Category: Harmonizing our lives with our maker’s designs

Watch Out

Pope Francis concelebrated Mass last Sunday in St. Peter’s Basilica with 11 of the 13 new cardinals he had created the day before. His homily was striking. Here are some excerpts:
“Advent is the season for remembering that closeness of God who came down to dwell in our midst…
“The first step of faith is to tell God that we need him, that we need him to be close to us…
“Let us make our own the traditional Advent prayer: ‘Come, Lord Jesus’…
“If we ask Jesus to come close to us, we will train ourselves to be watchful…It is important to remain watchful, because one great mistake in life is to get absorbed in a thousand things and not to notice God.
“Saint Augustine said: ‘I fear that Jesus will pass by me unnoticed’. Caught up in our own daily concerns (how well we know this!), and distracted by so many vain things, we risk losing sight of what is essential…Be watchful, attentive…
“Being watchful in expectation of his coming means not letting ourselves be overcome by discouragement. It is to live in hope. Just as before our birth, our loved ones expectantly awaited our coming into the world, so now Love in person awaits us.
“If we are awaited in Heaven, why should we be caught up with earthly concerns? Why should we be anxious about money, fame, success, all of which will pass away? Why should we waste time complaining about the night, when the light of day awaits us?…Be watchful, the Lord tells us.
   “Staying awake is not easy…Even Jesus’ disciples did not manage to stay awake…They did not keep watch, They fell asleep. But that same drowsiness can also overtake us…it is the slumber of mediocrity. It comes when we forget our first love and grow satisfied with indifference, concerned only for an untroubled existence.

“Without making an effort to love God daily and awaiting the newness he constantly brings, we become mediocre, lukewarm, worldly. And this slowly eats away at our faith, for faith is…an ardent desire for God, a bold effort to change, the courage to love, constant progress. Faith…is fire that burns; it is not a tranquilizer for people under stress, it is a love story for people in love!…
“How can we rouse ourselves from the slumber of mediocrity? With the vigilance of prayer…Prayer rouses us from the tepidity of a purely horizontal existence and makes us lift our gaze to higher things; it makes us attuned to the Lord…Prayer allows God to be close to us; it frees us from our solitude and gives us hope. Prayer is vital for life…
“There is also another kind of interior slumber: the slumber of indifference. Those who are indifferent see everything the same…they are unconcerned about those all around them. When everything revolves around us and our needs, and we are indifferent to the needs of others, night descends in our heart…
“How do we rouse ourselves from the slumber of indifference? With the watchfulness of charity. Charity is the beating heart of the Christian…being compassionate, helping and serving others…are the only things that win us the victory, since they are already aiming towards the future, the day of the Lord, when all else will pass away and love alone will remain.
“…praying and loving: that is what it means to be watchful…Come, Lord Jesus, take our distracted hearts and make them watchful. Awaken within us the desire to pray and the need to love.”


6 December 2020

Change: Development or Alteration?

“Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.”
Do those words sound a little provocative to you? Well, they should—and they are! But, surprisingly, they’re from the writings of a 5th century Gallic monk-saint, Vincent of Lérins. (The Lérins, the site of his abbey, are islands near Cannes in the French Riviera.)
He cautioned, however that “Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
“The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same impact.”
Vincent went on to compare this kind of development with that of the body: “Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were.”
This is a man of the 5th century speaking, and speaking with great optimism in a time of growing chaos: the time of the collapsing of Roman imperial authority in the West, of the “barbarian” invasions, of theological controversies such as Pelagianism.
Regarding the latter, Vincent tried to strike a balance between extreme views regarding free will versus the grace of God: that justification is something we achieve ourselves versus that we, of ourselves, can not achieve it at all.
The concept of development—in the sense of growth, change, maturation, and evolution, to use our modern vocabulary—offered a kind of middle way.
It’s interesting. Those ancient controversies still echo in our day, but with different concepts—e.g., nature vs. nurture.

After describing the growth and development of the human person and calling attention to the difference between maturation and alteration, Vincent wrote:
“…the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
“…there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.”
Do individuals change and develop? Of course! Do families change and develop? Of course? Do cultures change and develop? Of course! Do countries change and develop? Of course! Do religions change and develop? Of course!
But, can individuals, families, cultures, countries, and religions become other than what they started out to be? Can they change course, lose their way, mutate, and decline? Alas, of course!
Vincent warned, “If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled.”
Cancer is a kind of grotesque growth—an exaggeration of a normal growth or the development of a foreign growth.
If I have it, it’s no help if the doctor tells me I should go back to the healthy state I used to have. That’s history.
I want to know what I should change now!


29 November 2020

Lead Us Not into Temptation

Tired of interminable changes and dismayed by so many contemporary attempts to return to or relive the past?
It’s challenging to embrace and live fully in the here and now.
A successful integration into the present is a never-ending process, since the present is a changing and evolving reality, not a fixed one.
Beware of being thwarted by handicaps in growth and development, inadequate philosophical and theological underpinnings, socio-cultural pressures, or fear.
The concepts, understandings, and strategies that at one stage in our development served us well, in another may prove to be obstacles to further growth and maturation if they are not modified and readapted to the present reality in which we live.
This can lead to misperceiving of opportunities as threats, a point of view that needs the optimism of Pope Pius XI, who urged, “Let us thank God that He makes us live among the present problems.”
Conversely, the total rejection of past experience in favor of entirely new, speculative, future possibilities, a kind of radical mutation of our lives, may also be damaging to our integral development.
Here we need Pope Leo XIII’s challenge and encouragement, originally to Christian philosophers, neither to reject what is new nor jettison what is old but “augment and perfect the old through the new.”
To successfully achieve this integration and renovation requires wisdom and a subtle discernment of substance from accident, essential from ephemeral.
Saint Paul said it well: “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.”
But, also, in the words of Shakespeare: “parting is such sweet sorrow…”

What to do?
– Trust in God. The one who made us, sustains us in being, and guides our lives, has intervened in them far more than we suspect—and will continue to do so.
– Be not alone. Relatives, friends, colleagues, fellow citizens, neighbors, and acquaintances may have disappointed us in the past and may do so again—none of us is perfect. Yet, we need to share our experiences of success and failure in life to assist one another to cope with the challenges of today and tomorrow.
– Be real. Resist the temptation to “flee the world” and its disturbing and bewildering changes. Withdrawal is not the remedy—we’re not frightened snails! Don’t seek retreat to an imagined better past or to an unrealistic imagined future.
– Be politic. Otto van Bismarck once said, “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best.” An old Chinese proverb expressed a similar wisdom: “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” They both imply an implicit warning about extremism, that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
– Be patient. The word, “patient”, is rooted in the Latin verb, patior, which means to suffer, to bear, to undergo. We’re all limited and imperfect. We all have our blind spots and prejudices. But, all we’ve got—besides God—is each other.
– Be glad. Don’t let the torrent of bad and fake news demoralize and depress you. Avoid being immersed and entangled in a web of devices and distractions. See the beauty of the created world and all of its creatures, in spite of their limitations. Give thanks!


22 November 2020

Rights of the Body

You know how it is, every now and then while reading, a word or phrase hits you. Instead of slipping right past it, you come to a full stop—and you look it carefully and think about it.
Well, that’s what happened to me last year on All Souls Day! During the Office of Readings of The Liturgy of the Hours, I was really struck by the second reading, from a book on the death of his brother Satyrus by St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397).
It began with Ambrose asserting, “We see that death is gain, life is loss” quoting St. Paul’s famous, “For me life is Christ, and death a gain.”
It was followed by what seemed, at first, an ordinary reflection on the dichotomy, the tension between the desires of the soul and those of the body:
“. . . our soul must learn to free itself from the desires of the body. It must soar above earthly lusts to a place where they cannot come near, to hold it fast.”
However, However, although Ambrose cautioned, “Though we are still in the body, let us not give ourselves to the things of the body,” his next words managed to avoid the extremism sometimes associated with Paul’s thought.
“We must not reject the natural rights of the body,” Ambrose wrote, “but we must desire before all else the gifts of grace.”
Ambrose avoided advocating the rights of the soul at the price of disparaging the body. So to speak, he saw the goodness of both, but simply prioritized one over the other.
However However this was not the way the world was turning.
Christianity had developed initially in the pagan Greco-Roman world with its ideals about physical fitness and sexual moderation, but, perhaps in reaction to excesses of that world, was beginning to stress more the dangers of the body and its desires and to esteem sexual abstinence over sexual moderation.

Towards the end of Ambrose’s life, controversies about the roles played by free will and original sin in human behavior weren’t leaving much room for considering “the natural rights of the body”.
As centuries passed, from the early exaltation of the heroism of the martyrs and the development of a theology of “original sin” to the establishment of monasticism and religious and clerical celibacy, a certain disparagement of the body gradually became enshrined as the new ideal.
The early development of psychology in the nineteenth century, especially the work of Sigmund Freud, opened a door to a radically different way of looking at human nature and behavior—especially traditional Western attitudes about sexuality. It impacted and challenged traditional church teachings and customs, and still does.
Extremism, no matter what kind, tends to provoke a counter-extremism. No surprise, then, that centuries of extreme disparagement of the body had been leading to a modern over-emphasis on its “rights”.
Extremism in rejecting or defending “the natural rights of the body” seems to underlie many of the social and moral issues polarizing our contemporary society—for example, contraception, abortion, the nature of marriage, different- and same-sex relations, and LGBT rights, to name a few.
We need Ambrose’s moderation, balance, and priorities. A person is more than a body, and everyone’s rights include more than the rights of the body. Some rights are more important than others—for example, the “inalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

30 August 2020

(Available in
Spanish translation)

Derechos del Cuerpo

Sabes cómo es, de vez en cuando mientras lees, una palabra o frase te golpea. En lugar de pasar por alto, te detienes por completo y lo miras con atención y lo piensas.
Bueno, eso me pasó el año pasado en el Día de los Difuntos. Durante el Oficio de Lecturas de la Liturgia de las Horas, quedé impresionado por la segunda lectura, de un libro sobre la muerte de su hermano Sátiro de San Ambrosio de Milán (340-397).
Empezó con Ambrosio afirmando: “Vemos que la muerte es ganancia, la vida es pérdida”, citando el texto de San Pablo, “Para mí la vida es Cristo y la muerte una ganancia”.
Le siguió lo que parecía una reflexión ordinaria sobre la dicotomía, la tensión entre los deseos del alma y los del cuerpo:
“. . . nuestra alma debe aprender a liberarse de los deseos del cuerpo. Debe elevarse por encima de las concupiscencias terrenales a un lugar donde no puedan acercarse, para mantenerla firme “.
Aunque Ambrosio advirtió: “Mientras estamos en el cuerpo, no nos entreguemos a las cosas del cuerpo”, sus siguientes palabras evitaron el extremismo a veces asociado con el pensamiento de Pablo.
“No debemos rechazar los derechos naturales del cuerpo”, escribió Ambrosio, “pero debemos desear ante todo los dones de la gracia”.
Ambrosio evitó defender los derechos del alma al precio de menospreciar el cuerpo. Vio la bondad de ambos, pero simplemente dio prioridad a uno sobre el otro.
Sin embargo, esta no era la forma en que el mundo estaba girando.
El cristianismo se había desarrollado en el mundo grecorromano pagano con sus ideales sobre la aptitud física y la moderación sexual, pero, quizás como reacción a los excesos de ese mundo, comenzaba a enfatizar más los peligros del cuerpo y sus deseos y a estimar la abstinencia sobre la moderación sexual.

Gradualmente las controversias sobre los roles que juega el libre albedrío y el pecado original en el comportamiento humano no dejaban mucho espacio para considerar “los derechos naturales del cuerpo”.
Pasando los siglos, desde la exaltación del heroísmo de los mártires y el desarrollo de una teología del “pecado original” hasta el establecimiento del monaquismo y el celibato religioso y clerical, un desprecio del cuerpo se consagra como el nuevo ideal.
El desarrollo de la psicología en el siglo XIX, y el trabajo de Sigmund Freud, abrió la puerta a una forma diferente de ver la naturaleza y el comportamiento humanos—especialmente las actitudes sobre la sexualidad. Afectó y desafió las enseñanzas y costumbres de la iglesia, y todavía lo hace.
El extremismo tiende a provocar un contra-extremismo. No es de extrañar, entonces, que siglos de menosprecio extremo del cuerpo hayan llevado a un moderno énfasis excesivo en sus “derechos”.
El extremismo al rechazar o defender “los derechos naturales del cuerpo” parece ser la base de muchos de los problemas sociales y morales que polarizan nuestra sociedad contemporánea—por ejemplo, la anticoncepción, el aborto, la naturaleza del matrimonio, las relaciones entre personas del diferente sexo y del mismo sexo y los derechos LGBT. por nombrar algunos.
Nos hace falta la moderación, el equilibrio y las prioridades de Ambrosio. La persona es más que un cuerpo y sus derechos incluyen más que los derechos del cuerpo. Hay derechos más importantes que otros—por ejemplo, los “derechos inalienables” de la Declaración de Independencia a la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad.

(Una traducción del inglés)

30 de agosto de 2020

The Whale Tale

It’s often included among the “prophetic books” of the Bible, even though it has little to do with prophecy: the book of Jonah.
It’s not much of a book, only a few pages long; it’s a very short story, but one with lessons.
One of the latest of the Old Testament writings, probably a few centuries before the birth of Jesus, it was a well-known story in Jesus’ day—in fact, he quoted it in his preaching:

An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. At the judgment, the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and there is something greater than Jonah here. (Mt 12: 39b-41; also Lk 11:30-32)

What were the lessons that the book of Jonah was meant to teach?
Well, first of all, how astounding is the mercy of God! No matter how much anyone may ignore God’s will or go against it—no matter what—if they repent, they can be forgiven.
Even more important, God plays no favorites: God’s mercy is for all, without discrimination—as much for the repentant “unbelievers” as for the rebellious prophet!
God isn’t just the God of the Jews—or of the Christians, or of the Muslims. God is the god of every one of his creatures—e.g., everybody, no matter who!
A great lesson for today, when “we” (the right people) are so discriminating about “them” (the wrong people) —no matter who the “we” and the “them” may be!

When I was a child, I learned about people in terms of colors: Black meant of African descent (but south of the Sahara); Red, Indians (Native Americans); White, of European (or Mediterranean) descent; and Yellow, of Asian descent (usually Chinese).
We still haven’t let go of this odd—and inappropriate—way of typing people. Once upon a time, “Colored people” was rejected as “racist” terminology; now it’s “politically correct” for “White” people to refer to most others as “people of color”!
We’re all “people of color”. Everybody has melanin, the pigment in their skin that protects against too much sun, ranging from very little to a lot. (Historically, peoples living closer to the poles were paler and closer to the equator were darker.)
We misuse the word “races” to classify people, since there is only one human race.
Many other of our “classification” words also can be misused or are inappropriate: caste, class, status, education, maturity—also upper, lower, rich. poor, smart, dumb, lazy, and hard-working. They may be useful for comparisons but not for categories—e.g., because I’m fatter than you, that doesn’t necessarily make me a “fat person”.
Most people use these words carelessly with no intention to depreciate or to do harm; some use them carefully and deliberately, knowing what they are doing.
“. . . the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah”. We have something greater—the teaching of Jesus and the best of our religious traditions.
If we really believe, then our actions should speak even louder than our words!


   23 August 2020

It’s Too Hard

In the Gospel According to John, at the conclusion of Jesus’ teaching about the bread of life, “. . . many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’.” (Jn 6:60)
Probably your reaction and mine to this would be something like that of Peter’s, when Jesus warned the apostles just before his arrest that, “This night all of you will have your faith in me shaken . . .”
Peter protested, “Though all may have their faith in you shaken, mine will never be.” (Mt 26:31-33
Here’s a simple little test for you about some of the hard stuff Jesus teaches. Are you accepting and faithful about:
– Forgiveness. “. . . whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment . . . Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Mt 5:22-24)
– Non-resistance. “I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.” (Mt 5:39-42)
– Love of enemies. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust . . . be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt 5:43-48)

– Detachment. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.” (Mt 6:19-21)
– Priorities. “No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mt 6:24)
– Trust in God. . . .“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat [or drink], or about your body, what you will wear . . . Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they? Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span? . . . But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself . . .” (Mt 6:25-34)
– Non-judgmental. “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Mt 7:1-2)
Jesus summed it all up near the end of his life when he said,“This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (Jn 15:12-13)
This is a curious test to take, because it’s not over until you die. You know when you have passed the test with flying colors? When you have given all that you have and all that you are including your life itself!


19 July 2020

Keeping the Sexth Commandment

Growing up, I didn’t go to Catholic school, but I did get religious instruction once a week when we left school early to go to the local parish.
The religious instruction followed the Baltimore Catechism with its three categories: the creed, the commandments, and the sacraments and prayer. The methodology was mostly memorization of questions and answers.
The ones about the sixth commandment didn’t seem to be especially important until puberty hit me—then they became almost terrifying, since some of what they described seemed to be happening to me whether I choose it or not.
Here are those questions and answers:

Q. What is the sixth commandment of God? A. The sixth commandment of God is: Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)
Q. What are we commanded by the sixth commandment? A. By the sixth commandment we are commanded to be pure and modest in our behavior. I exhort you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice, living, holy, pleasing to God. (Romans 12:1)
Q. What does the sixth commandment forbid? A. The sixth commandment forbids all impurity and immodesty in words, looks, and actions, whether alone or with others. But immorality and every uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becomes saints. (Ephesians 5:3)
Q. What are the chief dangers to the virtue of chastity? A. The chief dangers to the virtue of chastity are: idleness, sinful curiosity, bad companions, drinking, immodest dress, and indecent books, plays, and motion pictures.

Q, What are the chief means of preserving the virtue of chastity? A. The chief means of preserving the virtue of chastity are to avoid carefully all unnecessary dangers, to seek God’s help through prayer, frequent confession, Holy Communion, and assistance at Holy Mass, and to have a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. (I Peter 5:8)

Adultery refers to sexual acts between a married person and someone who is not that person’s spouse.
The wrongness of it would seem to be primarily that it is a violation of the marriage covenant, the breaking of a vow. Once upon a time it could have been be construed as a violation of a husband’s property rights.
However, it literally is not about impurity and immodesty in words, looks, and actions nor is it an exhortation to the virtue of chastity. The sixth commandment is not the “sexth” commandment.
Where did all that come from? It is rooted in a great variety of cultural mores and historical traditions, even theologies, which sometimes have been “sanctified” in the sense of being associated with divine revelation and the preaching of the gospel.
God made us as we are. “In him we live and move and have our being.” We’re not composite persons with a better, higher nature (the soul) somehow imprisoned in worse, lower nature (the body). Each of us is a work of God’s design—and, when God looks upon his creation, he finds it good!


11 August 2019

Human Sacrifice

. . . we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles… (1 Co 1:23)

St. Paul took the bull by the horns when he bluntly wrote this to his little community of Jesus followers in their city in Greece, a country long identified with its search for and esteem for wisdom.
It was hard for the early Greek and Jewish Christians alike to come to terms with the crucifixion, but the Jewish ones found at least some understanding from their ancient religious traditions and practices—the sacrificial nature of the death of Jesus.
Every devout and faithful Jew was familiar with the sacrificial rules and rituals of the temple in Jerusalem. Their divine origin was described in the first sever chapters of the book of Leviticus, and detailed regulations were given for each kind of sacrifice:
– Burnt offerings: animal sacrifices in which the victim was entirely consumed, for the purpose of the offerer being restored to God’s favor or of giving thanks, a kind of ransom or payment;
– Cereal offerings: offerings of agricultural produce, first fruits;
– Communion sacrifices: sacrifices in which the sacrificial offering is shared between God and the offerer, a sacred meal expressing the covenantal bond between the offerer and God;
– Sacrifices for sin: various kinds of sacrifices of atonement for sin involving either the high priest, the whole community of Israel, a leader of the community, or a private individual;
– Sacrifices of reparation: sacrifices of atonement with a strong element of measurable repayment.
The greatest of sacrifices was the one sealing the covenant between God and his people, the foundation of all their religion.

Boldly, Jesus’ first disciples described his apparently ignominious death—and were consoled by it—as a sacrifice.
They understood his sacrifice in multiple ways, as a total offering of his very life, as the first fruits of a new dispensation, as a new communion with God, as a definitive act of atonement for everyone, as the ultimate reparation to the Father for everyone’s sins, as the very foundation of a renewed, a new covenant between God and his people.
A devout and practicing Jew could fully appreciate these powerful metaphors—and could also be shocked and offended by them.
Non-Jews of the first centuries could also appreciate them, after some instruction in details of Jewish religious practices, since they, too, lived in cultures where temples existed and sacrifices were offered.
A terrible irony of history was that forty years after the death of Jesus the great temple of Jerusalem was destroyed and Jewish ritual sacrifices ceased.
Students of Torah may study these ancient traditions of sacrifice, but they haven’t been practiced for two thousand years. For Christians, rooted in messianic Judaism, sacrifice is still a core element of their faith.
In our day, we are not so much moved by sacrificial atonement as by the heroism of people willing to pay any price, even their lives, for the sake of others (but not those who make sacrifice of others, even if they include themselves).
To be faithful to the will of his Father and not to be betray his commandment and witness of love, Jesus was willing to pay the ultimate price. That was the heart of his sacrifice.


14 July 2019

Whose Sins You Forgive . . .

In the book of Isaiah, 22:15-25, Shelma, the master of the palace, is rebuked by the Lord, and his office is turned over to Eliakim: “I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open.”
Eliakim is no mere doorkeeper; the key symbolizes the vicarious authority conferred upon him to act in the name of his king.
In the gospel according to Matthew, 16:19, after Peter’s confession of faith, Jesus says to him, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
In the gospel according to John, 20:20, when the resurrected Jesus first appears to the disciples he says to them, “Receive the holy Spirit, Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
St. Augustine, in his sermon quoted in the office of readings for the Solemnity of Peter and Paul (second reading), offers us a challenging interpretation of these gospel texts.

As you are aware, Jesus chose his disciples before his passion and called them apostles; and among these almost everywhere Peter alone deserved to represent the entire Church. And because of that role which he alone had, he merited to hear the words: To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not one man who received the keys, but the entire Church considered as one. . . . For the fact that it was the Church that received the keys of the kingdom of God is clear from what the Lord says elsewhere to all the apostles [disciples]: Receive the Holy Spirit, adding immediately, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain, they are retained.

This means that all the followers of Jesus have a share in this authority to open and shut, to bind and loose, to forgive and retain, although not all exercise this God-given authority in quite the same way.
For the sake of order in the Christian community, some bear more such authority than others; some have the responsibility of exercising it more generally and publicly.
Does this mean, for example, that in the absence and unavailability of a priest in a parish any lay person can begin to “hear confessions”? No, in fact even a priest must be authorized and empowered to do so; he need ‘faculties” from the bishop or his delegate.
Could a lay person be so authorized and empowered? Our current sacramental theology and canon law does not foresee such a possibility. (However, just because there is no precedent for something doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not possible.)
One thing is sure. every Christian is empowered and obliged to exercise a ministry of mercy.
If my brother or sister offends me and then later regrets and repents what was done and seeks pardon, I have the power to forgive (open, loose) or retain (shut, bind).
If I exercise love and mercy, by forgiving I remove the burden of guilt from my brother or sister, a liberation. If I chose not to forgive, then I retain the offense, and he or she remains burdened by it. What would that say about me as a follower of Jesus?
Remember, among Jesus’ parting words to his followers were: “Love one another as I love you.” (John 15:12)
It wasn’t a recommendation, it was a command!


7 July 2019