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.

Francis on Intercommunion

The Indefatigable Jimmy Akin strkes again
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-on-intercommunion-with-lutherans

It's hard to know what to make of this. I know from sad personal experience that when blindsided with a question you can easily end up using many words to say nothing. But if this question was pre-selected as is implied, well then...

I'm also skeptical of the reporting on this because apparently the Pope rambled on for several minutes without insulting anyone.  That doesn't seem normal.  Perhaps his overly effusive praise of Kasper was intended as an insult (flattering someone for the particular trait they lack in order to point it out).  It's all a mystery.

A meditation on God's Providence

Matthew 6:25-26

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat [or drink], or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 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?

To tell the truth, this is one of the more difficult passages in the Gospels.   Not "difficult" as in "I don't want to hear it" but "difficult" as in "that makes no sense."  My life has been a constant effort.  I would venture to guess that there are exactly zero things that I'm naturally good at.  I feel like God's admonition to Adam in Genesis 3:19 was given to me: "By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken."  In truth every modicum of success I've ever had has been the result of stubborn effort and on the day that my effort ceases, then I'll likely cease as well.  Not even "success": even the failures have been the result of hard stubborn work.

And I'm hardly alone.  Read the story of Mother Angelica, Saint Teresa, Saint John of the Cross or for that matter, Saints Peter and Paul.  Most of the really great human stories that we hear are about people struggling against disability, disease, misfortune and temptation.  How can the Gospel passage above apply to any of us?

But something about that occurred to me.  One of my neighbors has an apple tree which extends over his back yard into the alley. Right now, it's dropping apples at a steady rate as the cold weather finally kicks in.  The squirrels run up and eat the apples and haul what they can back to their burrows (or wherever squirrels go).  My neighbor probably isn't too happy if the squirrels eat the apples right out of his tree, but anything that falls in the alley is fair game. God is providing for them.

But squirrels have a hard life.  I see them run back and forth across my back fence and they are harassed constantly.  Birds swoop down and peck at them if they get too close.   They have to fight other squirrels for what the birds don't steal.  Any dogs in the backyard will give chase if they wander into view.  Yet they survive and God gives them what they need to survive.  He doesn't take away the struggle, He makes the struggle pay off.

When Jesus says "Look at the birds in the sky... your heavenly Father feeds them."  He does, but birds eat voraciously to support the constant effort that is is there life.  Jesus says a verse later that the wildflowers are clothed more elegantly than even Solomon.  Indeed!  But plants dig into the hard soil and even crack rocks with their roots to stay alive.

The passage above doesn't promise and easy life.  It promises that effort will pay off.  On the other hand, it doesn't guarantee misery.  This is not the Winston Churchill school of motivation:  “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”  We give glory to God by fulfilling the role that God has for us.  And that brings a certain peace and joy, and perhaps even comfort.  But it never excuses us from the work at hand.

RCIA Talk for Sunday 11/22

Breaking open the Word (aka, Dismissal)

34th Sunday of Ordinary Time / The Feast of Christ the King

November 22, 2015

Ben Fischer

The opening reading is from the Book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel is the last of the Major Prophets in the Old Testament, and is notable for it’s rich and vivid imagery.  The visions are similar to those in the Book of Revelation.  The book is also notable for it’s clear Messianic prophecies. Two prophecies are important for today’s discussion: the reference to the Son of Man in today’s reading and a timeline that the Jews believed predicted when the Messiah was to come.  And indeed, that timeline pointed to the time of Jesus, so when He walked on Earth, Messianic expectations were very high.

In today’s reading we read a portion of a vision that Daniel had.  Just before today’s first reading, Daniel has a vision of four beast emerging from the waters, each more terrible than the one before.  The first one was like a lion with eagle’s wings. The second one was like a bear. The third like a leopard with four wings and four heads.  The fourth beast was unlike the others, “terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong”. It had 10 horns on it’s head and as Daniel looked a new horn appeared and three others fell before it and the new horn had eyes like a man’s and a mouth which spoke boastfully.  Then a throne was erected and the Ancient of Days took his place on the throne. His clothing was white as snow and his hair was white like wool. His throne was blazing with fire and countless thousands of people attended to him.  Before the Ancient of Days or “Ancient One”, the fourth beast was destroyed.

Then we come to today’s reading. One, like the Son of Man, came and stood before the Ancient One and received glory and dominion over all.

This phrase “Son of Man” is the most common expression that Jesus used to refer to Himself.  It is a strange circumlocution. In essence, a “son of man” is simply a man – a mortal, a mere human.  It appears several places in the Old Testament and merely means that.   In the case of this vision of Daniel, there seems to be additional context.  In the beginning of the vision, there are a number of fantastic and unimaginable beings.  The four beasts look like an amalgam of living animals and the Ancient One is only vaguely described.  Is He human? Is He yet in some other form?  But the one “like a Son of Man” stands before them all and and was found worthy and received dominion.  This is no mere mortal.  This is the essence of humanity: humanity as it was before the Fall; made in the image and likeness of God and who had been given dominion over all the Earth.  

The Jews understood the “Ancient One” or “Ancient of Days” to refer to God seated on His throne.  The book of Daniel goes on to interpret the beasts and the horns as referring to the pagan kings which tormented Israel.  The “Son of Man” was widely accepted by the Jews as referring to the Messiah who was chosen by God to lead His people to victory.  There was no expectation that the Messiah would be divine.  That wouldn’t come until Jesus revealed it.  The Messiah was simply an exemplar, a great leader and a great man.  Very much like the vision in Daniel: someone who has been found worthy by God and who can stand before the forces arrayed against him and emerge victorious.

For Jesus to take that title for Himself seems contradictory. After all, He is the Son of God!  And calling Himself “Son of Man” seems to be only partially correct since Joseph was His legal, but not biological father. The Christian interpretation is that Daniel saw one like the Son of Man.  Not just a son of man.  For Jesus was truly man, but also truly God.

It is believed that by using this title, Jesus was doing several things.  He was identifying Himself totally with humanity; “like us in all things but sin”.  We was also identifying Himself with this prophecy in Daniel.  When the Jews heard Him use this phrase, they would have understood that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Messiah and as perfected humanity.  He is victorious over the enemy and His words bring Eternal Life and He is the model that we need to live up to.  

In the Gospel reading, this Messianic fervor brought Jesus to the ruler of the day.  The Jewish authorities, fearful of what the Romans might do if Jesus’ followers got out of hand, turned Him into the local authorities with the charge of insurrection.  Pope Benedict XVI wrote about this in his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume II.

The image of Pilate in the Gospels presents the Roman Prefect quite realistically as a man who could be brutal when he judged this to be in the interests of public order. Yet he also knew that Rome owed its world dominance not least to its tolerance of foreign divinities and to the capacity of Roman law to build peace. This is how he comes across to us during Jesus’ trial.

The charge that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews was a serious one. Rome had no difficulty in recognizing regional kings like Herod, but they had to be legitimated by Rome and they had to receive from Rome the definition and limitation of their sovereignty. A king without such legitimation was a rebel who threatened the Pax Romana and therefore had to be put to death.

Pilate knew, however, that no rebel uprising had been instigated by Jesus. Everything he had heard must have made Jesus seem to him like a religious fanatic, who may have offended against some Jewish legal and religious rulings, but that was of no concern to him. The Jews themselves would have to judge that. From the point of view of the Roman juridical and political order, which fell under his competence, there was nothing serious to hold against Jesus.

At this point we must pass from considerations about the person of Pilate to the trial itself. In John 18:34-35 it is clearly stated that, on the basis of the information in his possession, Pilate had nothing that would incriminate Jesus. Nothing had come to the knowledge of the Roman authority that could in any way have posed a risk to law and order. The charge came from Jesus’ own people, from the Temple authority. It must have astonished Pilate that Jesus’ own people presented themselves to him as defenders of Rome, when the information at his disposal did not suggest the need for any action on his part.

Yet during the interrogation we suddenly arrive at a dramatic moment: Jesus’ confession. To Pilate’s question: “So you are a king?” he answers: “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice” (Jn 18:37). Previously Jesus had said: “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (18:36).

This “confession” of Jesus places Pilate in an extraordinary situation: the accused claims kingship and a kingdom. Yet he underlines the complete otherness of his kingship, and he even makes the particular point that must have been decisive for the Roman judge: No one is fighting for this kingship. If power, indeed military power, is characteristic of kingship and kingdoms, there is no sign of it in Jesus’ case. And neither is there any threat to Roman order. This kingdom is powerless. It has no legions.

With these words Jesus created a thoroughly new concept of kingship and kingdom, and he held it up to Pilate, the representative of classical worldly power. What is Pilate to make of it, and what are we to make of it, this concept of kingdom and kingship? Is it unreal, is it sheer fantasy that can be safely ignored? Or does it somehow affect us?

In addition to the clear delimitation of his concept of kingdom (no fighting, earthly powerlessness), Jesus had introduced a positive idea, in order to explain the nature and particular character of the power of this kingship: namely, truth. Pilate brought another idea into play as the dialogue proceeded, one that came from his own world and was normally connected with “kingdom”: namely, power—authority. Dominion demands power; it even defines it. Jesus, however, defines as the essence of his kingship witness to the truth. Is truth a political category? Or has Jesus’ “kingdom” nothing to do with politics? To which order does it belong? If Jesus bases his concept of kingship and kingdom on truth as the fundamental category, then it is entirely understandable that the pragmatic Pilate asks him: “What is truth?” (18:38).

It is the question that is also asked by modern political theory: Can politics accept truth as a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere, its place taken by an attempt to build peace and justice using whatever instruments are available to power? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular traditions that in reality are merely forms of holding on to power?

And yet, on the other hand, what happens when truth counts for nothing? What kind of justice is then possible? Must there not be common criteria that guarantee real justice for all—criteria that are independent of the arbitrariness of changing opinions and powerful lobbies? Is it not true that the great dictatorships were fed by the power of the ideological lie and that only truth was capable of bringing freedom?

Benedict XVI, Pope (2011-03-10). Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection (pp. 188-191). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Today is the feast of Christ the King.  The feast day was originally established by Pius XI in 1925.  This was in response to the rise of Fascism and Socialism after the disastrous First World War. Both political systems are inherently materialistic and atheistic.  By establishing this Feast Day, Pope Pius XI hoped that

1. The Church would remain free from state interference,
2. That secular leaders would remember their duty to honor and respect Christ
3. That the faithful would be reminded that Christ must reign in our hearts, minds, wills and bodies.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html

(or just Google “Quas Primas”)

Those are still relevant today.  The specific political systems that were ascendant in 1925 have been replaced, but their replacements are no less materialistic or secular in outlook. And the four beasts of Daniel’s vision continue to attack our faith and our culture.

May the Son of Man conquer our enemies and rule in our hearts and minds!

Closing Prayer

Almighty, ever-living God,

 it is your will to unite the entire universe under your beloved Son,

 Jesus Christ, the King of heaven and earth.

Grant freedom to the whole of creation,

 and let it praise and serve your majesty for ever.

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.