Tuesday, Memorial of St. John Bosco, priest
(II Samuel 7:18-19; 24-29)
Michael Sandel is a leading Harvard ethicist. Recently he has published a book with the curious title The Case against Perfection. By “perfection” Mr. Sandel does not mean the human attempt to be virtuous. Rather, he has in mind the idolatrous quest by parents to manipulate their child’s genetic makeup so that he or she would have apparently perfect attributes. That is, Sandel argues against the ever increasing possibility that parents may have their child’s genes bioengineered so that he or she is born with “perfect” intelligence, beauty, emotions, and the like.
Sandel uses the idea of theologian William F. May to make his case. He says that parenting must retain an “openness to the unbidden.” This means that parents must not try to control everything about their offspring. They are wise to leave genetic makeup and, as the children grow older, some aspects of their development in the hands of God or nature. Of course, parents might have a genetic defect corrected and should promote their children’s education. But these efforts should not turn into an arrogant quest to produce the perfect human being.
David in the first reading today demonstrates an “openness to the unbidden.” First, he humbly recognizes that what he has and done are not his work alone but the gifts of God. Then, he expresses his gratitude to God for the bounteous gifts. Finally, he asks God to bless his offspring that they may live up to the promise of greatness that God has made to him. Of course, David’s request is fully realized in the coming of Jesus Christ.
Homilette for January 30, 2008
Wednesday of the Third Week in Ordinary Time
(Mark 4:1-20)
We should note the apparent carelessness of the sower in Jesus’ parable. He scatters the seed indiscriminately in the soil, on the roadside, among rocks, and among thorns. “Why is he so wasteful?” we might ask. A good farmer would take better aim, but Jesus wants to make a point. The sower is a symbol for God who deals out blessings on both the bad and good. Not only those who love Him have life, liberty, the warmth of the sun, and the taste of honey. Every human person to some degree experiences both these joys and more. What distinguishes the good from others is the response to God’s goodness.
After telling the parable, Jesus receives a group of people inquiring about its meaning. Note that the group is not composed solely of disciples. The inquirers are the seekers of the world who delve into the meaning of God’s beneficence. They include disciples, whom we can understand as members of the Church, and others as well. Effectively they are asking, “Why is God so good?” They accept life as a gift to be appreciated and in some way returned to the Giver. Those who do not come forward take the gift of life for granted. Jesus likens them to the seed eaten up by the birds before it has a chance to sprout.
But not all those who inquire about the gift will realize the fullness of its potential. They have to respond on a deeper level than inquiry by giving of themselves. For some self-sacrifice is asking too much – the seed that falls on rocky ground. Others become side-tracked in their response to God’s love. They mistake creation for the Creator, giving too much attention to the former and precious little to the latter. They are the seed that falls among thorns.
But some seed produces abundant fruit. These are the people who not only enjoy God’s creation but who respond generously to it by pleasing God with gracious deeds on behalf of others. They include both Christians and non-Christians although the former have the obvious advantage of hearing Jesus’ parable constantly.
(Mark 4:1-20)
We should note the apparent carelessness of the sower in Jesus’ parable. He scatters the seed indiscriminately in the soil, on the roadside, among rocks, and among thorns. “Why is he so wasteful?” we might ask. A good farmer would take better aim, but Jesus wants to make a point. The sower is a symbol for God who deals out blessings on both the bad and good. Not only those who love Him have life, liberty, the warmth of the sun, and the taste of honey. Every human person to some degree experiences both these joys and more. What distinguishes the good from others is the response to God’s goodness.
After telling the parable, Jesus receives a group of people inquiring about its meaning. Note that the group is not composed solely of disciples. The inquirers are the seekers of the world who delve into the meaning of God’s beneficence. They include disciples, whom we can understand as members of the Church, and others as well. Effectively they are asking, “Why is God so good?” They accept life as a gift to be appreciated and in some way returned to the Giver. Those who do not come forward take the gift of life for granted. Jesus likens them to the seed eaten up by the birds before it has a chance to sprout.
But not all those who inquire about the gift will realize the fullness of its potential. They have to respond on a deeper level than inquiry by giving of themselves. For some self-sacrifice is asking too much – the seed that falls on rocky ground. Others become side-tracked in their response to God’s love. They mistake creation for the Creator, giving too much attention to the former and precious little to the latter. They are the seed that falls among thorns.
But some seed produces abundant fruit. These are the people who not only enjoy God’s creation but who respond generously to it by pleasing God with gracious deeds on behalf of others. They include both Christians and non-Christians although the former have the obvious advantage of hearing Jesus’ parable constantly.
homilette for January 29, 2008
Tuesday of the Third Week in Ordinary Time
(Mark 3:31-35)
The gospel passage has troubled Catholics for centuries. First, it seems to indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters when we hold that Mary remained a virgin all her life. And then it apparently shows Jesus rejecting his own family when we know the importance of family and the need to honor one’s parents. “What’s going on?” we might ask.
The answers to these charges are not that difficult to understand although they may not be completely satisfying. The evangelist Mark, from whose gospel the passage is taken, was evidently not aware of the tradition that Jesus’ mother was a virgin. He does not mention the birth of Jesus, but begins his gospel with John preaching in the desert and Jesus coming to him for baptism. Anyway, his references to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” do not necessarily mean that they were full brothers and sisters. Perhaps they were half-brothers (the children of Joseph by another woman) or even cousins since the Hebrew word (and its Greek equivalent) for brother is sometimes used to mean cousin or nephew. The latter explanation is given by the biblical scholar St. Jerome who was not liberal in interpreting the Bible.
A few verses earlier the gospel actually says that Jesus’ relatives thought him to be “’out of his mind’” when they come looking for him. We can wonder what they would now think if they could hear Jesus’ reply to the news that they were seeking him. Perhaps they would have been even more convinced that he is mad. But we might also surmise that they finally perceive why he left them to preach about God.
No, Jesus is not out of his mind when he calls his mother, brothers and sisters (here certainly the terms are used figuratively) as those who “do(es) the will of God.” All who follow God’s ways belong to God’s family. Nevertheless, the gospel of Mark is gradually revealing how Jesus is uniquely God’s son. Toward the end of the gospel, a Roman centurion will declare this truth. After watching Jesus die an excruciating death without bitterness, he openly declares, “’Truly this man was the son of God!’” Therefore, we may conclude, we have to follow both Jesus’ his teaching and his example.
(Mark 3:31-35)
The gospel passage has troubled Catholics for centuries. First, it seems to indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters when we hold that Mary remained a virgin all her life. And then it apparently shows Jesus rejecting his own family when we know the importance of family and the need to honor one’s parents. “What’s going on?” we might ask.
The answers to these charges are not that difficult to understand although they may not be completely satisfying. The evangelist Mark, from whose gospel the passage is taken, was evidently not aware of the tradition that Jesus’ mother was a virgin. He does not mention the birth of Jesus, but begins his gospel with John preaching in the desert and Jesus coming to him for baptism. Anyway, his references to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” do not necessarily mean that they were full brothers and sisters. Perhaps they were half-brothers (the children of Joseph by another woman) or even cousins since the Hebrew word (and its Greek equivalent) for brother is sometimes used to mean cousin or nephew. The latter explanation is given by the biblical scholar St. Jerome who was not liberal in interpreting the Bible.
A few verses earlier the gospel actually says that Jesus’ relatives thought him to be “’out of his mind’” when they come looking for him. We can wonder what they would now think if they could hear Jesus’ reply to the news that they were seeking him. Perhaps they would have been even more convinced that he is mad. But we might also surmise that they finally perceive why he left them to preach about God.
No, Jesus is not out of his mind when he calls his mother, brothers and sisters (here certainly the terms are used figuratively) as those who “do(es) the will of God.” All who follow God’s ways belong to God’s family. Nevertheless, the gospel of Mark is gradually revealing how Jesus is uniquely God’s son. Toward the end of the gospel, a Roman centurion will declare this truth. After watching Jesus die an excruciating death without bitterness, he openly declares, “’Truly this man was the son of God!’” Therefore, we may conclude, we have to follow both Jesus’ his teaching and his example.
Homilette for January 28, 2008
Monday, The Memorial of St. Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor of the Church
(Mark 3:22-20)
Art scholars attribute the genius of Raphael Sanzio to his ability to adapt the technical brilliance of two other celebrated artists of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. He took a pose style of Leonardo for his famous painting of St. Catherine of Alexandria. In Michelangelo’s works Raphael found the kneeling posture which he uses in a painting of Jesus’ deposition from the cross. But no one should consider Raphael a copy-cat. Rather, he forged a unique painting style on his own. Still he was not too proud to draw upon the insights of other masters.
Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas was anything but proud. He also adapts the wisdom of two supreme masters. As a philosophical resource he relies repeatedly on the learning of Aristotle, “the Philosopher.” And as a theological compass St. Thomas uses the writings of St. Augustine. However, contrary to popular opinion, St. Thomas even more pervasively defers to a third source. Everywhere he cites Scripture. How could he do otherwise? St. Thomas’ title at the University of Paris was Magister in Sacra Pagina, Master of the Sacred Page.
Thomas’ commentaries on various books of the Bible contain a good deal of his theology and spirituality. His masterwork, the Summa Theologiae, likewise provides insights into many, many Scriptural verses as it builds a synthesis of all Catholic doctrine. For example, the Summa elucidates the intriguing concept of “an everlasting (or unpardonable) sin” that we hear of in today’s gospel. After typically making necessary distinctions, St. Thomas declares that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered unpardonable because by its nature it removes the elements that lead to repentance – fear of punishment and hope of heaven. But, St. Thomas graciously adds, the sin does not leave its perpetrator completely helpless. God in his mercy and love might still open the way to repentance and forgiveness by extraordinary means.
(Mark 3:22-20)
Art scholars attribute the genius of Raphael Sanzio to his ability to adapt the technical brilliance of two other celebrated artists of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. He took a pose style of Leonardo for his famous painting of St. Catherine of Alexandria. In Michelangelo’s works Raphael found the kneeling posture which he uses in a painting of Jesus’ deposition from the cross. But no one should consider Raphael a copy-cat. Rather, he forged a unique painting style on his own. Still he was not too proud to draw upon the insights of other masters.
Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas was anything but proud. He also adapts the wisdom of two supreme masters. As a philosophical resource he relies repeatedly on the learning of Aristotle, “the Philosopher.” And as a theological compass St. Thomas uses the writings of St. Augustine. However, contrary to popular opinion, St. Thomas even more pervasively defers to a third source. Everywhere he cites Scripture. How could he do otherwise? St. Thomas’ title at the University of Paris was Magister in Sacra Pagina, Master of the Sacred Page.
Thomas’ commentaries on various books of the Bible contain a good deal of his theology and spirituality. His masterwork, the Summa Theologiae, likewise provides insights into many, many Scriptural verses as it builds a synthesis of all Catholic doctrine. For example, the Summa elucidates the intriguing concept of “an everlasting (or unpardonable) sin” that we hear of in today’s gospel. After typically making necessary distinctions, St. Thomas declares that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered unpardonable because by its nature it removes the elements that lead to repentance – fear of punishment and hope of heaven. But, St. Thomas graciously adds, the sin does not leave its perpetrator completely helpless. God in his mercy and love might still open the way to repentance and forgiveness by extraordinary means.
Homilette for January 25, 2008
Friday, Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, Apostle
(Mark 16:15-18)
Did Paul actually convert? The question sounds absurd on this feast of his conversion, but some students of the Bible have asked it seriously. They note that there is no radical change in Paul’s behavior. He goes from a zealous promotion of the Jewish Law to a zealous promotion of the Jesus Christ. In his letters Paul does not repudiate his Jewish roots but indicates that his avidness for the Jewish Law has brought him advantages. He also writes to the Philippians that whatever gains he has achieved for his efforts as a Jew, they are nothing in comparison with knowing Jesus Christ.
Paul does nothing half-heartedly. He gives himself over completely to his goal. For this reason he is capable of accomplishing so much. He not only fulfills the Jesus' mandate to proclaim the gospel to every creature, but also encourages the various communities he has evangelized with sound pastoral letters. He is the consummate activist whose life witnesses completely to Christ and rightly terminates in martyrdom. He will provide us all we need to follow him. And he will lead us to happiness.
Such a model may scare us. “Do I really want to give myself over so completely?” we may ask ourselves. We should keep in mind two considerations when we ask the question. First, Christ does not call most of us to put our heads on the chopping block. Still, we need to get serious about our worship of God and our care for one another. Second, it is Christ who calls each of us by name as sure as he calls, “Saul, Saul,” in the first reading today. He is no mere human being, but the Son of God, our beginning and our end.
(Mark 16:15-18)
Did Paul actually convert? The question sounds absurd on this feast of his conversion, but some students of the Bible have asked it seriously. They note that there is no radical change in Paul’s behavior. He goes from a zealous promotion of the Jewish Law to a zealous promotion of the Jesus Christ. In his letters Paul does not repudiate his Jewish roots but indicates that his avidness for the Jewish Law has brought him advantages. He also writes to the Philippians that whatever gains he has achieved for his efforts as a Jew, they are nothing in comparison with knowing Jesus Christ.
Paul does nothing half-heartedly. He gives himself over completely to his goal. For this reason he is capable of accomplishing so much. He not only fulfills the Jesus' mandate to proclaim the gospel to every creature, but also encourages the various communities he has evangelized with sound pastoral letters. He is the consummate activist whose life witnesses completely to Christ and rightly terminates in martyrdom. He will provide us all we need to follow him. And he will lead us to happiness.
Such a model may scare us. “Do I really want to give myself over so completely?” we may ask ourselves. We should keep in mind two considerations when we ask the question. First, Christ does not call most of us to put our heads on the chopping block. Still, we need to get serious about our worship of God and our care for one another. Second, it is Christ who calls each of us by name as sure as he calls, “Saul, Saul,” in the first reading today. He is no mere human being, but the Son of God, our beginning and our end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)