Friday of the Ninth Week in Ordinary Time
(Mark 12:35-37)
Once an advertising campaign promised to “bring a mountain to Chicagoland.” The pledge excited the city’s children who never saw a mountain other than in books. It turned out that the mountain was only a whole lot of coffee being introduced into the Chicago market.
In today’s gospel Jesus refutes a kind of advertising campaign about the Messiah who was to come. People of his time believed that the Messiah would be a mighty king literally in the line of David whose military exploits gave tiny Israel stature among the nations. Jesus notes, however, that one of the psalms refers to the Messiah as “my Lord.” Since David was considered the author of all the psalms, Jesus asks, how can David call his son “my lord”? Jesus means that the expectation of the Messiah as just a mighty king like David is inadequate. Somehow, Jesus implies, the Messiah’s accomplishments will overshadow David’s military feats.
Evidently, the people around Jesus have an inkling of what Jesus is driving at as the passage reports their delight. However, Christians living in the wake of Jesus’ resurrection have a more choice perspective for understanding his intention. Jesus died a horrific death as servant of all. His resurrection from the dead demonstrates that he has conquered evil. His sending of the Holy Spirit gives his followers a foretaste of his glory. For such deeds David and all creation should indeed call Jesus “`my lord.’”
Homilette for Thursday, June 5, 2008
Memorial of St. Boniface, bishop and martyr
(Mark 12:28-34)
In a classic philosophical debate Socrates holds that knowledge of what is right results in a desire to do it. Aristotle disagrees claiming that weakness of the will can interfere with doing what one knows to be good. Anyone who has ever been given the choice between chocolate fudge and an apple for dessert should agree with Aristotle. What would Jesus say?
In the gospel today Jesus makes a telling comment to the scribe who congratulates him on his choice of the greatest commandment. He says, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” One may interpret this statement as meaning that the scribe is not in the Kingdom because he does not profess faith in Jesus. Perhaps, but it is more likely that Jesus too recognizes the difference between knowing something as right and actually doing it. The scribe is not yet in the Kingdom because he only acknowledges the need to love God and neighbor. He still must humble himself to love.
Knowledge moves us along considerably on the road to the “good life.” It pinpoints what we should do, provides viable options, and assesses the risks of each alternative. But actually doing what is right – true morality – also requires will-power – the virtues of temperance, fortitude, and prudence. For example, young adults know they should practice abstinence from sexual intercourse to live rightly. But sitting with their partners on Saturday night, they need will-power to prevent being swamped by desire.
(Mark 12:28-34)
In a classic philosophical debate Socrates holds that knowledge of what is right results in a desire to do it. Aristotle disagrees claiming that weakness of the will can interfere with doing what one knows to be good. Anyone who has ever been given the choice between chocolate fudge and an apple for dessert should agree with Aristotle. What would Jesus say?
In the gospel today Jesus makes a telling comment to the scribe who congratulates him on his choice of the greatest commandment. He says, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” One may interpret this statement as meaning that the scribe is not in the Kingdom because he does not profess faith in Jesus. Perhaps, but it is more likely that Jesus too recognizes the difference between knowing something as right and actually doing it. The scribe is not yet in the Kingdom because he only acknowledges the need to love God and neighbor. He still must humble himself to love.
Knowledge moves us along considerably on the road to the “good life.” It pinpoints what we should do, provides viable options, and assesses the risks of each alternative. But actually doing what is right – true morality – also requires will-power – the virtues of temperance, fortitude, and prudence. For example, young adults know they should practice abstinence from sexual intercourse to live rightly. But sitting with their partners on Saturday night, they need will-power to prevent being swamped by desire.
Homilette for Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wednesday of the Ninth Week in Ordinary Time
(II Timothy 1:1-3; 6-12)
As we are about to begin the Jubilee Year of St. Paul, let us take a look at the first reading. The Second Letter to Timothy comprises one of the three so-called Pastoral Epistles. Biblicists have conferred this distinction because these letters deal with pastoral problems of the early Church. Because the problems appear to be related to times after the death of St. Paul, most biblicists believe them to be pseudonymous. That is, they were written by a person or persons other than Paul of Tarsus. The present letter, however, does not touch on pastoral problems to the same extent as I Timothy and Titus, the other two pastorals. For this reason it is regarded as written earlier than the other two and possibly containing historical data regarding Paul’s final days.
Pseudonymous or not, II Timothy has helped form the popular idea of Paul as a tireless apostle. Toward the end of the letter, it pictures Paul describing his struggle for authenticity: “I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith.” No doubt, these words have inspired many Christians to hold on to virtue until the end. Today’s passage should likewise inspire us to exert ourselves on behalf of Christ. Paul is said to prod Timothy to stir into flame the gift of God received through the imposition of hands. Although the gift here is probably related to Ordination, we can also think of it as dealing with Confirmation. We have been sealed by the Holy Spirit to arrest vice and to bring about justice. This requires ceaseless effort that often leaves us exhausted. So from time to time we must rekindle the flame of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
(II Timothy 1:1-3; 6-12)
As we are about to begin the Jubilee Year of St. Paul, let us take a look at the first reading. The Second Letter to Timothy comprises one of the three so-called Pastoral Epistles. Biblicists have conferred this distinction because these letters deal with pastoral problems of the early Church. Because the problems appear to be related to times after the death of St. Paul, most biblicists believe them to be pseudonymous. That is, they were written by a person or persons other than Paul of Tarsus. The present letter, however, does not touch on pastoral problems to the same extent as I Timothy and Titus, the other two pastorals. For this reason it is regarded as written earlier than the other two and possibly containing historical data regarding Paul’s final days.
Pseudonymous or not, II Timothy has helped form the popular idea of Paul as a tireless apostle. Toward the end of the letter, it pictures Paul describing his struggle for authenticity: “I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith.” No doubt, these words have inspired many Christians to hold on to virtue until the end. Today’s passage should likewise inspire us to exert ourselves on behalf of Christ. Paul is said to prod Timothy to stir into flame the gift of God received through the imposition of hands. Although the gift here is probably related to Ordination, we can also think of it as dealing with Confirmation. We have been sealed by the Holy Spirit to arrest vice and to bring about justice. This requires ceaseless effort that often leaves us exhausted. So from time to time we must rekindle the flame of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
Homilette for Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his companions, martyrs
(Mark 12:13-17)
Jesus may have had only taxes in mind when he told the Pharisees and Herodians to pay Caesar his due, but certainly obligations to government extend beyond that. We should take interest in public affairs, obey laws, take our turn serving on juries, and vote with conscience. In this election year citizens let us reflect a moment on this last responsibility.
To quip, “Don’t vote; it only encourages them,” is perhaps as old as teens are rebellious. We have a civil if not a sacred duty to participate in elections. There may be times when not casting a ballot demonstrates one’s unambiguous intentions. But such a voter strike is normally well-organized and called to confront serious political disorder like the current outrage in Zimbabwe.
We should vote for candidates we think will best serve the common good. This means that we look beyond those who promise us the most reward financially to those who will best contribute to a just society. Character – a life dominated by virtue – is an important indication of candidates’ potential as are their positions on issues and their past performance.
Candidates this year will debate many critical issues. Their ideas on how to improve the broken immigration system and the hemorrhaging health care system deserve attention. But two other issues take priority because of their profound negative consequences on society. We should give preponderant weight to how candidates will stop the destruction of prenatal life and will preserve the understanding of marriage as a sacred relationship between a woman and a man. These are emotionally-charged questions so we need leaders with sensitivity as well as effectiveness. But above all they have to do what is right and convince the public of the justice for their actions.
(Mark 12:13-17)
Jesus may have had only taxes in mind when he told the Pharisees and Herodians to pay Caesar his due, but certainly obligations to government extend beyond that. We should take interest in public affairs, obey laws, take our turn serving on juries, and vote with conscience. In this election year citizens let us reflect a moment on this last responsibility.
To quip, “Don’t vote; it only encourages them,” is perhaps as old as teens are rebellious. We have a civil if not a sacred duty to participate in elections. There may be times when not casting a ballot demonstrates one’s unambiguous intentions. But such a voter strike is normally well-organized and called to confront serious political disorder like the current outrage in Zimbabwe.
We should vote for candidates we think will best serve the common good. This means that we look beyond those who promise us the most reward financially to those who will best contribute to a just society. Character – a life dominated by virtue – is an important indication of candidates’ potential as are their positions on issues and their past performance.
Candidates this year will debate many critical issues. Their ideas on how to improve the broken immigration system and the hemorrhaging health care system deserve attention. But two other issues take priority because of their profound negative consequences on society. We should give preponderant weight to how candidates will stop the destruction of prenatal life and will preserve the understanding of marriage as a sacred relationship between a woman and a man. These are emotionally-charged questions so we need leaders with sensitivity as well as effectiveness. But above all they have to do what is right and convince the public of the justice for their actions.
Homilette for Monday, June 2, 2008
Monday of the Ninth Week of Ordinary Time
(Mark 12:1-12)
Philosophers debate the existence of God by telling the story of two men who come to a clearing in the jungle with many beautiful flowers. One of the men says that a gardener must have planted the flowers. The other disagrees saying that they are wild flowers. So they decide to experiment by waiting around to see if a gardener appears. After a couple of days without anyone coming to tend the garden, the man who proposed that a gardener planted the flowers says that the gardener must be invisible.
God, for those of us who believe, is the invisible gardener who created the world and all its contents. Atheists say “no,” there is no invisible gardener but only an imaginary one existing in the minds of believers. In the gospel Jesus tells us that there is indeed a gardener. The vineyard Jesus mentions is like a garden, and God is the one who planted it. Therefore, God has a right to demand that the vineyard’s caretakers produce fruit for Him. Of course, generally we understand Jesus’ vineyard as the earth and the fruit which God expects as justice and peace. But we might see the vineyard as the physical environment which we are to care for. We must not pollute it, wantonly kill its creatures, or wastefully deplete its resources. The Book of Genesis underlines this responsibility by saying, “God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it” (Genesis 2:15).
Obviously, one does not have to believe that God is the invisible gardener to care for the environment. But we who do so believe should become environmentalists. We might also question how people arguing that God is but an imaginary gardener would defend the universal need to care for the earth which is felt so strongly today.
(Mark 12:1-12)
Philosophers debate the existence of God by telling the story of two men who come to a clearing in the jungle with many beautiful flowers. One of the men says that a gardener must have planted the flowers. The other disagrees saying that they are wild flowers. So they decide to experiment by waiting around to see if a gardener appears. After a couple of days without anyone coming to tend the garden, the man who proposed that a gardener planted the flowers says that the gardener must be invisible.
God, for those of us who believe, is the invisible gardener who created the world and all its contents. Atheists say “no,” there is no invisible gardener but only an imaginary one existing in the minds of believers. In the gospel Jesus tells us that there is indeed a gardener. The vineyard Jesus mentions is like a garden, and God is the one who planted it. Therefore, God has a right to demand that the vineyard’s caretakers produce fruit for Him. Of course, generally we understand Jesus’ vineyard as the earth and the fruit which God expects as justice and peace. But we might see the vineyard as the physical environment which we are to care for. We must not pollute it, wantonly kill its creatures, or wastefully deplete its resources. The Book of Genesis underlines this responsibility by saying, “God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it” (Genesis 2:15).
Obviously, one does not have to believe that God is the invisible gardener to care for the environment. But we who do so believe should become environmentalists. We might also question how people arguing that God is but an imaginary gardener would defend the universal need to care for the earth which is felt so strongly today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)