Advent 2, year A

The commonality between the three readings, excluding the Psalm, can be seen on different levels. Spirit. Unity. Of course, the spirit is the source of unity.

St Paul speaks of and to a church of Jew and gentile, united by and around her lord. Unity. And he appeals to the scriptures, essentially the Old Testament, which was written for our edification, as the source of this understanding of this unity. The scripture in our reading this week references how the Gentiles will find peace through the god of Israel. Our reading cuts short, and only lists one such reference, but there are more in the following text, one of which is directly from the first reading in Isaiah.

This first reading speaks of this mysterious stump, which buds. It was dead, but is alive. The promise of the Judaic kingdom remains. The spirit rests on this figure (baptism of Jesus). And in him the Gentiles shall hope, it says.

In the gospel, just prior to the baptism of Jesus, John is baptizing. He wears clothes that evoke Elijah the prophet, who was to precede the messiah’s entrance onto the scene. And he says to the Pharisees that they need no longer rely on their abrahamic lineage, for if necessary, god could raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And indeed, that is what he did. The Gentiles were incorporated. Brought into the body. Engrafted into the olive tree. But the axe lies at the root, so repent and bear fruit worthy of the gospel, lest the same fate befall you. The church cannot be thrown off, but you can.

Repent. Bear fruit. Serve unity through the joy of the gospel, in the spirit.

Contraception

I see it everywhere these days.  People insisting the Church opposes”artificial contraception”, but is Ok with natural methods.  BS.  The Church opposes contraception of any stripe. Introducing the artificial distinction between artificial and natural means only makes it seem like the Church is OK with natural contraception.  And what is the most well known form of natural contraception?  Well, NFP, naturellement.  But of course, NFP is not contraception.  Contraception is a specific thing, whether natural or artificial, and NFP ain’t it.

Comment Boxes

Sometimes it’s worth wading through comment boxes at certain blogs.  To wit:

Not every joke is supposed to make you laugh. Some of them are meant to make you sad, as they make you regret certain life choices you’ve made, while at the same time pointing towards the inevitablity of death.

Happiness is a Warm Gun

Actually it’s not.  It’s listening to the Innocence Mission’s latest album, My Room in the Trees.  An album that is too unbearably slow to listen to.  Where’s the pop and zazzy stuff?  Until you realize that you are moving too fast.  And that is the joy of this album.  That it forces you to sit down and listen to it.  Listen to songs of a slower, quieter, sadder, more real, more joyful life than your fast-paced whirlwind.  A slow walk through the real and wondrous world of light and leaves and Love. 

Thank God that someone out there has the eyes to see what I can’t.  And has the skill and beauty to share it with me.

Uh yeah

Haven’t written anything in a while and that’s probably for the best.  But today, a combinaton of factors has put me in the mood to say something, but I’m not sure what.  Sitting alone in a cubicle, with too much work to do, caffeine coursing through my veins, a long weekend ahead, a concert for one of my favorite bands, it’s all got me…happy.  That’s not to say that life is unhappy.  Much the contrary.  But sometimes the routines become ruts become drudgery.  And I’m grateful for a temporary escape from it all.

In many ways, the last two years have been a slow death of a certain aspect of who I thought I was.  In most instances, I have found that deaths like this take more the form of suicides.  Dying to self is not fun, and is not lightly undertaken, and requires a lot of repeated effort and failure.  But in this case, it has mercifully been more of the nature of a murder.  Murdered by God.  Sounds like a Dan Brown novelette.  The past two years would have been the time, had I been Protestant, when I would have switched churches.  After a few years in one place, the excitement tends to wear off, I become complacent and fall back into horrid habits.  When the spiritual life needed the old kick-start, I used to turn to divorce and remarriage.  And it worked.  The excitement of new people, a new place, new worship, it all conspired to get things going again.  But notice thatit was not God that was sustaining me through the difficult times.  I just bailed and started the process again.  And the excitement would carry me for a few more years.

But that is no longer an option.  The only alternative to the Church is…nothing.  Atheism…I consider it every now and then, but there’s nothing there, both literally and figuratively.  It can’t account for itself.  And so I am here…stuck.  “Lord, to whom shall we go?”  And that brings me to the death part.  With the excitement of being a works-riddled Catholic long since extinguished, and no prospect of rekindling the excitement through mere change, things have remained…stagnant for a while.  Stagnant could imply changelessness, but think of a South Carolina swamp.  It stinks.  It’s hot.  Things start to decay.  The bugs start to bite.  All my interest in things spiritual, theological, polemical etc has vanished.  Turns out I really enjoyed these things for the sake of playing the part of the member of X church.  These have waned in perfect correlation to my excitement levels.  Turns our I liked trying to prove that I was smarter than the people I had left behind.  I liked being the Christian with the answers. 

Anyway, that’s all gone, and mercifully so.  Sure, I am left with a bit of a vacuum.  I used to love to read books about the Faith.  Now the thought is…uhm…repulsive.  I used to have a good prayer routine.  Now, not so much.  I loved Mass.  Now it’s a bit of an ordeal, though squirmy tikes might have something to do with that.  But really, what it means is that all ulterior motives are now gone.  I don’t follow Christ, if I do, because it’s exciting, or because I am smart, or because (as I used to) the girls are nice.  Or any such thing.  At this point, it’s all about Christ, or it’s not.  It’s all about following him, and not some ephemeral fantasy.  Or course, devoid of all other incentives, I am less sure than ever that I will daily make the right choice.  But now that all that crap is gone, at least what is happening is real.  As someone said, more and more, I’m secretly just me.

How’s that for your quarterly dose of self-absorption.

Book recommendation

Protestant.  Catholic.  Pope.  Scripture.  Bible alone.  Tradition of men.  Whore.  Babylon.  Mary.  Mediatrix.  Redemptrix.  Immaculate Conception.  Assumption.  Confession.  Penance.  Sacrament.  Eucharist.  Transubstantiation.  Pelagian.  Mortal sin.  Works salvation.  Justification.  Faith alone.  Worship of saints.  Latria.  Dulia.  Hyperdulia.  Priest.  Father.  Rome.  Roman.  Romish.  Infallibility.

Just making sure I catch your search terms.  OK, now.  Read Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth.  You’ll learn a lot.  That is all.

Mondays

I do not think any efforts of my own will can end once and for all this craving for limited liabilities, this fatal reservation. Only God can. I have good faith and hope He will. Of course, I don’t mean that I can therefore, as they say, “sit back.” What God does for us, He does in us. The process of doing it will appear to me to be the daily and hourly repeated exercises of my own will in renouncing this attitude, especially each morning, for it grows all over me like a new shell each night. Failures will be forgiven; it is acquiescence that is fatal, the permitted, regularised presence of an area in ourselves which we still claim for our own. We may never, this side of death, drive the invader out of our territory, but we must not be in the Resistance, not in the Vichy government. And this, so far as I can yet see, must be begun again every day. Our morning prayer should be that in the Imitation: Da hodie perfecte incipere– grant me to make an unflawed beginning today, for I have done nothing yet. ~ CS Lewis

If it grows over me like a shell every night, it grows all over me like a casket over weekends.  ‘Nuff said.

Daily Mass

OK, so two out of the last three times I’ve attempted to go to daily Mass, the priest has decided not to show up.  Or overslept or something.  Granted these two occasions are separated by several months, but that almost makles it worse.  Does this happen even more frequently?  Or am I just unlucky, or worse, cursed?  The first time, I bailed while the deacon went to bang on the rectory door.  Today, after calling over, the deacon cobbled together some kind of commuion service.  I am grateful that I was still able to receive communion, and that the deacon gave it his best shot, but I am sure there is an approved form for a communion service in the absence of a priest.  Other than kinda going through the Mass, changing things here and there, with no sacrifice.  But seriously.  Total and absolute kudos to him for making the best out of an awkward situation.

Hope

On that infernal exercise machine, listening to 80s metal, watching the muted news.  Earthquakes, looting, rapes, murders, health care deform, Pam Anderson joins Dancing with Stars!, tsunamis, drug overdoses, suicides, car recalls and on and on and on.  How anyone cannot look upon this spectacle of brokenness and sin and not give in to despair is beyond me.

There is no other name given under heaven by which men may be saved.  There is truly no other hope.

The Third Temptation

Reading through PBXVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, he makes an interesting point regarding the this temptation of Jesus in the desert, per St. Matthew’s account.  This is the leading up of Our Lord onto a high mountain, to show him all the kingdoms of the world, if He will but fall down and worship the devil.  Universal kingship.  This is obviously what is destined for the Messiah.  And yet the devil offers it to him here, without the requisite Sacrifice involved in his attaining to it.  A choice between to ways of being King, two visions of the Messiah.  The way of the world, power, wealth.  Or the way of the Cross.  Love.  Sacrifice.  In of it itself, that is not particularly new or eye-opening.

But he illustrates this choice between the way of faith and the way of power by reference to two other scenes in the gospels.  The first is the one involving Barabbas.  Bar-Abbas means son of the Father.  And, in fact, Origen apparently has alluded to the fact that the New Testament manuscripts extant during his time referred to Barabbas as Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus Son of the Father.  This clearly reflects the fact that the early Church understood ths scene to be a choice presented to the people between two Messianic figures, two sons of the Father.  One has chosen the way of weakness, and the other has chosen the path of political insurrection.  They chose poorly.  Are our choices any better?

The second scene comes right after Our Lord’s conferring the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter.  Peter has just proclaimed the revealed truth that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the livng God.  To which Jesus responds by saying, yes, and I must be betrayed, beaten and killed.  To which Peter says, Lord, this shall never happen to you.  Two visions of how to be King.  Weakness and power.  And Jesus responds, “Get thee behind me Satan.”  Incredibly harsh, but understood in the light of the desert temptation, it is nothing more than Peter subscribing to the demonic (and popular) view of the Messiah.  Proposing another temptation to our Lord, another stumbling block.  Secretly, or not, I think we all want Jesus to be a different Messiah if not for my sake (but yes, for my sake), then for that of my kids.  A powerful and conquering Christ is empty and illusory.  His way is the way of the Cross.

I love you Jesus, my love.  Grant that I may always love you, and then do with me as you will.

Fists of Fury!

I enter this Lent with a sense of dreadful foreboding.  Well, I always do.  I’m a wuss, and I like desserts.  But this year, there is a different atmosphere surrounding this dread.  I think it’s one of hope.  I can’t be sure, I’m not certain what hope tastes like.  But I have hope (I think) that this season will amount to more than just a 6 week interlude of torture in the midst of Ordinary Time.  Hope and dread.  So if not torture, then why dread?  And I think it’s because I have an awareness that I am about to enter into some serious kung-fu action with the devil.  And he is a wily little weasel, that devil guy.

The story of the Temptation of Christ has provided some of the hope.  Christ’s death and resurrection have forever defeated the devil.  I have participated in this victory through baptism.  But Christ still felt it necessary engage in 40 days of temptation, in which he also defeated the devil.  Lent is my time to participate in that victory too. 

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit was led by the Spirit for forty days in the wilderness…  And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit.

I, full of the Spirit (baptism and confirmation) am also being led by the Spirit into the wilderness for 4o days.  Far from home and its comforts.  Isolation.  Desolation.  But not without hope, for the promise for those who endure to the end is a return from the wilderness in the power of the Spirit.  May it come to pass.  May the Spouse of the Spirit, the Holy and Immaculate Mother of God, intercede for us to that effect!

But we must endure.  What?  Temptation.  Why?

Man shall not live by bread alone.  I must forsake all attachment to that which is wordly.  To what end?

That I may create more space for God.    You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.  Forsake the service, nay! slavery, to all else that I might serve and worship him only.  Joy, power, strength, peace.  The admonition regarding loving one and hating the other comes to mind.  I can’t love, serve and worship both. 

You shall not tempt the Lord you God.  I’m not sure where this fits in yet.  Obviously all presumption that God will provide for lack of prudence in this endeavor must be banished.  But that doesn’t feel like that’s it.  There must be more.  In the midst of my testing and temptation, I must not put him to the test or tempt him.  But how?  How is this something I desperately need to hear at this moment?  Where will I be tempted in this regard?  Hhmmm.

He departed from him until an opportune time.  And we all know what happened that next time.  Death was defeated by death!  So I’m not too worried about that.

Torture

It is amazing that this conversation is still going on.  But such is the age we live in.  And having been recently made aware of EWTN’s whoring for torture, I reproduce this post from Disputations, without comment or addition:

For years, people have been interpreting that one statement in CCC 2297 —

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

— as implying that torture for reasons other than those listed — in particular, for interrogation of someone assumed to have information that can save lives — might not be contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

As it stands, it’s a mighty sketchy interpretation. It asserts that there’s nothing objectively or circumstantially contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity to torture a prisoner. All you need is a good enough reason. (And what do you know? The reason people today might want to torture prisoners just happens to be a good reason! These interpreters will, though, stipulate that other reasons — to save face after you were double-dog dared to torture the prisoner, say, or to get someone who loves the victim to talk — are immoral.)

I haven’t seen anyone even try to explain why it’s contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity to torture a murderer, but not contrary to those things to torture a would-be murderer. The problem here is that torture isn’t evil because it’s icky, in which case it wouldn’t be evil when not torturing would be ickier. Torture is evil, according to the Catechism, because it’s contrary to respect for the person of the victim, and the respect due the person of the victim doesn’t change based on what you want to get out of torturing him.^*

So, as I say, we have an interpretation that really doesn’t hold up on its own terms. The fact that the very next paragraph of the Catechism contradicts this interpretation should settle the matter:

In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order… In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person… It is necessary to work for their abolition.

But someone who is capable of interpreting CCC 2297 as allowing torture for good reason is capable of interpreting CCC 2298 the same way. (Or of interpreting it away altogether; it’s printed in a smaller font, you know.)

Okay, but maybe the Catechism really is ambiguous on this point. What else do we have?

We have the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, according to Pope Benedict XVI, “is a faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Per the CCCC:

477. What practices are contrary to respect for the bodily integrity of the human person?

They are: kidnapping and hostage taking, terrorism, torture, violence, and direct sterilization. Amputations and mutilations of a person are morally permissible only for strictly therapeutic medical reasons.

Okay, but maybe when it says “torture,” it means “and sometimes torture.”

We have Pope John Paul II, speaking to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1982:

And as regards torture, the Christian is confronted from the beginning with the account of the passion of Christ. The memory of Jesus exposed, struck, treated with derision in his anguished sufferings, should always make him refuse to see a similar treatment applied to one of his brothers in humanity. Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim.

Okay, but maybe that was just the Pope expressing his personal opinion that torture is categorically wrong, with some dodgy translation from the French.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church — “which, according to the request received from the Holy Father, has been drawn up in order to give a concise but complete overview of the Church’s social teaching” — quotes Pope John Paul II’s 1982 speech:

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim.” International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

Okay, but maybe they’re only talking about investigations of crimes that have already happened, not of crimes that are ongoing or yet to occur.

“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” states:

Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

Okay, but maybe this is just some USCCB cubicle dweller’s idea.

“Torture is a Moral Issue: A Catholic Study Guide” states that:

“In the Church’s eyes [t]orture violates a human person’s God-given dignity.”

Okay, but maybe this is just some USCCB cubicle dweller’s idea.

Statements by American bishops on behalf of the USCCB include the following categorical rejections of torture:

We believe that a respect for the dignity of every person, ally or enemy, must serve as the foundation of the pursuit of security, justice and peace. There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason… We share the concerns of lawmakers and citizens for the safety of U.S. soldiers and civilians abroad in these times of great uncertainty and danger. In the face of this perilous climate, our nation must not embrace a morality based on an attitude that “desperate times call for desperate measures” or “the end justifies the means.” The inherent justice of our cause and the perceived necessities involved in confronting terrorism must not lead to a weakening or disregard of U.S. and international law. — Bishop Ricard, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, October 4, 2005

A respect for the dignity of every person, ally or enemy, must serve as the foundation of security, justice and peace. There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason… In a time of terrorism and fear, our individual and collective obligations to respect dignity and human rights, even of our worst enemies, gains added importance. — Bishop Wenski, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, December 17, 2007

We are opposed to any proposed or adopted legislation or other actions that would appear to once again decriminalize torture and abusive conduct. We believe any legislation adopted by the Congress must be unambiguous in rejecting torture and cruel treatment as dangerous, unreliable and illegal. — Bishop Wenski, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, January 30, 2008

Torture undermines and debases the human dignity of both victims and perpetrators. It is never a necessary cruelty. — Cardinal George, President, USCCB, March 5, 2008

Okay, but maybe … um….

And last, we have the United States Catechism for Adults, which is the “local catechism” written by the bishops of the United States using the CCC as “a sure and authentic reference text,” and which received the recongitio of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The U.S. Catechism for Adults includes this statement:

Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong.

So: No.

Torture is always wrong.

The Catholic Church teaches that torture is always wrong.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that torture is always wrong.

Interpretations to the contrary are wrong.

---

* It’s always a “him,” right? Torture is a very manly thing, for advocates, with manly men torturing wormy men, so that girly men may sleep safely at night.

The saying is sure – Conscience

Notes from the Timothies:

The saying is sure:

The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners.

The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.

Train yourself in godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance.

The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself.

Conscience:

the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith

wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience.  By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith

hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared

I thank God whom I serve with a clear conscience, as did my fathers, when I remember you constantly in my prayers.

St Paul

St Paul. I love the man. He sacrificed everything for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And in end, he shared in the fate of his Master. Betrayed, rejected, alone and ultimately sacrificed. As he approached what he perceived to be the end, he wrote what I always think is one of the saddest accounts of the Bible:

For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. Do your best to come to me soon. For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me. Tych’icus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Tro’as, also the books, and above all the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. At my first defense no one took my part; all deserted me. May it not be charged against them! But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Truly a glorious man! Pray, good man, that I may remain faithful to your Gospel!

Dig Dug

He is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built.  Luke 6:48

This verse seems to be the perfect antidote to the previously expressed sentiment that, though I stand, I live in fear of the next set of circumstances that will undo me.  Indeed, I have long lived with the understanding that I am a man of weak and slothful will, and that I stand merely by an accident of circumstances.  Or, the right set of temptations has not manifested itself.  Hardly high praise.  But Jesus seems to acknowledge this a little bit here.  The storms will come.  The floods will arise.  And how we are able to withstand these calamities is largely dependent on our actions prior to the calamity.  Have we been preparing for the storm by laying as firm a foundation as possible?  Or to change the image, by rooting ourselves as deeply into the soil as possible?  Good Lord, I hope so. 

Who dug deep.  I like that image.  I brings to mind the image of sifting around amidst the wreckage of our post-Christian world, seeking something of value that can endure.  Digging, rooting around, searching beyond the ephemeral, and laying down one’s foundation as deeply as possible, in the solid Rock, that I may not be moved when the storm clouds burst.  And they will burst.  So, get busy, dig, dig while there is yet time.

The Old Man

The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Luke 6:45

That’s bad news because it is indicative that my problem is much more than few surface pecadillos.  In fact, the problem runs much deeper, down to my very heart.  It typically feels like the good I do is a farcical act covering over an abyss that is generally pretty dark.  There ain’t much light down there.  This led to thoughts of putting off the “old man”.  As is usual for me, I have this phrase in my head of an old man to be put off, but have no context to place it in.  What is St Paul speaking of?  Turns out there are several instances where he uses the phrase.

How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our former man was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.  Rom 6:2-12

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you once walked, when you lived in them. But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Col 3:5-10

Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. You did not so learn Christ! — assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. Put off the old man which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.  Eph 4:17-24

(Weird little side note.  The RSV which I copied this from on-line had “self” in place of man in the Romans passage, and “nature” in its place in the other two.  I changed it back to how it is in my pocket RSV-CE.  It would be interesting to discover the reasons for these variances.  I think the “man” translation brings out nicely the association between the “old man” and Adam.)

I immediately get drawn down the rabbit hole of looking at verb tenses.  Romans states that our former man was crucified with Christ in baptism.  The old man died with Christ, in baptism.  Therefore, we must consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God, and therefore, live that way.  However, though he is dead, we are still urged to put to death the deeds of the body (Rom 8:13).  The old man is dead, but his deeds remain to be killed.  Or something.  The Colossians verse is very similar.  It starts off urging us to put to death what is earthly in us, seeing that we have put off the old man.  The old man has been put off, presumably in baptism, therefore we should put to death what is earthly.  Colossians goes further, though, and states that the new man has been put on also, but similarly, though he has been put on, he is still in the process of being renewed.  The old man is dead and the new man is here, in baptism, but the old man’s deeds are still being killed and the new man is still being renewed.  So Romans and Colossians make the putting off and on an event that happened in baptism, whose effects are still being worked out in time.

Ephesians is slightly different in that we are now urged to put off the old man and put on the new.  All I can think of is that this is more of St Paul’s famous looseness with terminology.  So that, while the putting off and on occurred as an event in baptism, so the ongoing outworking of that event is also referred to as putting off the old man and and putting on the new.

So in response to the sad realization that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks…  Well, in baptism, the old man has been crucified, and he belongs to my former manner of life.  He is dead.  It is an accomplished fact.  So that is cause for rejoicing.  And yet the process of working the old man out (put to death…; i.e., mortify) and letting in the new still carries on.  But this is the process of a heart being transformed from evil to good.  And though it is a long process, and has born oh so precious few fruits to date, that is also a hopeful thing, for it is the working out of what has already been accomplished.  Christian, become what you are, to put JP2’s words in a slightly different context.

Furthermore, to engage in this putting to death is a form of worship:

I appeal to you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.  Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.  Rom 12:1-2

Colossians speaks of being renewed in knowledge.  Ephesians speaks of being renewed in the spirit of your minds.  Romans now speaks of the renewal of your mind.  To fail to put to death the old man is to be conformed to this world.  To engage in the act of putting to death the old man is to offer oneself in sacrifice to God, an act of worship and transformation.  The second halfs of these three books seem to be pretty well focused on what this transformation looks like.  Maybe I should be hanging out there for a while.

Rosary – Luminous Mystery #2: Wedding at Cana

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.  When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”  And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”  His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”  Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.  Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.  He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it.  When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”  This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him. John 2:1-11

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until her vindication goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch.  The nations shall see your vindication, and all the kings your glory; and you shall be called by a new name which the mouth of the LORD will give.  You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.  You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called My delight is in her, and your land Married; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married.  For as a young man marries a virgin,  so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.  Is 62:1-5

Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?  The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.  Luke 5:34-35

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”  Rev 21:2-4

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.  “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.   Eph 5:25-32

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.  Gen 3:15

On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign – at his mother’s request – during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus’ presence at the wedding at Cana.  She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence.  CCC 1613

The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification.  It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.  CCC 1335

**************

On one level the wedding feast is just that.  A wedding feast, to which Jesus is present, at which he performs a miracle.  We see Jesus making 120-180 gallons of excellent wine.  Let us put aide all silliness as regards the goodness of wine specifically, and alcohol generally.  We see Mary interceding for those in need, and her Son acceding to her requests.  We see Jesus manifesting his glory, and hastening his “hour” (cf. John 12:23).  All true.  All good.  The Church also sees Jesus presence at the wedding a “confirmation” of the proclamation that marriage will be a sacrament.  He will be efficiaciously present in every sacramental marriage.

But there is much more, and it relates to the notion that Christ has come to wed his bride (cf. CCC 1335).  He is the bridegroom (Luke 5:34).  The Church is the bride (Eph 5:25ff).  He tells his mother that his hour has not yet come.  What hour is this?  The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified (John 12:23).  When is this hour?  There is a further clue.  He calls his mother “woman”, which is a reference to Genesis 3:15.  It is not yet the hour for the Son to crush the serpent’s head.  The crucifixion is both the bruising of the Son’s heal and the crushing of the serpent’s head.  “Woman” also evokes Gen 2:23, where it states, she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Flash foward to John’s account of the crucifixion, where we are told that one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.  The New Eve, the Church, is “taken out of Man”, born from the new Man’s, the new Adam’s side through water (baptism) and blood (Eucharist).  The Church is his spotless bride, adorned for her husband, holy and without blemish.  The wedding of Cana is a sign of a greater wedding, the wedding of the Bridegroom and the Bride, whom he created from his side and wed on the cross.  He washes us with water, feeds us with his blood, made from wine.

Lost in Translation

I have said elsewhere that the biblical translations from the liturgy of the hours are sometimes…hollow.  Today is a case in point.  It says:

Never let evil talk pass your lips; say only the good things men need to hear, things that will really help them.  Do nothing that will sadden the Holy Spirit with whom you were sealed against the day of redemption.

The RSV states:

Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.  And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

My initial reaction, prior to reading the RSV, was to the part about making the Holy Spirit sad.  Oh, poor, poor Holy Spirit, turn that frown upside down, lil’ buddy.  Also the part about saying the “things that will really help them.”  But what about the things that will really, really, really help them?  Are we not to mention those?  But now upon closer inspection, I see that they completely axed the part about the impartation of grace.  And the part about the edification being timely.  And the non-RSV translation is, besides laughably inaccurate, just plain limp.  Lame.  Vacuous.  Weak.  It has no spine, like a wet noodle.  Ironically, it cannot impart grace, as it is graceless. 

Is this what they mean by “dynamic equivalence”?  Is this the mealy-mouthed noodleosity that Bishop Trautman and his cronies were fighting for in the Mass translation?  Are these words like “edifying” and “grace” and “mouths” (???) examples of the big words the Most Educated Generation of Lay Catholics Ever cannot be expected to understand?  Fie!!!  I call your “edifying” and raise you a “gibbet”, lil’ buddy.  Thank God the ’70s are over for most of us.

Woe Unto the Rich

Blessed are you poor for yours is the kingdom of God.  But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.

I picked the wrong religion.  Or at least the wrong denomination.  Or whatever.  The Catholic Church does not have enough filters and valves on the Palat-O-Meter® to make these verses disappear.  He says, elsewhere, that it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  But, but, we say, with God all things are possible.  And sometimes we allow ourselves to let the fact of God’s omnipotence strike these warnings to the rich to the heart.  Gut them of their Fear Factor.  But even granting the fact that, obviously God can do anything he pleases, these terrifying statements ought nevertheless to make us pause.  Our relationship to money speaks volumes about our relationship to God.  For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  And God help us if we hate him.

But, but, we say, I’m really not rich.  I mean, those guys over there, they’re rich!  Look at that car.  And house.  And their kids go to Regina Luminis Academy.  It may be true that we are decidely middle class when it comes to our particular sector of the universe.  We live on the Main Line, for crying out loud.  And that’s pretty much all we have money for.  But in the context of the world, I think it is safe to say that we are among the rich.  And the rich man will fade away in the midst of his pursuits, like the flower of the grass he will pass away. 

This is all pretty one-sides, and I am sure that opposing texts can be culled from Scripture, but they are much harder to think of, aren’t they?  That Paul had some wealthy patronesses comes to mind.  I think I’m not making that up.  But either way, the previously quoted texts are there to make us uncomfortable.  That is the very least of their function.  So I will try to not dilute them down to mere gruel.  I have indeed become quite attached to my goods.  One might say, indeed, that I love them.  Does that mean I hate God?  But, he says, one thing you still lack…sell all…distribute to the poor…  And he became sad, for he was very rich.

On a positive note,  I became aware that, when I (and by extension the boys) say “woe” when something unexpected happens, like when I drop something, I think that the root of that must be “woe unto me, for I hath droppeth this thingeth”.  It’s funny how “woe” is one of E’s first and one of S’s most used words.

Also, I will say that most of my history with the first woe verse is having fun with people who don’t know it exists.  “Well, Jesus said, Blessed are the poor and woe to the rich.”  Puzzlement gives way to an angry, “No, he said blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT!!!”  “Well, yes, he did say that also, but he also said, Blessed are the poor.”  You can watch them internally doing the math, but it doesn’t compute.  Anyway, if THIS is my experience with this verse, you can tell that I haven’t interiorized all that much of it yet.

Rosary – Joyful Mystery #5: The Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple

My first choice for this exercise, because my mind draws a blank on it every time.  What am I supposed to be thinking again?  If anyone has any good verses or quotes, let me know.

SCRIPTURE:
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.  Luke 2:41-52 

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise),  “that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.  Ephesians 6:1-4 

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you.  Exodus 20:12 

OTHER:
During the greater part of his life Jesus shared the condition of the vast majority of human beings: a daily life spent without evident greatness, a life of manual labor. His religious life was that of a Jew obedient to the law of God, a life in the community. From this whole period it is revealed to us that Jesus was “obedient” to his parents and that he “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.”  Jesus’ obedience to his mother and legal father fulfills the fourth commandment perfectly and was the temporal image of his filial obedience to his Father in heaven.  The everyday obedience of Jesus to Joseph and Mary both announced and anticipated the obedience of Holy Thursday:  “Not my will. . .” The obedience of Christ in the daily routine of his hidden life was already inaugurating his work of restoring what the disobedience of Adam had destroyed.  The hidden life at Nazareth allows everyone to enter into fellowship with Jesus by the most ordinary events of daily life: The home of Nazareth is the school where we begin to understand the life of Jesus – the school of the Gospel.  First, then, a lesson of silence.  May esteem for silence, that admirable and indispensable condition of mind, revive in us. . . A lesson on family life.  May Nazareth teach us what family life is, its communion of love, its austere and simple beauty, and its sacred and inviolable character. . . A lesson of work.  Nazareth, home of the “Carpenter’s Son”, in you I would choose to understand and proclaim the severe and redeeming law of human work. . . To conclude, I want to greet all the workers of the world, holding up to them their great pattern their brother who is God.  The finding of Jesus in the temple is the only event that breaks the silence of the Gospels about the hidden years of Jesus.  Here Jesus lets us catch a glimpse of the mystery of his total consecration to a mission that flows from his divine sonship: “Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s work?” Mary and Joseph did not understand these words, but they accepted them in faith.  Mary “kept all these things in her heart” during the years Jesus remained hidden in the silence of an ordinary life.  CCC 531-534 

Like the prophets before him Jesus expressed the deepest respect for the Temple in Jerusalem. It was in the Temple that Joseph and Mary presented him forty days after his birth. At the age of twelve he decided to remain in the Temple to remind his parents that he must be about his Father’s business. He went there each year during his hidden life at least for Passover. His public ministry itself was patterned by his pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the great Jewish feasts. Jesus went up to the Temple as the privileged place of encounter with God. For him, the Temple was the dwelling of his Father, a house of prayer.  CCC 583-584 

Christ is the true temple of God, “the place where his glory dwells”; by the grace of God, Christians also become the temples of the Holy Spirit, living stones out of which the Church is built.  CCC 1197 

The Son of God who became Son of the Virgin also learned to pray according to his human heart. He learns the formulas of prayer from his mother, who kept in her heart and meditated upon all the “great things” done by the Almighty. He learns to pray in the words and rhythms of the prayer of his people, in the synagogue at Nazareth and the Temple at Jerusalem. But his prayer springs from an otherwise secret source, as he intimates at the age of twelve: “I must be in my Father’s house.” Here the newness of prayer in the fullness of time begins to be revealed: his filial prayer, which the Father awaits from his children, is finally going to be lived out by the only Son in his humanity, with and for men.  CCC 2599 

Let us begin with that episode of Our Lord’s twelfth year, told in St. Luke’s second chapter, when His parents, returning from Jerusalem, find that He is not with them, search for Him for three days, and find him at last in the Temple asking the doctors questions and proposing solutions at which the doctors marvel.  Our Lady said to Him, “My Son, why hast thou treated us so?  Think what anguish of mind thy father and I have endured, searching for thee.”  He answered, “What reason had you to search for me?  Could you not tell that I must needs be in the place which belongs to my Father?”  The answer, coming from a boy of twelve to a mother who has had three days of anguish through his action, is startling.  Here is remoteness to the point of bleakness.  No word of regret or sympathy.  We need not be surprised that we are puzzled, for so were Mary and Joseph.  These words which He spoke to them were beyond their understanding.  In any event, the strange episode came to its close.  He went back with them to Nazareth.  But “His mother kept in her heart the memory of all this.”  Remember how Simeon had said that a sword should pierce her heart; these words of her Son, kept in her heart and pondered, may have been part of the turning of the sword.

Examine them closely.  Her question to Christ is “My Son, hast thou treated us so?”  What exactly had He done to them?  Gone away from them.  It seems possible that this cry of Our Lady is an echo long in advance of a more famous cry yet to be uttered: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”  What she cries to her Son in her anguish is so very close to what He cries to His Father in His anguish.  So theologians have seen it, and seen it not as mere chance, but as part of the very design of our redemption.

In the natural order, one imagines that Christ must have been like His mother – this was one infant, at least, about Whom no queston could arise as to which parent He resembled; and she found it, probably, as much of a delight as most mothers find it, that her Son was like her.  But that remains in the natural order.  In the supernatural order her supreme glory is that she was like her Son.  That she was like Him is for any Catholic a commonplace, yet we may miss certain important elements in the likeness.  He was sinless and the Man of Sorrows.  She was sinless and we think of her most naturally as the Mother of Sorrows.  From the moment of her Son’s birth, almost all that we know of her is shot through wth grief – the flight into Egypt to save her Child from murder, the knowledge of the other mother’s children massacred by Herod, the three days’ loss of Christ when He was twelve, His death while she stood by the cross.  He suffered; she suffered; but the analysis we have just made of that strange episode in the Temple points to a relation between her suffering and His that we might otherwise have failed to see.  Her suffering was related to His, but it was not merely her reaction to His, it was hers.  She suffered not simply with Him, as any mother must suffer in the suffering of her son, but in her own right.  Before He experienced His desolation, she experienced her desolation.  He had His Passion, but she had her passion too.  And while His accomplished everything, hers was not for nothing.  It was part of the design of the Redemption that while the Divine Person suffered the Passion that redeemeed us, a human person should suffer a passion parallel with His.

There is almost impenetrable darkness here, but St. Paul helps us to penetrate it a little: “I am glad of my sufferings on your behalf, as, in this mortal frame of mine, I help to pay off the debt which the afflictions of Christ still leave to be paid, for the sake of His body, the Church.” The Douay Version has: “I fill up those things that are wanting of the suffering of Christ, in my flesh, for His body which is the Church” (Col 1:24).  In either translation the words are startling and at first almost stunning.  Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity

Rosary Stuff

Given that I have started praying that rosary again, to completely no profit (as usual), I have decided that, in order to hopefully give me a few new things to meditate upon, I will devote one post to each of the mysteries, in order to gather as many scriptural and other references as possible into one place.  I will post no thoughts of mine, seen as I don’t have any.  Just quotes.  I will tackle them in no particular order, and with no timeframe.  If I ever make it to the end, I will gather all links into the sidebar.

End transmission.

Karma

Part of my reading this morning:

The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

Apparently some guy named Brit Hume has had the temerity to publically state that his advice to Tiger Woods would be to convert to Christianity.  “He’s said to be a Buddhist,” Hume noted. “I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.”  Entirely predictably, the demonic hordes, acting as they are wont to do, have driven members of the Chattering Classes absolutely insane with irrational rage over this comment.  In exposing the ridiculous nature of the outrage, Ross Douhat says, in part:

But what Hume said wasn’t bigoted: Indeed, his claim about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity was perfectly defensible. Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sins. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s Someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors never do.

A perfectly sensible thing to say, given that Buddhism is, at most, agnostic about the existence of a Supreme Being. 

However, some person named Kate Madison, in response, states:

Have you not heard of the Buddhist concept of Karma? That means what goes around comes around (simplified Americanese), so you’d better try to get it right somehow this time–or else you will pay big time in your next life!

In what possible universe can this be construed as some sort of response to Douhat’s statement?  Oh right, our ignorant universe.  The “Buddhist concept of Karma” is precisely the antithesis of Christian redemption.  It is, essentially, the notion that you reap what you sow.  And the crux of the matter, in this case, is that Tiger Woods has sown himself a world of karmic hurt.  Precisely why, it could be argued, it might make sense for Tiger to avail himself of the Son of Man’s authority to forgive sins.  Meaning, done, finito, he’s at peace with the universe in the ultimate sense, though temporally, there may be some issues to continue to work through.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

2010 Hopeful Ravings

Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

I am always surprised when a verse mysteriously appears in my head.  It’s nice to know that there is stuff up there for the Holy Spirit to draw upon as he chooses.  I could never recite any verse on command (save perhaps John 3:16), but occasionally, something will break through, demonstrating that something was there to begin with, however remote and untappable.  This particular verse arrived upon rumination about the hope of 2010.  I love New Years, because they provide such a good opportunity to turn the page.  And turning the page on 2009 was something that was a long time coming.  I hope everything about this year vanishes from my memory forever, save the good ones preserved in pictures.

2009 was stressful, and from a spiritual perspective, ugly.  Much of what was thought to have been built on rock turns out to have been built on sand.  I should have known, but I didn’t.  Oh well.  It’s an interesting feeling in some ways, as it leaves me a bit muddled as to what to do and which foot to put forward.  And yet here is 2010, bright, shiny, new and ready for a test drive.  So far, so good.  Resolutions are standing against the tide of sloth and habit.  It may well be that I am not in a state of grace, but at least it’s not for the same old reasons.  All is made new.  Even my list of sins.  Joyous splendor!  Jesus is good.

Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

That could be my life’s caption.  And indeed, though I stand now, I know from a litany of experience that it could literally be that I fall within the next 5 minutes.  Where does the wind blow?  Indeed, I pray she not blow in that direction, because it could be my undoing.  Woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips.  And good many other unclean things.  Shortly after the take heed verse comes this:

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.

Small comfort, that.  It’s good to know that I am not particularly special in this regard, but it’s no real help to think that others are similarly plagued.  However, be encouraged, poor soul, for…

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Good news!  Gospel!  There is a way out.  It might hurt, but I will be able to endure.  Will I want to endure it?  Will I endure it?  Things are going well?  Take heed, your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion.  Be sober.  He is coming!  Better be ready.  And there is the link I was looking for.  I didn’t see it until now.  For prior to the take heed verse, we are warned to not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did.  My Scripture reading this morning was about our Lord’s being put to the test in the desert, for forty days, where one of Our Lord’s rebukes to the devil is, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.  Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and returned from the wilderness in the power of the Spirit, the devil having been defeated. 

Christmas is almost over.  Lent looms on the not-too-distant horizon.  The trick is to endure until Lent.  Stay sober, be alert, take heed, remain grounded in the resolutions, the rituals, the prayers.  Do not stray off the path.  For the Holy Spirit will soon be driving us into the wilderness, that through an intense period of prayer and fasting, the devil may be overcome and the power of the Spirit, received in baptism, be loosed within us.  In fact, the take heed verse itself provides a clue on how to endure the current times.  Not that prayer and fasting is limited to Lent, of course.  Why not start now too, the fasting part, I mean?  But also, the take heed verse is located within St. Paul’s great Eucharistic passage, where he speaks of supernatural food and supernatural drink, the cup of blessng and the bread which we break.

Stay close to Christ in the Great Sacrament of the Altar, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we may be saved.

Eve and Mary

Todays’ Office of Readings is one of my favorite from St. Irenaeus’ Treatise Against Heresies, although today’s reading stops a little short of my favorite line, about how Mary became the cause of our salvation.  That single line has opened up not a few closed doors in my heart.  Anyway, today’s reading, entitled Eve and Mary, contains the following remarks.

Christ gathered all things into one, by gathering them into himself. He declared war against our enemy, crushed him who at the beginning had taken us captive in Adam, and trampled on his head, in accordance with God’s words to the serpent in Genesis: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall lie in wait for your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.  The one lying in wait for the serpent’s head is the one who was born in the likeness of Adam from the woman, the Virgin.  This is the seed spoken of by Paul in the letter to the Galatians: The law of works was in force until the seed should come to whom the- promise was made.  He shows this even more clearly in the same letter when he says: When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman. The enemy would not have been defeated fairly if his vanquisher had not been born of a woman, because it was through a woman that he had gained mastery over man in the beginning, and set himself up as man’s adversary.

It is a frequent point of contention that if Mary had been all that, meaning who the Church says she is, surely the Apostle Paul would have said more about her.  As it is, he only mentions her once, in passing, without even using her name.  Heck, he even uses the term “woman”, which we all know Jesus used to rebuke her at the Wedding of Cana.  St. Irenaeus here shows the fallacy of this argument, and it is something I had not caught before.  It is a little harder to notice this in the RSV which, annoyingly, translates the word semen (in the NT and Septuagint) 3 different ways: seed, descendants, offsprings.  C’mon guys.  But anyway, it cannot be denied that Paul says precious little about our Blessed Lady, what he does say is significant.

 

His epistle to the Galatians is the book where he especially addresses our freedom from the Mosaic Law, in the context of a letter written to Christians who were beginning to doubt this freedom, specifically in the form of mandatory circumcision for entrance into the Covenant People.  And he lays out a case for faith in Christ being the determinative act for entrance into this people, open to both Jews and Gentiles.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree” –that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.  Gal 3:13-14

The blessing of Abraham of which he speaks is this:

I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants [i.e., seed] as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore.  And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants [i.e., seed] shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”  Gen 22:17-18

He goes on:

To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man’s will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.  Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring [i.e., seed]. I t does not say, “And to offsprings [i.e., seeds],” referring to many; but, referring to one, “And to your offspring [i.e., seed],” which is Christ.  This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.  For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.  Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring [i.e., seed] should come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.  Gal 3:15-19

His argument is, inheritance of God’s promise of blessing is not through the Mosaic Law because it was promised to Abraham and his seed prior to the Law.  The Law was a guardian to show us our need for salvation until the time when the Seed would come to deliver us.  If we belong to the Seed, then we are Abraham’s seeds, heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29).

 

After all this talk of semen, Paul then goes on to speak of the act of our redemption through the Son, born under the law (to redeem us from the Law), born of woman:

[W]hen the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.  Gal 4:4-5

I had always assumed that his emphasis that the Son was born of woman was just a reinforcement of the fact that he came in the flesh, as a man, to redeem man.  And that is, no doubt, part of his purpose.  But in light of all the talk of seed to this point, I think he is also pointing out another Old Covenant reference to the Seed:

I will put enmity between you (the Serpent) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.  Gen 3:15

To Paul, Jesus is the Seed.  To Paul, the woman of Genesis 3:15 is the woman from whom Jesus was born, Mary.  This makes more sense than my previous assumption that the woman of Genesis 3:15 was Eve.  After all, the relationship between Eve and the Serpent could not particularly be characterized as enmity, given that she had so recently assented to his temptations.  But according to the teaching of the Church, Mary can be described as at enmity with Satan, for indeed, she is the Immaculate Conception, free from all satanic influence, at war with all that is evil.  This is not “proved” from the text, but sheds light on the text, makes more sense of it.

 

To St. Paul, Mary was the foretold Woman from whom should come the Deliverer.  According to Genesis, Mary was (is) at enmity with Satan.  From this identification of the Woman with Mary, several (very early) Church Fathers draw the conclusion that Mary is the New Eve, as Jesus is the New Adam.  In fact, just a little further on from this quoted text, St. Irenaeus makes the claim that it was necessary that the Fall, occasioned by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, be remedied by the obedience of the New Adam and the New Eve.  And the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by the obedience of the New Eve, and that, through her obedience, she became the cause of salvation for the world.

Debt

So our parish school is estimated to be about $600,000 in debt.  This per our pastor’s homily/plea for the Feast of Christ the King.  Let that number slowly roll off your tongue.  How does this happen?  Valid question, and I am sure there are probably a lot of things that could be said.  Previous pastors did not manage the money very well?  Sure.  A new parish on our outskirts has plucked a healthy dose of our enrollment?  Sure.  Increasing wages?  Sure.  Relatively low costs for parishioners?  Sure.  And I am sure there are a plethora of other reasons too.  But the ones I have just stated can all be summed up in one word: budget.

Budgets.  Most households have them.  All businesses do, at least all those that don’t end up bankrupt.  It is a relatively simple concept.  You estimate the money you think will come in, based on previous figures and other analyses.  You estimate how much you think it will cost for various services and goods, based on previous figures and other analyses.  The two figures have to match.  If you are conservative, you will build a certain fudge factor into the costs to ensure that there will certainly be enough money to go around for the necessities.  Anything left at the end can be spend on luxuries, or saved, or donated or whatever.  Not that complicated.

Both in the written plea from our pastor as well as the oral one, in trying to assure us that there was a plan in place to ensure this never happened again (therefore, please give us money), he mentioned a budgetary practice that I thought was strange, if not downright insane.  Apparently, he said, the budgets have previously been done in hindsight.  Which I take to mean, we were a pretty well-off parish and we had a sizeable slush fund.  If expenditures were greater than income, they would simply take money from the slush fund to make it all work again.  But it is immediately obvious to the most naive Econ 101 student that this is an unsustainable practice.  If your budget is way off one year, and you dip into the slush fund, it is a clear signal that your budget needs to be tweeked.  To need to do this on a recurring basis, to the tune of 600K, is gross negligence.

So now what? 

1) The parish needs to rise to the occasion to bail out our school.   Our parish just rose to the occasion last year by pledging some $1.5 million to the Heritage of Faith Vision of Hope campaign.  Where is that money?  Can it be used? 

2) Our parish plans to market its school to a wider audience.  Does this mean non-Catholics?  ‘Cause that never ends well.  You end up with a parish largely subsidizing a largely non-Catholic school.  Slowly, the education is watered down to accomodate the new audience.  And lots of people are pissed off.

3) The education is already watered down.  There are obviously a lot of factors involved here, but our kids are receiving a secular education + a religion class.  That is not Catholic education.

4) The fees will be increased, further making this watery gruel of a Catholic education a passtime for rich hobnobs.  Further reinforcing the watering down aspect.  It will become just another private school for the rich.

5) Having said all this, is there an argument to be made for letting the school die?  I understand that there are a lot of people who have received Catholic education and who feel strongly that it should be perpetuated.  But our current system is not what it used to be.  Are there other ways of doing it?  Combining schools?  Regional schools? 

6) Do I, as a parishioner, need to feel compelled to help in this emergency situation? I can’t afford the school now.  I certainly won’t be able to afford it then.  I don’t believe it does the job of forming young consciences.

Steve, our conversation now seems oddly prescient.