesn't take any chances.
The question comes up, what about cancelling Mass? My answer is, if the priest can get there, we'll have Mass; what is the alternative? If I don't show up, someone else, who didn't get word Mass was cancelled, may still show up. So even if I put it on TV and radio...I still have to be there, "just in case." Besides, the Mass must be offered for the intention designated--if not that time, then on another occasion. So as I say, it comes back to, if the priest can get there, Mass will happen. In my situation, St. Mary is a few steps away, St. Boniface is a half-mile away. It would have to be very bad for me not to be able to walk that distance.
In a moment, I'm going to write my column for the bulletin; meanwhile, I'm fielding calls about this and that, but not going anywhere till the storm settles down. The city crews are out on the roads, and they don't need me getting in their way, and besides, everything is cancelled. The vicar and I are here, deciding who is going to handle the burial for the funeral this morning (the visiting priest cannot go), and who will take care of a visit to a nursing home that needs to happen sometime later today.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
How dare a priest come here!
Earlier this week, I read a column at the Washington Post, and posted a response there, that led to a conversation that developed along interesting lines.
The column--which you can see here--was by an ex-priest who was criticizing the Archdiocese of Washington in how it responded to a move by the District of Columbia government to create "same-sex marriage" in the District. With that move came requirements, imposed on those who accept city funding, that the Archdiocese found in conflict with our Catholic Faith and its Gospel mission. So, the Archdiocese said, if that passes, we will have to forgo the funding that was then flowing through the Archdiocese into various services to the poor.
Well, the city proceeded as it announced--and while I'm not up on the exact state of things, if the Archdiocese hasn't withdrawn from those activities, it will before long.
And ex-Father Tam excoriated the Archdiocese, accusing it of refusing to serve the poor.
Bogus charge. A lie, in fact, and so I said on the thread.
Well, you may or may not be interested in what followed. One child of God showed up and dowsed me with condemnation as "dishonest," "prejudiced" "sanctimonious," a "hater" etc. I thought it rich with irony that he would attack me like this...yet I'm the "hater." In the end, he pretty much said I had no business being there.
It's true I had other things to do. It's also true that someone needed to speak up in defense of the Archdiocese of Washington's defense of the truth and defense of the rights of Catholics and others who disagree with the city's high-handed actions.
I thought you might find it interesting.
The column--which you can see here--was by an ex-priest who was criticizing the Archdiocese of Washington in how it responded to a move by the District of Columbia government to create "same-sex marriage" in the District. With that move came requirements, imposed on those who accept city funding, that the Archdiocese found in conflict with our Catholic Faith and its Gospel mission. So, the Archdiocese said, if that passes, we will have to forgo the funding that was then flowing through the Archdiocese into various services to the poor.
Well, the city proceeded as it announced--and while I'm not up on the exact state of things, if the Archdiocese hasn't withdrawn from those activities, it will before long.
And ex-Father Tam excoriated the Archdiocese, accusing it of refusing to serve the poor.
Bogus charge. A lie, in fact, and so I said on the thread.
Well, you may or may not be interested in what followed. One child of God showed up and dowsed me with condemnation as "dishonest," "prejudiced" "sanctimonious," a "hater" etc. I thought it rich with irony that he would attack me like this...yet I'm the "hater." In the end, he pretty much said I had no business being there.
It's true I had other things to do. It's also true that someone needed to speak up in defense of the Archdiocese of Washington's defense of the truth and defense of the rights of Catholics and others who disagree with the city's high-handed actions.
I thought you might find it interesting.
Where we expect Him and where (maybe) we don't...(Sunday homily)
My homily may well have been less well ordered today, because I planned on preparing it today, and then got caught up in many other things (such as dealing with lots and lots of snow), and had a real time trying to focus my thoughts.
I didn't write any notes, so all I can share with you are some points I attempted to make; along the way, I'll share the thoughts that lay behind my homily tonight, such as it was.
What caught my eye was the contrast between the first reading and the Gospel: in each case, an encounter with God. The first happens in church (in the temple)--where we expect and hope to encounter God--that's why we come. The second happened at work--where we may not be expecting to encounter God, but we need to, as do those we work for.
Look at what happened in this Gospel story. Simon is hard at work, and he's ready to go home. Jesus comes and choose his boat to sit in; now he can't go home. How long will this preacher talk?
When our Lord finishes, he says, put out over there--you'll get a catch.
When we had the workers painting the outside of church this past summer, imagine if I'd come along, and said to the workers, you know, you could do a better job if you did it this way. Imagine what would they say? "Oh, you think so, do you?" I wonder if that's what Simon Peter said to Jesus! But then he gets a catch--and he realizes the miracle. He knew there wasn't any fish in that lake! That's when he falls to his knees and calls out Lord.
This got me thinking about how Christ needs to be heard and met in the workplace--who will go? Who will take him there? We may think this is the priest's job; but my calling as a priest is to sanctify you; and you--as laypeople--in turn, are called to sanctify the world. That is your role and privilege through your baptismal priesthood. You meet folks I never see; and you have credibility with folks where a priest won't.
This got me thinking along another line as well. Something about this passage seemed to say something in particular to us men. Let's face it, men--when we come to church, we are in the minority; for whatever reason, a lot of our fellow men don't see spirituality as their thing. But was there something unmanly about Isaiah being overwhelmed by God's presence? We all need that--and hopefully, we all experience that at some point in our lives. You and I as men need to be speaking to our fellow men, and calling them go deeper and to encounter the Lord.
So what do you say folks? Are you ready to fishing for the Lord? To catch souls for him? Who is sending? He's sending you--into the workplace, wherever you go, to bring him there, so people meet him. We encounter him here, in church--like Isaiah; but the whole world needs to meet him. We can wait till they come here; or we can go fishing for the Lord.
I didn't write any notes, so all I can share with you are some points I attempted to make; along the way, I'll share the thoughts that lay behind my homily tonight, such as it was.
What caught my eye was the contrast between the first reading and the Gospel: in each case, an encounter with God. The first happens in church (in the temple)--where we expect and hope to encounter God--that's why we come. The second happened at work--where we may not be expecting to encounter God, but we need to, as do those we work for.
Look at what happened in this Gospel story. Simon is hard at work, and he's ready to go home. Jesus comes and choose his boat to sit in; now he can't go home. How long will this preacher talk?
When our Lord finishes, he says, put out over there--you'll get a catch.
When we had the workers painting the outside of church this past summer, imagine if I'd come along, and said to the workers, you know, you could do a better job if you did it this way. Imagine what would they say? "Oh, you think so, do you?" I wonder if that's what Simon Peter said to Jesus! But then he gets a catch--and he realizes the miracle. He knew there wasn't any fish in that lake! That's when he falls to his knees and calls out Lord.
This got me thinking about how Christ needs to be heard and met in the workplace--who will go? Who will take him there? We may think this is the priest's job; but my calling as a priest is to sanctify you; and you--as laypeople--in turn, are called to sanctify the world. That is your role and privilege through your baptismal priesthood. You meet folks I never see; and you have credibility with folks where a priest won't.
This got me thinking along another line as well. Something about this passage seemed to say something in particular to us men. Let's face it, men--when we come to church, we are in the minority; for whatever reason, a lot of our fellow men don't see spirituality as their thing. But was there something unmanly about Isaiah being overwhelmed by God's presence? We all need that--and hopefully, we all experience that at some point in our lives. You and I as men need to be speaking to our fellow men, and calling them go deeper and to encounter the Lord.
So what do you say folks? Are you ready to fishing for the Lord? To catch souls for him? Who is sending? He's sending you--into the workplace, wherever you go, to bring him there, so people meet him. We encounter him here, in church--like Isaiah; but the whole world needs to meet him. We can wait till they come here; or we can go fishing for the Lord.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Holy Water in Lent...
Just passing this along, came through via email today, from the Worship Office of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati:
Recently, Archbishop Schnurr received a letter concerning the removal of holy water from fonts during the season of Lent. Archbishop Schnurr asked that I clarify for parishes the appropriate liturgical practice.
There is no liturgical directive or norm that states that removing holy water from baptismal fonts (or holy water receptacles) is an acceptable practice.
While the original intent of some parishes to remove holy water from fonts during Lent was well meant, pastoral practice and reflection has taught us that this practice is not well founded. Perhaps some explanation might be helpful.
For those of us who are baptized, Lent is a season in which we walk with the Elect as they prepare for their upcoming baptism and when we prepare for the renewal of our own baptismal promises. We are not “fasting from our baptism,” but rather, during this season, we renew our baptismal call to discipleship through prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
Thus, the purpose of “fasting” is to allow more space in our hearts so that we may walk more closely with the Lord and the Elect, and that we might be moved to greater charity, greater love, greater justice in our lives. Because the Lenten season is understood in this baptismal light, it is most appropriate to leave the holy water in the fonts reminding us of our baptismal commitment.
Therefore, if it has been your parish practice to remove holy water from the font (or holy water receptacles), we would ask that you refrain from doing so during the Lenten season.
However, it is appropriate to remove holy water after the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday until the blessing of water at the Easter Vigil.
Recently, Archbishop Schnurr received a letter concerning the removal of holy water from fonts during the season of Lent. Archbishop Schnurr asked that I clarify for parishes the appropriate liturgical practice.
There is no liturgical directive or norm that states that removing holy water from baptismal fonts (or holy water receptacles) is an acceptable practice.
While the original intent of some parishes to remove holy water from fonts during Lent was well meant, pastoral practice and reflection has taught us that this practice is not well founded. Perhaps some explanation might be helpful.
For those of us who are baptized, Lent is a season in which we walk with the Elect as they prepare for their upcoming baptism and when we prepare for the renewal of our own baptismal promises. We are not “fasting from our baptism,” but rather, during this season, we renew our baptismal call to discipleship through prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
Thus, the purpose of “fasting” is to allow more space in our hearts so that we may walk more closely with the Lord and the Elect, and that we might be moved to greater charity, greater love, greater justice in our lives. Because the Lenten season is understood in this baptismal light, it is most appropriate to leave the holy water in the fonts reminding us of our baptismal commitment.
Therefore, if it has been your parish practice to remove holy water from the font (or holy water receptacles), we would ask that you refrain from doing so during the Lenten season.
However, it is appropriate to remove holy water after the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday until the blessing of water at the Easter Vigil.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Speaking the truth in love (Sunday homily)
Three powerful readings from Scripture.
What do they have in common?
Love.
Why was it important that Jeremiah speak out?
Why did God send him?
God’s people were on a path to being destroyed;
they needed to be warned.
Why did Jesus,
right after everyone said how wonderful he was,
then proceed to infuriate them all so much
that his own friends and neighbors
tried to throw him off the cliff?
Love tells the truth; not as a weapon,
but as the call—often an urgent call:
“Here’s the right path, you’re going the wrong way!”
Both Jeremiah and our Lord found out
how unpopular that can be.
So why is anyone surprised that it’s true for us?
We Catholics often present to our world
a message it doesn’t want to hear.
What’s more, many of our own Catholics don’t agree
with parts of that message.
And the response we hear is, the Church is out of step; change the message—
not just how we say it, but change what we believe.
We might mention marriage:
what used to be common sense is now called “bigotry.”
But to say that marriage is a certain thing,
Rather than anything we want to make of it,
Is simply telling the truth.
There’s a story told about President Lincoln.
He asked some other politicians,
“How many legs does a sheep have?”
“Four,” they answered.
“What if you call a tail a leg, how many then?”
“Well, then five.”
“No,” Lincoln said—the sheep still has four legs—
because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.
The reason we must keep speaking out, like Jeremiah—
and whether it’s about marriage, or the sanctity of life,
or about what real justice looks like,
or what the real ingredients of a happy life look like…
The reason we do it is because we have a life-giving message.
Our society needs it.
And like Jeremiah, God sends us to give it!
And no matter how young you are—speak out.
And the fact that our message
is sometimes unwelcome is just the same thing
that has always happened.
It hardly “proves” that what we’re offering isn’t true;
It only proves that what we’re offering is a challenge.
Chastity and self control…
Being open to God giving new life in families…
Forgiving our enemies…
Finding room for the poor, for the aged, the immigrant…
Telling people that “success” isn’t the main thing…
These are hard messages—not always welcome.
But here’s the thing:
For all these centuries,
Christians—and the Catholic Church in particular—
have been saying hard things like this to the world.
Before we Christians did it, the Jewish people did it.
The world never liked it,
but our world is a far better place because of it.
Think of slavery. It is so shocking to us.
And yet, in most of human history, it was normal.
It was common before Christianity spread.
Over the centuries,
it almost entirely died out in Christian Europe.
Then, when European explorers came to Africa…
They found it, they got dollar-signs in their eyes,
and brought it to the New World.
And it was another four hundred years’ long struggle
as Christians, our Church in particular, kept fighting it.
There were a lot of Jeremiahs over the years,
Their message wasn’t welcome…
They didn’t say, “I’m personally opposed, but…”
They were told, “Get with the times,”
They didn’t listen!
“Love never fails.”
So however long the odds may seem,
That our culture is going to listen to us,
We have a simple but certain fact on our side:
Our message is not our own invention.
We are presenting the message of Jesus Christ.
And while parts of the message are well received,
Other times, it inspires fury.
Some years back, I spent a month in Korea,
And there is a hilltop there where 150 years ago,
the King threw Christians to their deaths—
just like the crowd wanted to do to Jesus.
There’s a Catholic Church on that hilltop now;
And although Christians are still a minority in Korea,
they have had a huge influence for good.
Parents, you are the ones who often do this
when you draw a line or say “no” for the thousandth time.
You do it when you go the extra mile to share our Faith with your children.
This week we celebrate the great gift of our Catholic Schools
and we thank all those whose work and sacrifice make them possible.
But the key thing is that the family,
the leadership of parents, is what passes on the Faith.
As a former kid, I can tell you I eventually figured out that my parents were right!
Your kids will figure it out—and they may even admit it!
Meanwhile, it is love—love that speaks the truth—
that compels us to say,
“this is the path that leads to life.”
What do they have in common?
Love.
Why was it important that Jeremiah speak out?
Why did God send him?
God’s people were on a path to being destroyed;
they needed to be warned.
Why did Jesus,
right after everyone said how wonderful he was,
then proceed to infuriate them all so much
that his own friends and neighbors
tried to throw him off the cliff?
Love tells the truth; not as a weapon,
but as the call—often an urgent call:
“Here’s the right path, you’re going the wrong way!”
Both Jeremiah and our Lord found out
how unpopular that can be.
So why is anyone surprised that it’s true for us?
We Catholics often present to our world
a message it doesn’t want to hear.
What’s more, many of our own Catholics don’t agree
with parts of that message.
And the response we hear is, the Church is out of step; change the message—
not just how we say it, but change what we believe.
We might mention marriage:
what used to be common sense is now called “bigotry.”
But to say that marriage is a certain thing,
Rather than anything we want to make of it,
Is simply telling the truth.
There’s a story told about President Lincoln.
He asked some other politicians,
“How many legs does a sheep have?”
“Four,” they answered.
“What if you call a tail a leg, how many then?”
“Well, then five.”
“No,” Lincoln said—the sheep still has four legs—
because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.
The reason we must keep speaking out, like Jeremiah—
and whether it’s about marriage, or the sanctity of life,
or about what real justice looks like,
or what the real ingredients of a happy life look like…
The reason we do it is because we have a life-giving message.
Our society needs it.
And like Jeremiah, God sends us to give it!
And no matter how young you are—speak out.
And the fact that our message
is sometimes unwelcome is just the same thing
that has always happened.
It hardly “proves” that what we’re offering isn’t true;
It only proves that what we’re offering is a challenge.
Chastity and self control…
Being open to God giving new life in families…
Forgiving our enemies…
Finding room for the poor, for the aged, the immigrant…
Telling people that “success” isn’t the main thing…
These are hard messages—not always welcome.
But here’s the thing:
For all these centuries,
Christians—and the Catholic Church in particular—
have been saying hard things like this to the world.
Before we Christians did it, the Jewish people did it.
The world never liked it,
but our world is a far better place because of it.
Think of slavery. It is so shocking to us.
And yet, in most of human history, it was normal.
It was common before Christianity spread.
Over the centuries,
it almost entirely died out in Christian Europe.
Then, when European explorers came to Africa…
They found it, they got dollar-signs in their eyes,
and brought it to the New World.
And it was another four hundred years’ long struggle
as Christians, our Church in particular, kept fighting it.
There were a lot of Jeremiahs over the years,
Their message wasn’t welcome…
They didn’t say, “I’m personally opposed, but…”
They were told, “Get with the times,”
They didn’t listen!
“Love never fails.”
So however long the odds may seem,
That our culture is going to listen to us,
We have a simple but certain fact on our side:
Our message is not our own invention.
We are presenting the message of Jesus Christ.
And while parts of the message are well received,
Other times, it inspires fury.
Some years back, I spent a month in Korea,
And there is a hilltop there where 150 years ago,
the King threw Christians to their deaths—
just like the crowd wanted to do to Jesus.
There’s a Catholic Church on that hilltop now;
And although Christians are still a minority in Korea,
they have had a huge influence for good.
Parents, you are the ones who often do this
when you draw a line or say “no” for the thousandth time.
You do it when you go the extra mile to share our Faith with your children.
This week we celebrate the great gift of our Catholic Schools
and we thank all those whose work and sacrifice make them possible.
But the key thing is that the family,
the leadership of parents, is what passes on the Faith.
As a former kid, I can tell you I eventually figured out that my parents were right!
Your kids will figure it out—and they may even admit it!
Meanwhile, it is love—love that speaks the truth—
that compels us to say,
“this is the path that leads to life.”
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
First Reconciliation
I thought you might be interested in how we did things here for our second-graders who participated in the sacrament of reconciliation for the first time.
The children--whether in religious education or Piqua Catholic grade school--have been preparing all year; last night we had a penance service for them and their families. We had a reading from Isaiah, a psalm and a Gospel passage from Luke, concerning the one lost sheep (later in that passage, our Lord talks about the lost coin, and then the lost son--i.e., the "prodigal" son). Yours truly gave the homily, which is below. The children took their turns, after which the adults were welcome to receive the sacrament. Several older children came as well. After receiving the sacrament, the children light a candle and can take a rosary, which I blessed at the end. We had four priests, and I decided we'll need five or six next year.
Afterwards, two of the priests, our religious education coordinator and I went out for something to eat; we ended up staying past closing (at 10, I mean), the conversation was so enjoyable. Thanks to Father Jason Bedel, from Sidney, who joined us!
You might be curious about our timing--we will have First Communion in May, so this gives time for the second-graders to receive the sacrament of confession again before then.
When Father Caserta read the Gospel,
You heard Jesus ask:
What man wouldn’t leave the 99 sheep…
and go find the one that’s lost…
Jesus said, “who doesn’t do that?”
Well…I think we would not do that!
If you’ve got 99 sheep, and one goes off into the woods,
Most people would say,
“too bad…that’s the cost of doing business.”
After all, if you are watching 100,
and one sheep wanders off,
what might happen while you’re gone?
They might wander off, or get in trouble, too!
So this is what happens: we feel badly,
but we let the sheep go.
And we do it with people, too.
We have an argument with someone,
and we are too mad—or too proud—
to be the one to go make up.
“No, she should come to me!”
Maybe there’s someone in our grade at school—
and we don’t know him or her very well;
or we may not like that person so much.
Someone makes fun of that boy or girl,
and we go along with it.
As you may know, everyone is not always
treated with respect in our society.
Sometimes we put people down
because their name sounds funny to us;
or their skin color is different from ours;
because of their clothes,
or their family doesn’t have a lot of money.
Many times, we know people who did wrong—
and we let them wander off; we’d rather they did:
“good riddance!”
Of course, everything I just said
not only applies to those other people—
those other sheep—it applies to ourselves!
We wander off because we get our focus
on someone other than Jesus, who is our shepherd.
We—or the other sheep we’re with—
would rather be at a soccer game.
We wander off because we decide
that we really don’t need a shepherd—
we know our own way.
I’ll tell you a secret—but you already know it.
Sometimes grownups say,
“now that I’m a grownup,
I don’t need my faith so much. That’s for kids.”
Let me tell you: I’m 48 years old, I’m a grown man.
But I am not so smart that I know every answer.
Today I needed Jon Paul to help me with my computer!
So how can I think I don’t need Jesus to lead me every day?
We might wander off, thinking, what I do is my business.
But caring for each other is our business.
Just like a team, we need everyone. Everyone counts.
So tonight, with the sacrament of penance,
We have the opportunity to get back.
Of course, this is a first time for many of us.
But I am confident it won’t be your last.
Now I know how hard you worked to be ready;
But if you are afraid you’ll forget, don’t worry!
Father Tom, Father Ang, Father Jason and I will help!
(Hint: that’s true for everyone!)
Parents, after your children have their opportunity,
I want to invite you to receive the grace of this sacrament.
Now, we might ask:
“Does this Gospel passage mean the sacrament of reconciliation
is only for the sheep who wander off?”
No! This is sacrament is very powerful to help keep us from wandering off.
After all, I suspect the lamb Jesus talked about
may not have realized, right away, he’d gotten lost.
He was happily chewing on grass,
and didn’t realize Jesus was farther and farther away.
This sacrament keeps us close to the Shepherd—
and teaches us to recognize his voice
in all the ways he speaks to us.
Kids, when you’ve driven with mom and dad,
I bet you noticed this: they will get lost,
but they don’t want to admit they are lost.
Or else, they won’t stop to ask directions!
That can be hard to do;
But it is what we do when we go to confession.
“I’m sorry Lord, I got off track. Help me get back!”
And the more often we come, the more easily we do that.
Finally, remember that when the Lord finds us,
He never says, “I came to find you to kick you out!”
No, we heard what Jesus does:
He gathers up his lamb, puts it on his shoulders, “with great joy!”
Let him find you tonight—
Let him keep you close to his heart.
The children--whether in religious education or Piqua Catholic grade school--have been preparing all year; last night we had a penance service for them and their families. We had a reading from Isaiah, a psalm and a Gospel passage from Luke, concerning the one lost sheep (later in that passage, our Lord talks about the lost coin, and then the lost son--i.e., the "prodigal" son). Yours truly gave the homily, which is below. The children took their turns, after which the adults were welcome to receive the sacrament. Several older children came as well. After receiving the sacrament, the children light a candle and can take a rosary, which I blessed at the end. We had four priests, and I decided we'll need five or six next year.
Afterwards, two of the priests, our religious education coordinator and I went out for something to eat; we ended up staying past closing (at 10, I mean), the conversation was so enjoyable. Thanks to Father Jason Bedel, from Sidney, who joined us!
You might be curious about our timing--we will have First Communion in May, so this gives time for the second-graders to receive the sacrament of confession again before then.
When Father Caserta read the Gospel,
You heard Jesus ask:
What man wouldn’t leave the 99 sheep…
and go find the one that’s lost…
Jesus said, “who doesn’t do that?”
Well…I think we would not do that!
If you’ve got 99 sheep, and one goes off into the woods,
Most people would say,
“too bad…that’s the cost of doing business.”
After all, if you are watching 100,
and one sheep wanders off,
what might happen while you’re gone?
They might wander off, or get in trouble, too!
So this is what happens: we feel badly,
but we let the sheep go.
And we do it with people, too.
We have an argument with someone,
and we are too mad—or too proud—
to be the one to go make up.
“No, she should come to me!”
Maybe there’s someone in our grade at school—
and we don’t know him or her very well;
or we may not like that person so much.
Someone makes fun of that boy or girl,
and we go along with it.
As you may know, everyone is not always
treated with respect in our society.
Sometimes we put people down
because their name sounds funny to us;
or their skin color is different from ours;
because of their clothes,
or their family doesn’t have a lot of money.
Many times, we know people who did wrong—
and we let them wander off; we’d rather they did:
“good riddance!”
Of course, everything I just said
not only applies to those other people—
those other sheep—it applies to ourselves!
We wander off because we get our focus
on someone other than Jesus, who is our shepherd.
We—or the other sheep we’re with—
would rather be at a soccer game.
We wander off because we decide
that we really don’t need a shepherd—
we know our own way.
I’ll tell you a secret—but you already know it.
Sometimes grownups say,
“now that I’m a grownup,
I don’t need my faith so much. That’s for kids.”
Let me tell you: I’m 48 years old, I’m a grown man.
But I am not so smart that I know every answer.
Today I needed Jon Paul to help me with my computer!
So how can I think I don’t need Jesus to lead me every day?
We might wander off, thinking, what I do is my business.
But caring for each other is our business.
Just like a team, we need everyone. Everyone counts.
So tonight, with the sacrament of penance,
We have the opportunity to get back.
Of course, this is a first time for many of us.
But I am confident it won’t be your last.
Now I know how hard you worked to be ready;
But if you are afraid you’ll forget, don’t worry!
Father Tom, Father Ang, Father Jason and I will help!
(Hint: that’s true for everyone!)
Parents, after your children have their opportunity,
I want to invite you to receive the grace of this sacrament.
Now, we might ask:
“Does this Gospel passage mean the sacrament of reconciliation
is only for the sheep who wander off?”
No! This is sacrament is very powerful to help keep us from wandering off.
After all, I suspect the lamb Jesus talked about
may not have realized, right away, he’d gotten lost.
He was happily chewing on grass,
and didn’t realize Jesus was farther and farther away.
This sacrament keeps us close to the Shepherd—
and teaches us to recognize his voice
in all the ways he speaks to us.
Kids, when you’ve driven with mom and dad,
I bet you noticed this: they will get lost,
but they don’t want to admit they are lost.
Or else, they won’t stop to ask directions!
That can be hard to do;
But it is what we do when we go to confession.
“I’m sorry Lord, I got off track. Help me get back!”
And the more often we come, the more easily we do that.
Finally, remember that when the Lord finds us,
He never says, “I came to find you to kick you out!”
No, we heard what Jesus does:
He gathers up his lamb, puts it on his shoulders, “with great joy!”
Let him find you tonight—
Let him keep you close to his heart.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
What a marvel! (Sunday homily)
“What a marvel,”
St. Augustine said of today’s Gospel.
“God came to a wedding!”
When God chose to become a human being,
He made a marriage with Creation,
and with humanity in particular.
At the instant when Jesus was conceived
in the womb of Mary,
from that moment, and forever, without end,
God is united with human flesh and blood.
What a marvel! Let us count the ways.
On one level, we have an ordinary part of life:
a man and woman united in marriage;
But it doesn’t stay on the ordinary level—
Not after Jesus came to the wedding.
The ordinary becomes forever more than ordinary;
Changed, filled with grace.
Water becomes wine; human love becomes divine;
Regular life a place where God is real and present;
Heaven comes to earth, and earth is lifted up.
That’s what our sacraments are:
Ordinary things, which God takes and uses
to give his supernatural life to us.
Water—in baptism—gives the Holy Spirit.
A priest speaks ordinary words—in confession—
and through them, Christ gives total forgiveness.
A couple gives themselves to each other
in their “I do” and in acts of love—
and Christ unites them forever as one flesh.
Another marvel: this Gospel story of a wedding;
it’s a family scene, it’s earthy; it’s giddy;
the wine was flowing, it’s amorous—
you know there were knowing jokes and laughter,
like any wedding; some things never change!
And here is Jesus, he blesses it all!
Our Faith does not push aside the good things of life;
We are not ashamed or embarrassed by these things.
We’re the moderates, if you will, between two extremes.
On one side are those who make the things of this life their ultimate good.
Pleasure or money, health, sports, sex or power.
That way of thinking cannot fathom the value of self-denial;
or else it believes its impossible.
We’re animals, we can’t help ourselves.
The flip side is to see human experience negatively—
and this world as something to escape.
That includes a mindset in which being poor, or old,
or sick or handicapped means your life isn’t worth it;
that mindset gives us “assisted suicide.”
It also includes those who go too far
in respect for Creation,
to the point of making the earth more important than people;
humanity becomes “intruders,” and they believe
the world would be better off with fewer of us.
But notice, Jesus did not say, “you invited too many people”!
God’s wine flows freely;
and when we care for our world and for one another
as God would have us do…
When we use our gifts to unlock this world’s abundance,
we have plenty of room for all his children.
There’s one more marvel: the Mass and the Eucharist.
The miracle of water-turned-to-wine
anticipates the miracle of wine (and bread)
turned into our Lord and God;
and with that, the change our union with Him makes in us.
We become part of God, sharing one life.
Marriage: two become one.
On the cross Jesus said, “it is finished”;
a better translation is, “it is consummated.”
The Cross is where He consummated the marriage with his Church.
This is what the Mass is.
This is why the Mass is the center of our faith.
This is why we come every week—and many come every day;
And it is also why we—as a Church—
so often have discussions
about the right way to celebrate the Mass.
This is the reason we don’t take lightly
the act of receiving the Eucharist;
some believe it is merely a ritual or a “reminder”;
but the reason we call it “communion”
is because it is a real, intimate union with Christ.
Something that special deserves our full attention!
This is one reason for the fast from food for one hour before communion.
And it is why we examine our lives,
to see if we’re ready for that intimacy.
Just as a married couple sometimes needs
moments of reconciliation first—so, too,
sometimes we need the sacrament of reconciliation
before we enter into this act of communion.
This is what Isaiah foretold:
“As a young man marries a virgin,
Your Builder will marry you;
As a bridegroom rejoices in his bride,
So shall your God rejoice in you.”
What a marvel!
St. Augustine said of today’s Gospel.
“God came to a wedding!”
When God chose to become a human being,
He made a marriage with Creation,
and with humanity in particular.
At the instant when Jesus was conceived
in the womb of Mary,
from that moment, and forever, without end,
God is united with human flesh and blood.
What a marvel! Let us count the ways.
On one level, we have an ordinary part of life:
a man and woman united in marriage;
But it doesn’t stay on the ordinary level—
Not after Jesus came to the wedding.
The ordinary becomes forever more than ordinary;
Changed, filled with grace.
Water becomes wine; human love becomes divine;
Regular life a place where God is real and present;
Heaven comes to earth, and earth is lifted up.
That’s what our sacraments are:
Ordinary things, which God takes and uses
to give his supernatural life to us.
Water—in baptism—gives the Holy Spirit.
A priest speaks ordinary words—in confession—
and through them, Christ gives total forgiveness.
A couple gives themselves to each other
in their “I do” and in acts of love—
and Christ unites them forever as one flesh.
Another marvel: this Gospel story of a wedding;
it’s a family scene, it’s earthy; it’s giddy;
the wine was flowing, it’s amorous—
you know there were knowing jokes and laughter,
like any wedding; some things never change!
And here is Jesus, he blesses it all!
Our Faith does not push aside the good things of life;
We are not ashamed or embarrassed by these things.
We’re the moderates, if you will, between two extremes.
On one side are those who make the things of this life their ultimate good.
Pleasure or money, health, sports, sex or power.
That way of thinking cannot fathom the value of self-denial;
or else it believes its impossible.
We’re animals, we can’t help ourselves.
The flip side is to see human experience negatively—
and this world as something to escape.
That includes a mindset in which being poor, or old,
or sick or handicapped means your life isn’t worth it;
that mindset gives us “assisted suicide.”
It also includes those who go too far
in respect for Creation,
to the point of making the earth more important than people;
humanity becomes “intruders,” and they believe
the world would be better off with fewer of us.
But notice, Jesus did not say, “you invited too many people”!
God’s wine flows freely;
and when we care for our world and for one another
as God would have us do…
When we use our gifts to unlock this world’s abundance,
we have plenty of room for all his children.
There’s one more marvel: the Mass and the Eucharist.
The miracle of water-turned-to-wine
anticipates the miracle of wine (and bread)
turned into our Lord and God;
and with that, the change our union with Him makes in us.
We become part of God, sharing one life.
Marriage: two become one.
On the cross Jesus said, “it is finished”;
a better translation is, “it is consummated.”
The Cross is where He consummated the marriage with his Church.
This is what the Mass is.
This is why the Mass is the center of our faith.
This is why we come every week—and many come every day;
And it is also why we—as a Church—
so often have discussions
about the right way to celebrate the Mass.
This is the reason we don’t take lightly
the act of receiving the Eucharist;
some believe it is merely a ritual or a “reminder”;
but the reason we call it “communion”
is because it is a real, intimate union with Christ.
Something that special deserves our full attention!
This is one reason for the fast from food for one hour before communion.
And it is why we examine our lives,
to see if we’re ready for that intimacy.
Just as a married couple sometimes needs
moments of reconciliation first—so, too,
sometimes we need the sacrament of reconciliation
before we enter into this act of communion.
This is what Isaiah foretold:
“As a young man marries a virgin,
Your Builder will marry you;
As a bridegroom rejoices in his bride,
So shall your God rejoice in you.”
What a marvel!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Give Yourself--make a difference (Sunday homily)
Today we recall Jesus came to be baptized.
Picture the scene:
Here is John, baptizing;
on the shore, a line of people, waiting;
and here comes the Son of God:
He gets into line with all the sinners!
This is the next chapter of the Christmas Story:
God becomes man; he is revealed to the nations;
and now, the God-man comes to stand with us.
When God—human like us—comes where we are,
It means we humans are invited to be where God is!
As we prayed in the psalm:
“The Lord will bless his people with peace.”
Today, also, we call attention to vocations,
As deacons and priests, as sisters and brothers.
And you might wonder, what’s the connection?
When Jesus came to be baptized,
he accepted the challenge
of what the Father sent him to do.
He had already chosen it before time began;
Now, he chooses it again;
and he will choose it once more, the night before he dies.
We all go through that.
If we were baptized as a child,
we later choose to make the Faith our own.
Some of us drift—but then comes a moment
when our Faith matters more to us.
Maybe in high school or college we have tough questions.
When we think about marriage, or our first child arrives,
and you realize you want your children to have faith;
and you ask yourself, “what do I really believe?”
It’s a funny thing; some people believe
that being a priest, a brother or sister,
is somehow harder than being a husband or a wife.
In many ways, they mirror each other.
A priest can’t be much of a priest
unless he comes and offers himself to the Father,
and to God’s people, just as Jesus did in today’s Gospel.
But a husband is no husband, a wife is no wife,
unless they do just the same.
This dying to self blesses a marriage with peace.
Now, some people can’t get past the celibacy thing.
Our society is messed up on this subject;
we know how it damages the priesthood;
but it also damages marriages.
Any man who enters marriage
thinking he isn’t going to die to self,
particularly in this area of sexuality,
is in for a rude awakening.
When a spouse goes on a business trip;
or is far away in the military,
and there you are—you have to remain faithful,
despite opportunities, and the desire to be with someone.
What do you say, wives and husbands?
“No thank you—I have someone I’m waiting for.”
When you meet a brother, or a priest, and you say,
“why don’t you get a partner, a spouse?”
We answer the same:
“No thank you—I have Someone I’m waiting for.”
Celibacy reminds the world that Heaven is real,
it is where our true hope lies.
And most people get this on an intuitive level.
That’s why something lifts us up simply by meeting
a priest, a sister or a brother.
A little bit of heaven enters our ordinary life,
and we experience hope.
So, during Vocations Week,
I simply want to give the invitation:
Do you want to be that person—
that deacon, that sister,
who lifts this world up to the Father?
Will you bless God’s People with peace?
Parents, grandparents:
do you want your children to be that sister or priest?
I say this because it is family life
where the seeds are planted and nourished…or not.
A moment ago, I said that marriage, and priesthood,
are mirrors of each other.
We see this particularly at Mass.
Mass is when all that Christ did for us,
all that he is for us, is summed up;
it is summed up in the Cross:
everything for you; I give my life for you.
That is what a sister says in her vows;
It is what a priest becomes when he is ordained;
and it is what a couple declares on their wedding day.
Then…you live it, day-by-day!
We all live the Cross…or we’re sterile and empty.
But realize, we can only have the Eucharist,
because he died—he gave everything for us.
And we can only have the Eucharist,
because we have priests who do the same:
who die to self.
We have families because couples do the same.
It's the hardest thing we do,
but if you want to make a difference,
you must do the same!
When we come to share the Eucharist,
This is what we choose:
not just to receive, but to become:
Life-givers; Christ-bearers;
Thus does the Lord bless his people with peace.
Picture the scene:
Here is John, baptizing;
on the shore, a line of people, waiting;
and here comes the Son of God:
He gets into line with all the sinners!
This is the next chapter of the Christmas Story:
God becomes man; he is revealed to the nations;
and now, the God-man comes to stand with us.
When God—human like us—comes where we are,
It means we humans are invited to be where God is!
As we prayed in the psalm:
“The Lord will bless his people with peace.”
Today, also, we call attention to vocations,
As deacons and priests, as sisters and brothers.
And you might wonder, what’s the connection?
When Jesus came to be baptized,
he accepted the challenge
of what the Father sent him to do.
He had already chosen it before time began;
Now, he chooses it again;
and he will choose it once more, the night before he dies.
We all go through that.
If we were baptized as a child,
we later choose to make the Faith our own.
Some of us drift—but then comes a moment
when our Faith matters more to us.
Maybe in high school or college we have tough questions.
When we think about marriage, or our first child arrives,
and you realize you want your children to have faith;
and you ask yourself, “what do I really believe?”
It’s a funny thing; some people believe
that being a priest, a brother or sister,
is somehow harder than being a husband or a wife.
In many ways, they mirror each other.
A priest can’t be much of a priest
unless he comes and offers himself to the Father,
and to God’s people, just as Jesus did in today’s Gospel.
But a husband is no husband, a wife is no wife,
unless they do just the same.
This dying to self blesses a marriage with peace.
Now, some people can’t get past the celibacy thing.
Our society is messed up on this subject;
we know how it damages the priesthood;
but it also damages marriages.
Any man who enters marriage
thinking he isn’t going to die to self,
particularly in this area of sexuality,
is in for a rude awakening.
When a spouse goes on a business trip;
or is far away in the military,
and there you are—you have to remain faithful,
despite opportunities, and the desire to be with someone.
What do you say, wives and husbands?
“No thank you—I have someone I’m waiting for.”
When you meet a brother, or a priest, and you say,
“why don’t you get a partner, a spouse?”
We answer the same:
“No thank you—I have Someone I’m waiting for.”
Celibacy reminds the world that Heaven is real,
it is where our true hope lies.
And most people get this on an intuitive level.
That’s why something lifts us up simply by meeting
a priest, a sister or a brother.
A little bit of heaven enters our ordinary life,
and we experience hope.
So, during Vocations Week,
I simply want to give the invitation:
Do you want to be that person—
that deacon, that sister,
who lifts this world up to the Father?
Will you bless God’s People with peace?
Parents, grandparents:
do you want your children to be that sister or priest?
I say this because it is family life
where the seeds are planted and nourished…or not.
A moment ago, I said that marriage, and priesthood,
are mirrors of each other.
We see this particularly at Mass.
Mass is when all that Christ did for us,
all that he is for us, is summed up;
it is summed up in the Cross:
everything for you; I give my life for you.
That is what a sister says in her vows;
It is what a priest becomes when he is ordained;
and it is what a couple declares on their wedding day.
Then…you live it, day-by-day!
We all live the Cross…or we’re sterile and empty.
But realize, we can only have the Eucharist,
because he died—he gave everything for us.
And we can only have the Eucharist,
because we have priests who do the same:
who die to self.
We have families because couples do the same.
It's the hardest thing we do,
but if you want to make a difference,
you must do the same!
When we come to share the Eucharist,
This is what we choose:
not just to receive, but to become:
Life-givers; Christ-bearers;
Thus does the Lord bless his people with peace.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Christmas Vigil homily
I’m going to talk to you about the Christmas Tree.
In Genesis, the first book of the Bible,
we have the story of the Garden,
and two, particular trees:
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad,
and the Tree of Life.
We recall that Adam and Eve, disobeyed God,
and ate from the wrong tree:
for them, the Tree of Knowledge
became the Tree of Death.
And they were not allowed to eat from the Tree of Life.
This story, and these ideas,
have always fired the imagination of Christians,
Priests and bishops have talked about them, at Mass,
from early on.
One reason is that the Bible tells us about
yet another Tree—the Cross!
The Cross was made of wood; and they called it a tree.
The connection is this: because Adam and Eve
made a sinful choice, Jesus came as the second Adam,
and he chose the Cross—the Tree of Death—
and he made it, for us, the Tree of Life.
Do you know when Christians would hear about this?
At Mass…on Christmas Day!
What’s more, over the years, Christians made artwork,
that depicted Adam and Eve,
and the Tree, with its colorful fruit!
Around the year 1000, people in Germany,
began putting on religious plays.
And on December 24th, they would have a play
about Adam and Eve.
The main prop on stage was a tree—
a fir tree, the only tree still green in December.
There is another story about this,
and that is the story of St. Boniface.
St. Boniface went to Germany in the 600s
to proclaim Christ, and he found people
whose worship of false gods was connected to trees.
To demonstrate their gods were false,
Boniface cut down a great Oak tree
that they considered sacred.
The oak knocked down many other trees—
but a small sapling of a fir tree remained.
It’s not clear what time of year this happened,
but some claim it happened…in December.
Now, where did the decorations come from?
Remember the play I mentioned?
They decorated the tree with fruit: apples.
But because they were not only recalling
the Tree of Death—with it’s forbidden fruit—
they were also thinking of the Tree of Life—
whose fruit gave eternal life.
But they only had one tree,
because Jesus, dying on the Cross,
made the Tree of Death into the Tree of Life.
So you know what else they decorated the tree with?
Bread!
Round wafers of bread…
that looked just like what we receive at Mass:
The Holy Eucharist!
The Eucharist is the “fruit” of the Cross—
the Eucharist is the “fruit” Jesus gives us,
that enables us to live forever!
Can you picture that “Paradise Tree,” now?
Decorated with apples—
red, and maybe green and yellow?
Also decorated with round, white circles of bread?
Many years later, the plays went in the wrong direction,
and in the 1400s, the Church put a stop to them.
But, people loved the Paradise Tree;
so they started putting them up in their homes.
Over time, they added other decorations:
other fruit, nuts and candies,
and the wafers of bread became pastries.
Much later, someone invented glass ornaments,
and we still use them.
But notice even now,
we still have ornaments shaped like…fruit!
You still find food on the Tree: candy, chocolate,
garland made of popcorn and berries.
There’s one more connection to a tree,
mentioned in Scripture—
we heard about it in the Gospel:
a family Tree!
We just heard a long list of names—
the family tree that connects Abraham to Jesus.
Why do we hear that Gospel on Christmas Eve?
Because in becoming human, becoming a baby,
Jesus did two things at the same time:
He became part of our, human, family tree;
and he made it possible for us
to become part of his, supernatural family!
Through faith in Jesus Christ, when we are baptized,
we are “born again”—into a new family.
That family tree in the Gospel seemed long—
but imagine trying to list all the people
who are part of God’s Family,
because they believe in Jesus?
The list would go on…forever!
By accepting Jesus, and following Jesus,
you and I become part of that Family Tree.
God has a Tree, too—and he decorates his Tree
with all that is precious to him: each one of us!
Together with all the angels and saints,
you and I are the priceless treasures,
which Jesus gained by his dying and rising,
to give to his Father in heaven,
to decorate the heavenly Christmas Tree!
In Genesis, the first book of the Bible,
we have the story of the Garden,
and two, particular trees:
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad,
and the Tree of Life.
We recall that Adam and Eve, disobeyed God,
and ate from the wrong tree:
for them, the Tree of Knowledge
became the Tree of Death.
And they were not allowed to eat from the Tree of Life.
This story, and these ideas,
have always fired the imagination of Christians,
Priests and bishops have talked about them, at Mass,
from early on.
One reason is that the Bible tells us about
yet another Tree—the Cross!
The Cross was made of wood; and they called it a tree.
The connection is this: because Adam and Eve
made a sinful choice, Jesus came as the second Adam,
and he chose the Cross—the Tree of Death—
and he made it, for us, the Tree of Life.
Do you know when Christians would hear about this?
At Mass…on Christmas Day!
What’s more, over the years, Christians made artwork,
that depicted Adam and Eve,
and the Tree, with its colorful fruit!
Around the year 1000, people in Germany,
began putting on religious plays.
And on December 24th, they would have a play
about Adam and Eve.
The main prop on stage was a tree—
a fir tree, the only tree still green in December.
There is another story about this,
and that is the story of St. Boniface.
St. Boniface went to Germany in the 600s
to proclaim Christ, and he found people
whose worship of false gods was connected to trees.
To demonstrate their gods were false,
Boniface cut down a great Oak tree
that they considered sacred.
The oak knocked down many other trees—
but a small sapling of a fir tree remained.
It’s not clear what time of year this happened,
but some claim it happened…in December.
Now, where did the decorations come from?
Remember the play I mentioned?
They decorated the tree with fruit: apples.
But because they were not only recalling
the Tree of Death—with it’s forbidden fruit—
they were also thinking of the Tree of Life—
whose fruit gave eternal life.
But they only had one tree,
because Jesus, dying on the Cross,
made the Tree of Death into the Tree of Life.
So you know what else they decorated the tree with?
Bread!
Round wafers of bread…
that looked just like what we receive at Mass:
The Holy Eucharist!
The Eucharist is the “fruit” of the Cross—
the Eucharist is the “fruit” Jesus gives us,
that enables us to live forever!
Can you picture that “Paradise Tree,” now?
Decorated with apples—
red, and maybe green and yellow?
Also decorated with round, white circles of bread?
Many years later, the plays went in the wrong direction,
and in the 1400s, the Church put a stop to them.
But, people loved the Paradise Tree;
so they started putting them up in their homes.
Over time, they added other decorations:
other fruit, nuts and candies,
and the wafers of bread became pastries.
Much later, someone invented glass ornaments,
and we still use them.
But notice even now,
we still have ornaments shaped like…fruit!
You still find food on the Tree: candy, chocolate,
garland made of popcorn and berries.
There’s one more connection to a tree,
mentioned in Scripture—
we heard about it in the Gospel:
a family Tree!
We just heard a long list of names—
the family tree that connects Abraham to Jesus.
Why do we hear that Gospel on Christmas Eve?
Because in becoming human, becoming a baby,
Jesus did two things at the same time:
He became part of our, human, family tree;
and he made it possible for us
to become part of his, supernatural family!
Through faith in Jesus Christ, when we are baptized,
we are “born again”—into a new family.
That family tree in the Gospel seemed long—
but imagine trying to list all the people
who are part of God’s Family,
because they believe in Jesus?
The list would go on…forever!
By accepting Jesus, and following Jesus,
you and I become part of that Family Tree.
God has a Tree, too—and he decorates his Tree
with all that is precious to him: each one of us!
Together with all the angels and saints,
you and I are the priceless treasures,
which Jesus gained by his dying and rising,
to give to his Father in heaven,
to decorate the heavenly Christmas Tree!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Update on various things
OK, for the last three people who read my blog, I owe some report on my doings these days...
As you know I was in Mexico. Great experience. Saw a lot of poverty but experienced a lot of faith and hope.
The first three days were in Mexico City, where I was so privileged to visit the Basilica where the miraculous image of our Lady of Guadalupe is on display. We were also able to visit some other sites in Mexico City and experience some of Mexican history and culture. Then we went south to Oaxaca: one of the three poorest states in Mexico, I was told by my hosts; if you look at a map of Mexico, the Pacific coast curves around at the bottom of Mexico. That's where I was.
This region is very mountainous, a lot like West Virginia, except very tropical. We visited several small towns in the Diocese of Puerto Escondito, as well as a bit in Huatulco, a little further down the coast.
Well, yes, it is true that it was very balmy and pleasant, and being by the ocean would not seem a hardship, while home was frozen! That said, I was not sunning myself on the beach; in fact, I only visited each beach one time for a short walk. Other than the time it took to travel from point-to-point--long enough anytime a large group of people is in motion, then worsened by the combination of many hills, many curves, and not the best roads--our time was spent visiting parishes and outlying communities, and meeting people and talking to them.
We were privileged to talk several times with Bishop Eduardo Camorra, who told us about his diocese--created six years ago--and who invited us to take part in Mass with him many times. He was extraordinarily kind and gracious, and it was reflected on the part of everyone else. He assigned one of his priests to be our shepherd and guide, Father Jaime, who was great fun and much help. He confirmed for me our intuition, that the meals that were served for us in the parishes we visited, involved real sacrifice on the part of our hosts.
Each place, we were served and well-fed, and given a chance to meet catechists and other lay leaders in the parishes. At one parish, the meal, while very good and more than enough, was nonetheless much simpler than the others. That was an index of the hardships of that very poor parish, as well as the great generosity of the people.
I stopped telling people I was pastor of two parishes, because there, a parish is more like our county, or even larger. The smallest parish included something like twenty communities, each with a chapel and a Catholic community; the distance, roads and lack of cars meant that everyone could not come to the central, parish church for Mass. The pastors told me they could get around, for Sunday Mass, in each community maybe two or three times a year. As a result, they couldn't reserve the Blessed Sacrament there, either, because the Eucharist has to be refreshed more frequently than that.
So picture that: you live in a small village, and the priest comes for Sunday Mass every four-to-six months, and in between, you can't even have the Holy Eucharist there. How blessed we are here!
You can see how important catechists are and local lay leaders who can gather folks both to learn the Faith and to pray together. You can also appreciate the threat of non-Catholic groups coming to win converts. This is a grave concern; for one reason, it creates divisions in the community. Mexico is deeply Catholic; it's as much a part of Mexico as your spine is a part of you.
Yet a curious thing about Mexico--it has a legacy of confrontation between the state and the Church. It got so bad during the 20s that priests were hunted and killed; and until not so long ago, priests weren't allowed to vote or wear clerical attire. As it is, religion is not taught in the schools, and at one time, the government forbade the Church to operate her own schools. I don't know if that is still the case. But you can see the problem.
Mexico also has a legacy of many injections of socialism, that it is slowly undoing. Example: touring Mexico City on a bus, the recorded explanation of the sights included reference to a monument celebrating the glorious expropriation of the petroleum industry. As it stands, we only saw Pemex gas stations everywhere. Mexico has--or has had--vast reserves of oil. I do not believe that a state-run monopoly gives the Mexican people the best value for that resource. Would you prefer such a thing here?
As we drove the roads, it routinely took far longer than it would here, because we have better, straighter roads. And it's not just the mountains--West Virginia has some wonderful roads, admittedly at great expense. One of the main roads was in the process of being widened to four lanes, and I commented how good that was; our host priest agreed. Yet one of our party--perhaps misunderstanding why I felt as I did, said: oh no, they shouldn't build more roads, they should just use more buses!
Well, in further-developed city and suburbs, that makes some sense. But in a rural area, where farmers have products they are desperate to sell to a larger market, and where there is a deep desire for more industry, more factories, to provide more opportunity (so said the bishop), there is no way that more buses on those terrible roads is going to do the job! Thankfully, that main road is being widened--that will help a lot in years to come, as will more good roads, if that can be accomplished.
Another experience I submit for your consideration. We visited a "co-op" in one town, where a group of 33 folks, mostly women, were working together to manufacture and sell soap and other cosmetic products. The goal is to produce products that are organic and environmentally friendly, as they put it. The project began, we were told, thanks to a Frenchwoman who provided the formulae for various cosmetic products, and helped arrange grant money and sponsorship from a non-profit group called Bio-Earth. (I just googled that without success, so I think I got the name wrong, sorry.) We were told Ms. Brodie was concerned about the destruction of some local species of turtle, and hoped that helping to create this co-op would lead to better things.
Well, I was very interested in knowing just how this worked in practice. Looking around at the facility, it was a very nice building--I wondered just how much was invested in that, but I didn't ask about that. I also noticed that no one was, that day, making any soap. It seemed to be a slow time, but having not a single person making soap concerned me. I did ask some questions of the woman showing us around--through a member of our party who translated for me.
I asked, if the 33 members of the co-op--the number is fixed, no one can be added (isn't that curious?)--work really hard, have a better year than planned, what happens to the profits--i.e., beyond the pay they earn through the year? The answer--confirmed by a followup--is that they do not receive it! Not a penny! Instead, the profits are distributed to other "projects" in the area, designed to do good things. I was told, by the one translating, "the point isn't to make people rich, but to help the environment." OK, but that suggests a model that can't be replicated very easily; and making these folks "rich" (i.e., richer--I doubt anyone is likely to become "rich" by any standard in this situation) would, to my addled mind, be very desirable, for the benefit of these workers' families and communities.
But I know what you may be thinking: if this is how they want to spend their earnings, that's their business. True. So, I asked, if the 33 folks wanted to change the business plan, to expand, or shift, their business, or simply to dissolve it, can they do that? Answer: no. The "whole community" would have to agree to that. I also asked, if a member of the co-op leaves the group, does s/he take anything with him or her? Nope--no equity in the corporation. I learned, along the way, that if the co-op has lean years, the foundation "helps out"--I assume that means with money.
So what do you make of that? Seems to me a project that appeals more to well-off folks from somewhere else, that no doubt does some good locally, but really, what they need is something that can be replicated and expanded. To be fair, I only have a part of the story.
The poverty in this part of Mexico was severe, yet it wasn't all I thought it would be. So many houses are just shacks, better ones are built from cement-blocks and corrugated steel, without glass windows. The warm temperatures and long dry spells mean you can do a lot of living outside, but still... One road we came down was dirt, and the plants on either side were coated in dust--as, I surmise, must have been the insides of many of those homes.
One such home had latrines--outhouses--out front, so that's a benefit. I never got inside, so I don't know what sort of floor the family had, nor if they had electricity or water. Often they draw water from a well; worse, from a river. As you've heard, even the municipal water is not drinkable, not even in Mexico City. Yet somehow folks bathe and keep things as clean as they can.
While visiting that home--I talked with a woman who was blind, and she and the woman and child she lived with had very little--a beggar-man came by, calling out something in Spanish. The sighted woman promptly rose, disappeared into the house, and came out with a handful of change. It looked like about a dollar's worth. She gave it to the beggar. I could have given him a $20 with no real sacrifice; I didn't do anything.
The faith is so deep and intense, perhaps too much for our tastes. People come to visit shrines, they come on foot, for days, carrying images on their backs. They arrive, and they approach on their knees. They pray intently before the Lord for the longest time, during Mass or outside it. The processions we witnessed involved great energy, devoted to joyous and raucous music and dancing, and they seemed not to tire.
There's certainly more to tell, but that will have to do for now...
As you know I was in Mexico. Great experience. Saw a lot of poverty but experienced a lot of faith and hope.
The first three days were in Mexico City, where I was so privileged to visit the Basilica where the miraculous image of our Lady of Guadalupe is on display. We were also able to visit some other sites in Mexico City and experience some of Mexican history and culture. Then we went south to Oaxaca: one of the three poorest states in Mexico, I was told by my hosts; if you look at a map of Mexico, the Pacific coast curves around at the bottom of Mexico. That's where I was.
This region is very mountainous, a lot like West Virginia, except very tropical. We visited several small towns in the Diocese of Puerto Escondito, as well as a bit in Huatulco, a little further down the coast.
Well, yes, it is true that it was very balmy and pleasant, and being by the ocean would not seem a hardship, while home was frozen! That said, I was not sunning myself on the beach; in fact, I only visited each beach one time for a short walk. Other than the time it took to travel from point-to-point--long enough anytime a large group of people is in motion, then worsened by the combination of many hills, many curves, and not the best roads--our time was spent visiting parishes and outlying communities, and meeting people and talking to them.
We were privileged to talk several times with Bishop Eduardo Camorra, who told us about his diocese--created six years ago--and who invited us to take part in Mass with him many times. He was extraordinarily kind and gracious, and it was reflected on the part of everyone else. He assigned one of his priests to be our shepherd and guide, Father Jaime, who was great fun and much help. He confirmed for me our intuition, that the meals that were served for us in the parishes we visited, involved real sacrifice on the part of our hosts.
Each place, we were served and well-fed, and given a chance to meet catechists and other lay leaders in the parishes. At one parish, the meal, while very good and more than enough, was nonetheless much simpler than the others. That was an index of the hardships of that very poor parish, as well as the great generosity of the people.
I stopped telling people I was pastor of two parishes, because there, a parish is more like our county, or even larger. The smallest parish included something like twenty communities, each with a chapel and a Catholic community; the distance, roads and lack of cars meant that everyone could not come to the central, parish church for Mass. The pastors told me they could get around, for Sunday Mass, in each community maybe two or three times a year. As a result, they couldn't reserve the Blessed Sacrament there, either, because the Eucharist has to be refreshed more frequently than that.
So picture that: you live in a small village, and the priest comes for Sunday Mass every four-to-six months, and in between, you can't even have the Holy Eucharist there. How blessed we are here!
You can see how important catechists are and local lay leaders who can gather folks both to learn the Faith and to pray together. You can also appreciate the threat of non-Catholic groups coming to win converts. This is a grave concern; for one reason, it creates divisions in the community. Mexico is deeply Catholic; it's as much a part of Mexico as your spine is a part of you.
Yet a curious thing about Mexico--it has a legacy of confrontation between the state and the Church. It got so bad during the 20s that priests were hunted and killed; and until not so long ago, priests weren't allowed to vote or wear clerical attire. As it is, religion is not taught in the schools, and at one time, the government forbade the Church to operate her own schools. I don't know if that is still the case. But you can see the problem.
Mexico also has a legacy of many injections of socialism, that it is slowly undoing. Example: touring Mexico City on a bus, the recorded explanation of the sights included reference to a monument celebrating the glorious expropriation of the petroleum industry. As it stands, we only saw Pemex gas stations everywhere. Mexico has--or has had--vast reserves of oil. I do not believe that a state-run monopoly gives the Mexican people the best value for that resource. Would you prefer such a thing here?
As we drove the roads, it routinely took far longer than it would here, because we have better, straighter roads. And it's not just the mountains--West Virginia has some wonderful roads, admittedly at great expense. One of the main roads was in the process of being widened to four lanes, and I commented how good that was; our host priest agreed. Yet one of our party--perhaps misunderstanding why I felt as I did, said: oh no, they shouldn't build more roads, they should just use more buses!
Well, in further-developed city and suburbs, that makes some sense. But in a rural area, where farmers have products they are desperate to sell to a larger market, and where there is a deep desire for more industry, more factories, to provide more opportunity (so said the bishop), there is no way that more buses on those terrible roads is going to do the job! Thankfully, that main road is being widened--that will help a lot in years to come, as will more good roads, if that can be accomplished.
Another experience I submit for your consideration. We visited a "co-op" in one town, where a group of 33 folks, mostly women, were working together to manufacture and sell soap and other cosmetic products. The goal is to produce products that are organic and environmentally friendly, as they put it. The project began, we were told, thanks to a Frenchwoman who provided the formulae for various cosmetic products, and helped arrange grant money and sponsorship from a non-profit group called Bio-Earth. (I just googled that without success, so I think I got the name wrong, sorry.) We were told Ms. Brodie was concerned about the destruction of some local species of turtle, and hoped that helping to create this co-op would lead to better things.
Well, I was very interested in knowing just how this worked in practice. Looking around at the facility, it was a very nice building--I wondered just how much was invested in that, but I didn't ask about that. I also noticed that no one was, that day, making any soap. It seemed to be a slow time, but having not a single person making soap concerned me. I did ask some questions of the woman showing us around--through a member of our party who translated for me.
I asked, if the 33 members of the co-op--the number is fixed, no one can be added (isn't that curious?)--work really hard, have a better year than planned, what happens to the profits--i.e., beyond the pay they earn through the year? The answer--confirmed by a followup--is that they do not receive it! Not a penny! Instead, the profits are distributed to other "projects" in the area, designed to do good things. I was told, by the one translating, "the point isn't to make people rich, but to help the environment." OK, but that suggests a model that can't be replicated very easily; and making these folks "rich" (i.e., richer--I doubt anyone is likely to become "rich" by any standard in this situation) would, to my addled mind, be very desirable, for the benefit of these workers' families and communities.
But I know what you may be thinking: if this is how they want to spend their earnings, that's their business. True. So, I asked, if the 33 folks wanted to change the business plan, to expand, or shift, their business, or simply to dissolve it, can they do that? Answer: no. The "whole community" would have to agree to that. I also asked, if a member of the co-op leaves the group, does s/he take anything with him or her? Nope--no equity in the corporation. I learned, along the way, that if the co-op has lean years, the foundation "helps out"--I assume that means with money.
So what do you make of that? Seems to me a project that appeals more to well-off folks from somewhere else, that no doubt does some good locally, but really, what they need is something that can be replicated and expanded. To be fair, I only have a part of the story.
The poverty in this part of Mexico was severe, yet it wasn't all I thought it would be. So many houses are just shacks, better ones are built from cement-blocks and corrugated steel, without glass windows. The warm temperatures and long dry spells mean you can do a lot of living outside, but still... One road we came down was dirt, and the plants on either side were coated in dust--as, I surmise, must have been the insides of many of those homes.
One such home had latrines--outhouses--out front, so that's a benefit. I never got inside, so I don't know what sort of floor the family had, nor if they had electricity or water. Often they draw water from a well; worse, from a river. As you've heard, even the municipal water is not drinkable, not even in Mexico City. Yet somehow folks bathe and keep things as clean as they can.
While visiting that home--I talked with a woman who was blind, and she and the woman and child she lived with had very little--a beggar-man came by, calling out something in Spanish. The sighted woman promptly rose, disappeared into the house, and came out with a handful of change. It looked like about a dollar's worth. She gave it to the beggar. I could have given him a $20 with no real sacrifice; I didn't do anything.
The faith is so deep and intense, perhaps too much for our tastes. People come to visit shrines, they come on foot, for days, carrying images on their backs. They arrive, and they approach on their knees. They pray intently before the Lord for the longest time, during Mass or outside it. The processions we witnessed involved great energy, devoted to joyous and raucous music and dancing, and they seemed not to tire.
There's certainly more to tell, but that will have to do for now...
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Back...
...from Mexico, all's well, a great adventure both of travel and faith.
Alas, too much waiting for me here, so I cannot post now. But comments are re-enabled.
Sorry I couldn't post while in Mexico; the Internet was available, but I didn't bring my laptop, and in any case, I was way too busy for that in any case.
Alas, too much waiting for me here, so I cannot post now. But comments are re-enabled.
Sorry I couldn't post while in Mexico; the Internet was available, but I didn't bring my laptop, and in any case, I was way too busy for that in any case.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Comments temporarily disabled...
Sorry, no offense meant--but I'll be unable to moderate any of the comments that may show up the next two weeks; and while it's rare, sometimes something offensive shows up. I'd hate to have that happen and be left hanging for two weeks.
Thanks for all the good wishes!
Thanks for all the good wishes!
heading to Mexico
I'm flying to Mexico rather early tomorrow, joining a trip sponsored by the Archdiocese's Mission office. A group of 14, including one other priest, is heading first to Mexico City and then to Puerto Escondito in Oaxaca, Mexico. Our purpose is to get to know the folks there better, especially in Oaxaca, which is where many of the Mexican immigrants to this area come from.
I signed up for this many months ago, hesitating because of the time of year, but electing to do it because otherwise it would be a missed opportunity that might not arise for longer than I imagined. Such is how opportunities work out.
So, as you can guess, I've been running about. I'm waiting for some laundry to be finished so I have enough clerical shirts, and of course I have to remember to take my passport!
I'll be gone until about the 19th.
I signed up for this many months ago, hesitating because of the time of year, but electing to do it because otherwise it would be a missed opportunity that might not arise for longer than I imagined. Such is how opportunities work out.
So, as you can guess, I've been running about. I'm waiting for some laundry to be finished so I have enough clerical shirts, and of course I have to remember to take my passport!
I'll be gone until about the 19th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)