Father Longenecker on Church Shopping

Been thinking about this lately, for some reason.

Father Longenecker used to run a number of posts by his 'alter egos'.   Mrs Brady was one of them.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2010/09/mrs-brady-on-church-shopping.html

And then there was this post
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2010/09/church-shopping.html

That being said. Sometimes you just got to go, but when you do you’d better agonize and pray over the decision, and when you find that new parish. You’d better stay put and learn stability. I know it will sound like heresy to some folks, but there is more to the spiritual life than fine liturgy. It’s called humility. Humility is very very hard.
Humility is endless.

Indeed.

Eleven Cardinals Book

Before the recent synod on the family, Ignatius Press released "Eleven Cardinals Speak on Marriage and the Family".  It's hard not to think of this as a sequel to the "Five Cardinals Book" that was released prior to 2014's synod on the family.  One wonders what will happen prior to the next synod. 

I didn't get the book right away because I was hoping that Ignatius would release a Kindle or iBooks edition.  When I finally realized that wasn't going to happen the synod was halfway over and I resisted buying the book because I figured it'd be obsolete by the time the final report came out.   After the synod was over, I didn't get it because I was getting tired of the constant discussion about marriage and things related to marriage (I am married. I am familiar with the subject.  Perhaps there are other topics of interest?)  But a month ago I ended up buying it, more to support my local Catholic bookstore than anything else.

It's a slim volume at 136 pages, including the preface by Winfried Aymans.  Given that there are eleven authors, it's understandable that it's an uneven book.  Mr Ayman's preface and the first chapter by Cardinal Caffara (Bolgna) are outstanding, and probably worth the price of the book.  The second chapter by Cardinal Cleemis (Syro-Malankara) and the seventh chapter by Cardinal Onaiyeken (Abuja, Nigeria) are very interesting as the present how the Church's teaching on marriage is transmitted and received in different cultures, which I foolishly assumed as the point of these synods, not to regularize the decadent practices of the West.  Then of course is Cardinal Sarah's contribution which is wonderful as always.

So I can't discourage people from getting this book. But I'm not sure I can whole-heartedly recommend it, either. My earlier misgivings persisted even as I read the better chapters.  There's an odor of antiquity in the book. Most of the authors have "emeritus" in their titles and so it seems that their views are not necessarily reflective of the current people running dioceses around the world.  Since the majority of the authors in this book are in no position to do anything practical or constructive with regards to Church teaching, it naturally leads one to think that that is the case in general.  That the people in the Church at large that uphold traditional values are not in a position to do anything about it and, by extension, the majority of people who ARE in a position to do something are not inclined to uphold Church teaching.  That's a completely fallacious argument, but I couldn't help getting that impression.

I suspect that Ignatius views this book as a minor contribution to the body of knowledge surrounding marriage which is why they didn't take the effort  to make it available electronically.

I also have specific quibbles.  Cardinal Eijk (Utrecht), Cardinal Meisner (emeritis, Cologne) and Cardinal Savino (Caracas) make the point explicitly that the Church is too timid in teaching the truth about marriage and sexuality.  Cardinal Eijk actually uses the phrase "catechesis has been seriously neglected for half a century".  I hear this all the time and it's true.  But the fact that I hear it all the time also sets my antenna twitching and I've come to see this as a cheap applause line for conservative Catholics.  It's the equivalent to a speaker warming up his audience with "I'm always very happy to come to (insert name of town). The people are so good looking and friendly!"  It's used to get on the good side of your audience so they agree with everything else you way. It's a way of filling the space when you have nothing else to offer.  It's treacle.

But what makes it offensive in this case is these people are the very ones who can do something about it.  Cardinal Eijk make think catechesis has been poor in the last five decades, but he's been the archbishop of Utrecht since 2007 and a bishop since 1999.  Cardinal Meisner was the archbishop of Cologne for twenty-five years.  Cardinal Savino has been a bishop in Venezuela in various capacities for thirty-three years.  These are not exactly helpless bystanders.  I'd rather read less about their complaining about how things are in the Church and more about they've done to fix the problems.  

The other quibble is related to a pet peeve of mine, so probably isn't valid for everyone.  The authors mention that Vatican II is the key to a correct understanding of the family, largely through the interpretive lens of Pope St John Paul II at his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Conosorto.  Yet it also appears in the pages that many of the problems are caused by a misunderstanding of Vatican II.  This is more treacle.  It's hard to imagine getting published a a Catholic author without invoking Vatican II.  It wears me out.  I'm left with the conclusion that Vatican II has basically the same function as alcohol in the minds of many.

So I remain conflicted about the book.  There are definitely gems contained within it and I think it's a good reference on the subject.  It's worth the price and it's worth the space on your bookshelf if you're a catechist or evangelist of any sort.  At least today.  I remain cautious about it's shelf life. I still worry that Pope Francis will issue his own apostolic exhortation and render much of the argumentation in this book obsolete.  I don't think he'll exactly overturn John Paul II, but ... well, actually I just don't know what to expect.  He could uphold Church teaching, but for a completely different reason than is presented by these authors.  He could dismiss them as pharisees and symptoms of a throw-away culture and antithetical to mercy, yet not go so far as to say their conclusions are wrong.  Who knows?

Some thoughts on the Epiphay

This is something I wrote for RCIA back in 2012. As I read it now, I'm a bit embarrassed at some of the wooden language. I have another angle on the Epiphany that I might get out this week, but here this is, anyway.

--------------------------------------

Opening Prayer

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,

 for he has come to his people and brought about their redemption.

He has raised up the sign of salvation

 in the house of his servant David,

as he promised through the mouth of the holy ones,

 his prophets through the ages:

to rescue us from our enemies

 and all who hate us,

to take pity on our fathers,

 to remember his holy covenant

and the oath he swore to Abraham our father,

 that he would give himself to us,

that we could serve him without fear

– freed from the hands of our enemies –

in uprightness and holiness before him,

 for all of our days.

Gospel: Matthew 2:1-12.

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage." When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, He inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; since from you shall come a ruler, who is to shepherd my people Israel."

Then Herod called the magi secretly and ascertained from them the time of the star's appearance. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage."

After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. They were overjoyed at seeing the star,  and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their country by another way.

In the Gospel, there seem to be three different reactions to Jesus’ birth.  Herod was suspicious of Jesus and antagonistic towards Him, the rest of Jerusalem was indifferent and the Magi were open to Jesus.

Herod the Great was a bad guy. Note he and his grandson, Herod Agrippa I, were called “King of the Jews” because they ruled over Judea on behalf of the Romans (as “client kings”).  He jealously clung to power, to the extent of killing three of his own children and a number of his wives who he saw as overly ambitious.  Herod’s vainglory was such that when he was near death, he was concerned that no one would mourn his death, so he called a number of famous and respected people to Jerusalem and ordered that when he died, these also should be killed, so that his death would bring sorrow to the land, one way or another.  He most certainly would have been alarmed about the arrival of a new “King of the Jews”.

Now what about the rest of Jerusalem. The Gospel says that the rest of Jerusalem was “troubled” about the arrival of the Magi.  There is a possibility that they were worried for the safety of Jesus, given Herod’s volatile nature, but that doesn’t seem likely.  The Gospel is incomplete so we don’t know if the chief priests and elders were aware of the star that the Magi were following, if it was visible to them, if they saw it but didn’t notice it, or if they saw it and considered what it might mean but dismissed it as unimportant.  However, the Gospel strongly implies that chief priests and elders were dull to the possibility of the birth of the Messiah because it’s apparent that they didn’t travel with the Magi to search for His birthplace.  Herod instructed the Magi to bring back the location of the child, which he wouldn’t have needed to do if some of his own people had gone with them.  Bethlehem is about 5 miles away from Jerusalem.  They couldn’t be bothered to go? To see if the Messiah is really there, or if the Magi were crazy?

So why would the rest of Jerusalem be “troubled” over the coming of the Messiah?  John Chrysostom (one of the Fathers of the Church) says that they were worried about what kind of world the new king would usher in. He quotes a verse from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 9:5-6 They would be glad, if they had been burnt with fire; for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200106.htm

Perhaps the political situation in Jerusalem was favorable and the Jewish elders were not too keen to have things thrown into chaos again.  The Sadducees and Pharisees enjoyed a certain status in Jewish life, though they didn’t much care for each other.  Each group probably thought that God was on their side, and would have been happy for the Messiah to come and smite the other side.  But until that time, they seemed to have reached a detente with each other and enjoyed the favor of society and the establishment.  Herod, for all this faults, was politically astute and took care of the Jewish people.  He rebuilt the temple and some of his wives and sons even converted to Judaism. But for whatever reason, it seems that Jerusalem was not ready for Jesus.

The Magi, on the other hand were open to God’s call.  They saw a sign and followed it to see where it lead, and it lead them to God.  The gifts of the Magi are often commented on: gold, for a king; incense for a God; myrrh for a man, who will die.  Perhaps they understood the mission of Jesus.  Perhaps they knew about Herod and suspected that Herod would seek to eliminate a rival to his thrown.  

Saint Josemaria Escriva makes a good point about the Magi: God sent them a sign while they were doing what they do. The Magi watched the stars, so God sent them a star. Similarly, he called Peter, James and John while they were fishing and Matthew while he was collecting taxes. He even called Paul while he was persecuting Christians!

It may be helpful to consider at this point the prologue to John’s Gospel (John 1:10-11). “He was in the world... and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.”

So this is the life of Jesus.  At Jesus’ birth and at His death we have people who don’t see God and people who do.  We have Roman officialdom (represented by Herod at the birth and Pilate at the Passion) who are thinking only in earthly terms.  They can’t be said to reject Jesus’ Divinity: it doesn’t even register with them. It’s not even part of their world view. It is completely alien to them, to the point that their minds can’t even recognize that it’s there.  On the other hand we have the Jewish authorities of the day, who are expecting something, but not this.  They expect a king, not a pauper.  They don’t expect His arrival to be noticed first by Gentiles. They don’t expect his apparent powerlessness.  They are similar to, but not quite the same as the Romans. Jesus is so different from what they expect that they are unable to see Him.  Even the miracles that Jesus performs are not enough to overcome this.  We all know of circumstances where we’re looking closely for something, but in the wrong place.  What we’re looking for may be in plain sight, but it’s invisible to us because we’re looking someplace else. Finally, the gentiles, the outsiders, are portrayed as responding to God. Not having any expectations about God, they are able to receive God as He is.

Note something else about the Magi: they first sought a King in the capital city: the normal place that you’d expect to find a king.  And they find their King, but only after consulting with the Jewish leaders.  Jewish leaders who apparently weren’t too interested in finding the King themselves.  When God chose Abraham and his descendants to be the chosen people He did so so that the Jewish people would lead all nations to God, as is mentioned in the Psalm today.  And here’s an example of the Jewish people leading gentiles to God, however unwittingly.  There’s a popular interpretation in the writings of the Fathers of the Church that the star disappeared from the Magi when they got to Jerusalem, forcing them to consult with the leaders there.  It was God’s will that people should be lead to God by other people.  Today we have the Church filling that role: bringing God to the people and people to God.

Closing prayer

Almighty, ever-living God,

 when Christ was baptized in the river Jordan

 the Holy Spirit came upon him

 and your voice proclaimed from heaven, ‘This is my beloved Son.’

Grant that we,

 who by water and the Holy Spirit are your adopted children,

 may continue steadfast in your love.

[We make our prayer] through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

 who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

 God for ever and ever.

Amen.

A Meditation on Winter

If anyone has had the misfortune of seeing me in RCIA, they know that I like to use metaphors and analogies. In fact, it probably appears that I paid good money for each as I try to wring every drop of meaning out of them, or as I often put it "I stretch a metaphor until it screams".  We're having a wonderful Texas winter right now with temperatures in the 50s so I was reminded of this metaphor that I haven't had the chance to use yet.  So I'll share it here for the benefit of my few regular readers.


I'm sure you've had this experience.  You are out and about when it's cloudy and gray and the temperature is in the upper 40's and there's a light breeze.  It's just gray and cold and everything you touch is cold and you just feel miserable.  Now consider a different situation. It's still in the upper 40s and there's still a light breeze but the sun is shining brightly.  Now it doesn't feel so bad.  The thermometer would say that things are exactly the same, but you feel much better.  You might even be able to do without your coat for short periods of time.  Obviously the sun is the difference, but what does the sun do?

The sun doesn't heat the air, the sun heats you and the ground and everything else.  But the air is clear so the sun has no affect on it. So even though the air is the same temperature, you are being warmed by the rays of the sun and so you feel warmer, even though the thermometer on the weather report (which is typically in the shade) says it's the same temperature.

So if the sun doesn't warm the air, how does it change temperature? How do we get cold fronts and warm fronts and all those strange runic symbols they show on TV?  Air warms up because it passes over the ground and trees and buildings that the sun as warmed.  It's a slow process.  Air is actually a good insulator as long as it's not moving.  That's how thermoses work.  Here in Texas we are frequently menaced by air that came from Alaska and drops our temperatures to the 20s and 30s.  And then we also are hit with winds coming from Mexico that pushed our temperatures into the 60s and 70s.  It's cold in the winter in the polar regions because the sun doesn't shine much and even when it does shine it's rays are very weak, coming in at an angle and having to pass through a lot of the atmosphere (air).  In the equatorial regions it is warm because the sun shines a lot every day and it comes perpendicular to the ground so it isn't diffused by the atmosphere as much.  It's a lot more complicated than that: there's factors such as humidity and air speed and probably wind shear that affects how quickly the air warms up or cools down, and in each case there's an equilibrium that sets up between the land and sea and air.  But the amount of sun and the intensity of the sunlight is a key factor that starts it all.

I think the lines and letters and triangles are added later, but I'm not sure how that works.

The obvious parallel here is between the physical world and the spiritual world.  I would propose that the "air" in my discourse above is roughly equivalent to the culture.  And the sun is equivalent to God. I'm not the first person to make a play on words between "Sun" and "Son".  When there's no God, the world seems like a cold place and it's uncomfortable and we don't like to spend any more time in it then we have to.  But when there's God, we are warmed and we enjoy being in the culture.  But of course by letting ourselves be warmed by God, we radiate that warmth and eventually even the culture around us becomes holier.  It takes a long time though.  We can look up in the sky and see that there's a lot of air that needs to be warmed up.  We know from experience that a few hours of weak sunlight a day won't do us any good and if we only have sunlight once a week, it's going to be a cold week.  So God can't be in our lives for only a short period of time if we're going to change the culture. And He can't be only a little bit there.  We can look around and see there's a lot of culture to change.  It has to be All God All the Time if we're going to do anything.

Finally, I mentioned that in the polar regions, the sunlight comes in at an angle and has to pass through a lot of atmosphere to hit the ground.  If we're seeing God filtered through the very culture we're trying to change, we aren't going to make much progress.  We are allowing culture to blunt the impact that God has on our lives so we naturally have less to radiate back to the culture.  The culture acting as the middle man here: giving us only the amount of God that it will allow and blocking what it finds objectionable or unnecessary.  In that case we're radiating the culture, not God.  And that's a dark and cold place.

Dismissal Notes for 3rd Sunday of Advent

3rd Sunday of Advent, Year C

12/13/2015

Ben Fischer

1st Reading Zephaniah 3:14-18a

Psalm Isaiah 12:2-6

2nd Reading Philippians 4:4-7

Gospel Luke 3:10-18

The first reading is from the prophet Zephaniah.  Zephaniah was active during the early years of Judean King Josiah.  Josiah became king at the age of 8 and at that time,  Judah was very corrupt.  The previous two kings had allowed and facilitated the worship of idols, even going so far as to install statues of idols in the Temple.  The early part of Zephaniah strongly condemns Judah for this idolatry and promises a great chastisement.  In fact, Josiah was the last of the “good kings” of Judah.  When he became an adult he instructed the priests to clean and renovate the Temple during which effort they found a “book of laws”.  He was terrified of the punishments promised to Judah and eliminated idol worship in Judah and set a number of reforms in religious and civic life.  But it was too late.  He fought with the Egyptians, losing his life in battle and was succeeded by sons who did not walk with the Lord.  Within a short period of time, the Babylonians conquered Judah and destroyed the Temple.

The portion of Zephaniah in today’s Mass concerns what happens after the great chastisement.  Zephaniah says that a remnant will remain.  God will purify them by removing the corrupt elements of society, leaving behind the righteous. Indeed, during the Babylonian Exile, the Babylonians did not forcibly remove ALL of the Judeans, they removed the king and the rulers and the Temple authorities and, in general, the elite.  These are the people the Zephaniah was denouncing in the early part of the book.  But it’s not just that the bad people are being removed and the good people are left in place. This isn’t an Old Testament version of the Left Behind books.  The “remnant” refers to the faithful, whether they are in Jerusalem, Babylon or anyplace else. Zephaniah specifically refers to the remnant being gathered from all over and being restored to their homeland in Israel.  Today’s reading is an expression of the joy the remnant will experience when God rewards their faithfulness.

So there’s a distinction that’s made between the judgement on the nation and the judgement on the individual.  A nation can be destroyed due to the faithlessness of the society, but that doesn’t condemn all members of the nation.  Similarly each person has their own obligation to live a righteous life, regardless of the state of society.  God will reward the righteous even as they may suffer from the decay of the society around them.  Zephaniah’s condemnation primarily falls on the leaders of Judah as their responsibility is primarily to the nation.  The leaders bear the responsibility for those that fall into sin because of the leader’s apostasy.  Those that fall into sin are responsible for their own actions but God’s punishment will not be as severe.  Those that remain righteous are those that will rejoice in God’s saving action.

The Canticle from Isaiah echos the same theme.  The early part of Isaiah goes back and forth between condemnation of Judah’s unfaithfulness and a promise of God’s reward to those who remain faithful.  Again we see the distinction between personal salvation and the fate of the nation.

This distinction between salvation on a personal level and a national level is revealed in the Gospel reading.  John the Baptist called people to the River Jordan for the forgiveness of sins.  Why the River Jordan?  In Israel at the time, the forgiveness of sins occurred in only one place: the Temple.  John was expressing a judgement on the religious elite of the day in a similar, but less dramatic sense than Zephaniah did.  The Temple was the focal point for Israel. The fate of Israel was tied up with the fate of the Temple. Were the Temple to be destroyed then the future of Israel would be in doubt.  This is historically accurate.  Historically, the fate of Israel was associated with the temple.  The Babylonians destroyed the temple after they conquered Judah.  The Greeks profaned the Temple during their rule of Israel in the time of the Maccabbees and, looking forward, after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70AD, Israel as a nation essentially ceased to exist, or at least it barely hung on until the definitive destruction 60 years later.  John’s message does not dispute that reverence of the Temple, but he says it is not sufficient.  Personal holiness is required.  And he called people away from the Temple to emphasize that need for personal holiness.

The people in today’s Gospel have responded to John’s call for personal holiness and are asking how they can prepare the way of the Lord in their own lives.   John had just instructed the crowds who came to him that they needed to repent of their sins.  They cannot rely on their heritage as the “chosen people” for salvation:  8 Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So the naturally respond: What do we do?  What does it mean to “repent” and “bear good fruit?”

John’s responses seem banal. He tells people to share what they have.  He tells the tax collectors to only collect the taxes that are owed.  He tells the soldiers to not rob people.  This doesn’t seem to comport with the almost violent opening line about the need for conversion.  Yet there’s a stark demand here.  

The economic system the tax collectors found themselves in was fairly simple.  Rome decided how much tax Judea would pay and the tax collectors would go out and get it. The system not only allowed them to overcharge the Jews, it assumed that they would.  The tax had to be paid. If the tax collectors didn’t get enough, then the shortfall would come out of their pockets.  The tax collectors often paid for the license to collect taxes.  That license cost plenty of money and they needed to recoup that expense somehow.  So tax collection was a complex series of negotiations, fights, extortions and evasions which generally speaking the tax collector always won.  And they were rich as a result.

Soldiers were in a similar situation.  Soldiers were not rich.  They and their families were often very poor and in debt.  The pay of a Roman Soldier was very low – probably at least in part because Rome assumed the soldiers would steal the rest. They could look forward to a plot of land to farm upon retirement but the life of a soldier was hard and the punishments were severe and there was no guarantee that they would make it the twenty-five years before retirement. So if they needed some money, a soldier had every incentive to try to get it as soon as possible.  A soldier, after all, is a well trained strong man armed and shielded with a number of similarly well trained strong and well-armed men behind him.  Roman soldiers were constantly being called out to deal with some petty uprising or major insurrection and no police force was going to arrest the soldier if he looted a few more homes than justice required in quelling the riots.  

A current example may shed light on the situation.  In the 1990s a comedy called Liar Liar hit the movie theaters.  The basic premise was that a lawyer played by Jim Carrey could not tell a lie for a day.  The comedic point was that it would not only be very difficult for a lawyer to function without lying, but that indeed a man might get into law because he was a skilled liar.  Liars sought out the legal profession because it enabled good liars to perfect their craft and make good money from their skillset, such as it is.  The situation would be similar for tax collectors and soldiers.  Conniving thieves would naturally gravitate toward tax collection as a profession and thugs and bullies would naturally gravitate towards soldiering.  Those were the professions that rewarded their talents.

John is saying that the Ten Commandments apply in every situation.  The command to “not steal” applies even if you’re in a profession that accepts or even demands theft. We might wonder what John was say about some lawyers, politicians and actors we see on TV today.

John’s instruction has a double edge to it.  He is not only saying that it’s possible for a tax collector to conduct his business honestly, but he’s saying that tax collection is an honorable profession.  The unsavory reputation it has is due to those who misuse their position of power, not to the profession itself.  In a similar way, being a soldier is an honorable profession. It is those who misuse their authority that taint its image.  John did not tell the tax collectors to quit collecting taxes, nor did he tell the soldiers to put down their swords.  The jobs are fine. It’s they way they are conducting their jobs that is the problem.

I want to emphasize this a little more.  Two great saints of the twentieth century spoke often about this idea.  One the one hand, when the day of judgement comes, God will not ask “were you a tax collector” or “were you a businessman” or “were you a social worker”.  He is going to want to know how you lived out your Christian faith: how you loved your neighbors.  But on the other hand, our professions can be avenues for holiness.  Saint Josemaria Escriva often wrote about how work, performed with the love of Jesus, can sanctify the world.  Saint Therese, the Little Flower, similarly spoke of doing small things with great love.

Of course, not all jobs are inherently good. It’s hard to imagine John the Baptist telling an abortionist, or a pornographer or a pimp to do his work with honesty and integrity. Each profession has to be judged for it’s compatibility with the demands of Christian ethics.  Some professions are inherently inimical to Christian values.  But some are not. Discerning the difference requires a conscience that is formed in light of scripture and Church teaching.

The Gospel ends by saying that the multitudes were excited by John and wondered if he might be the long-awaited messiah.  John followed in the pattern of the prophets: calling people to repent of their sins and promising salvation if they do.  Messianic fervor was at a peak at this time: the prophecies of Daniel pointed to this age as the time of the Messiah and the Jews were in need of a savior, living under a foreign power.  Many of the faithful Jews were skeptical of some of their leaders, who they saw as in collusion with the Romans.  The High Priest who was supposed to be the spiritual leader of the Jews was a political appointment and was subject to the pagan Romans.  The faithful Jews probably felt very much like the remnant described by the prophets.  How they must have longed to sing those songs of joy in the first reading and the canticle.

If the Jews were looking for a political or military leader to overthrow the Romans, they were looking in an odd place.  John is described in the Gospels has a half-crazed man with a wild appearance and ascetic diet.  John had no obvious military or organizational skills with which to lead a rebellion against the Romans.   In fact, John did not speak against the Romans at all, but against the Jewish leaders.  What kind of savior was this?

Would John be the one to free the Jews? In a sense he was.  He prepared the way for Jesus.  But he definitely had a sense of proportion. He knew who he was and he knew how God is.  John accumulated a large number of followers. That must have been a temptation:  Perhaps they were right: he was meant to lead them against the Romans.  They would follow.  Perhaps they would win?  Perhaps the crowds are a sign of God’s favor?  But John never lost sight of his mission. He did not seek glory for himself, but rather sought the glory of God.  

If John did not have the skills to unseat the Romans, he had one trait that was greatest of all. He was humble.  He didn’t see his followers as a willing army waiting for him to give marching orders.  He didn’t see them as a mob that he could unleash or call back as he wished.  He didn’t see them as a means to his own aggrandizement.  He saw them as a flock in need of a shepherd.  He saw them as children of God who longed to be reunited with their Father.

Closing Prayer

Grant, almighty God, that looking forward in faith to the feast of our Lord’s birth, we may feel all the happiness our Saviour brings and celebrate his coming with unfailing joy.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

The Lord bless us, and keep us from all evil, and bring us to everlasting life.

AMEN

Francis on Condoms and AIDS

Yesterday I had a short-lived post up about Pope Francis in which I took issue with his word-salad response to a loaded question about condom usage on his airplane presser on his way back from Africa.  I subsequently deleted the post because in retrospect it was in poor taste.  I say that on the off chance that someone actually saw that before it came down (which I doubt given the light traffic on this blog). It was fortuitous that I did because today I came to a possible insight.

Here's the relevant portion of the interview.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-popes-in-flight-interview-from-africa-to-rome-48855/

Juergen Baetz, DPA (Germany): Your Holiness, HIV is ravaging Africa. Medication means more people now live longer, but the epidemic continues. In Uganda alone there were 135,000 new infections of HIV, in Kenya it’s worse. It’s the greatest cause of death in Africa. Your Holiness, you have met with HIV positive children, you heard a moving testimony in Uganda. Yet you have said very little on the issue. We know that prevention is key. We know that condoms are not the only method of solving the epidemic, but it’s an important part of the answer. Is it not time for the Church to change it’s position on the matter? To allow the use of condoms to prevent more infections?

Pope Francis: The question seems too small to me, it also seems like a partial question. Yes, it’s one of the methods. The moral of the Church on this point is found here faced with a perplexity: the fifth or sixth commandment? Defend life, or that sexual relations are open to life? But this isn’t the problem. The problem is bigger...this question makes me think of one they once asked Jesus: “Tell me, teacher, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Is it obligatory to heal?” This question, “is doing this lawful,” … but malnutrition, the development of the person, slave labor, the lack of drinking water, these are the problems. Let’s not talk about if one can use this type of patch or that for a small wound, the serious wound is social injustice, environmental injustice, injustice that...I don’t like to go down to reflections on such case studies when people die due to a lack of water, hunger, environment...when all are cured, when there aren’t these illnesses, tragedies, that man makes, whether for social injustice or to earn more money, I think of the trafficking of arms, when these problems are no longer there, I think we can ask the question “is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Because, if the trafficking of arms continues, wars are the biggest cause of mortality...I would say not to think about whether it’s lawful or not to heal on the Sabbath, I would say to humanity: “make justice,” and when all are cured, when there is no more injustice, we can talk about the Sabbath.

 This is simply terrible.  It wanders all over the place touching on every subject except that which the reporter asked about. It's like a politician speaking.  It has been interpreted as Francis downplaying the Church's teaching on condoms.

However, I think the key to understanding this is the first line.  I think that Francis here is saying that there are a lot of problems in Africa and condoms aren't going to solve them.  One of those problems is AIDS but there are many more.  I believe that Francis is saying "With all the problems in Africa, why are you so focused on condoms?  Is sex all that you can think about?"  Note the questioner was from Germany, the land that is trying to normalize all sorts of sexual behavior.

As far as all the other stuff about arms trafficking and environmentalism and pharisees, I think that's Francis just filling the air with his own hobby horses because he finds the question irrelevant.

I don't know if it's correct, but it's a possible interpretation. I'm trying to give Francis the benefit of the doubt (which I wasn't last night). I'm more willing to be wrong in giving him the benefit of the doubt than I am in accusing him of saying something he didn't mean to say.

I never thought I'd say it but I'm reading a book by Mark Shea

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013YE53DW

It's actually quite good so far and a lot of research went into it.  A LOT of research.  And it's written in a very conversational tone.  I've lost my love for Mark Shea over the years, but this may bring me back.

I'll report back later but as it stands this could very well be a "foundation book" along with Pope B16's Jesus of Nazareth for prospective Catholics.