Monday of the Fourteenth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 28:10-22a; Matthew 9:18-26)
Jacob displays the character of most young people throughout time. He is obviously self-centered for he has just stolen the birthright of his older brother. He goes off seeking adventure although, to be sure, an angry Esau provides more than enough motive for him to leave home with all possible speed. He is also taken up by experience as he describes the site of his dream, in peculiarly contemporary fashion, as “awesome.” And he is reluctant to commit himself making a vow to God only with conditions. What more might be said of Jacob?
We have to say that he has much to learn about life. In growing up we come to understand that the world does not revolve around us. In fact, other people have needs that not only are different from ours but also, at times, we must attend to. Also we have to learn that God remains as the one whose commands we are to heed most. Pope Benedict XVI tells a story about himself that illustrates this lesson. Right after being ordained to the priesthood, he returned to his hometown in Bavaria for his first mass. The townspeople prepared elaborate festivities for their simple faith stood them in awe that one of their own could now turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The young Fr. Ratzinger had to remind himself continually as he was receiving royal treatment, “This is not about you, Joseph. This is not about you.”
Homilette for Friday, July 3, 2009
Feast of St. Thomas, Apostle
(Ephesians 2:19-22; John 20:24-29)
Like Thomas some of us might question the resurrection of Jesus. We might speculate that life would be simply neater if death were the end of our existence. We could then set forth our own goals in life – be they making a million dollars, helping the poor, or raising a family – without having to consider the knottier question of whether we are working for salvation by assenting to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
The gospel today, however, asserts unreservedly that Jesus rose from the dead. He appears not only to those inclined to believe but to a man who gives no credibility at all to the word of witnesses and insists on touching the wounds of the crucified before acknowledging him as alive. This skeptical empiricist, of course, then turns into the person who makes the boldest claim of faith in all the gospels. Thomas’ final words, “My Lord and my God,” are always taken to mean that Jesus is not only God’s son, whatever that means, but God himself!
Of course, we can deny the historicity of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas. We can say that this is just a pious story fabricated to get simple people to believe. But does not such a stance deny our experience? There is plenty of evidence to show that people of faith live fuller, happier lives facing hardship with less turmoil and recovering from setback more resiliently. Likewise, when we call upon the resurrected Jesus, “My Lord and my God,” we experience the assurance of his guiding hand.
(Ephesians 2:19-22; John 20:24-29)
Like Thomas some of us might question the resurrection of Jesus. We might speculate that life would be simply neater if death were the end of our existence. We could then set forth our own goals in life – be they making a million dollars, helping the poor, or raising a family – without having to consider the knottier question of whether we are working for salvation by assenting to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
The gospel today, however, asserts unreservedly that Jesus rose from the dead. He appears not only to those inclined to believe but to a man who gives no credibility at all to the word of witnesses and insists on touching the wounds of the crucified before acknowledging him as alive. This skeptical empiricist, of course, then turns into the person who makes the boldest claim of faith in all the gospels. Thomas’ final words, “My Lord and my God,” are always taken to mean that Jesus is not only God’s son, whatever that means, but God himself!
Of course, we can deny the historicity of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas. We can say that this is just a pious story fabricated to get simple people to believe. But does not such a stance deny our experience? There is plenty of evidence to show that people of faith live fuller, happier lives facing hardship with less turmoil and recovering from setback more resiliently. Likewise, when we call upon the resurrected Jesus, “My Lord and my God,” we experience the assurance of his guiding hand.
Homilette for Thursday, July 2, 2009
Thursday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 22:1b-19; Matthew 9:1-8)
In considering the story of Abraham being called to slay his beloved son Isaac, we cannot help but being horrified by the proposal. It seems preposterous for God to suggest that anyone take an innocent life because He has written on our hearts an injunction against it. Natural law tells us that murder is wrong and therefore murdering one’s own offspring is especially abominable. We accept the story as revelation but are forced to question, not unlike those who ponder how God might permit a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands of people or a dictatorial regime taking a hundred times that number, the benevolence of such a God.
Of course, the text says from the beginning that God is testing Abraham. Tests are by nature hypothetical. They do not mean everything they say. In true or false tests, for example, not every statement of the tester is true. Does this mean that she lies? Tests, we should acknowledge, are at least as much a stimulus to learning as they are a tool of evaluation. In fact, in the long run we are probably more likely to recall a wrong answer on a test than a correct one.
The crucial lesson in Abraham’s test is that he, and by extension we, must subordinate ourselves completely to God. We are not the most important person even, in our own small universe; He is. If Abraham is ever to father a truly great nation, he and his descendants must learn that national interest does not trump justice, that one’s leisure should not take preclude the obligation to worship, and that one’s concern for family is not a reason for denying the poor outside one’s door. Question God’s reasons if we must, but always render Him sovereignty over our lives!
(Genesis 22:1b-19; Matthew 9:1-8)
In considering the story of Abraham being called to slay his beloved son Isaac, we cannot help but being horrified by the proposal. It seems preposterous for God to suggest that anyone take an innocent life because He has written on our hearts an injunction against it. Natural law tells us that murder is wrong and therefore murdering one’s own offspring is especially abominable. We accept the story as revelation but are forced to question, not unlike those who ponder how God might permit a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands of people or a dictatorial regime taking a hundred times that number, the benevolence of such a God.
Of course, the text says from the beginning that God is testing Abraham. Tests are by nature hypothetical. They do not mean everything they say. In true or false tests, for example, not every statement of the tester is true. Does this mean that she lies? Tests, we should acknowledge, are at least as much a stimulus to learning as they are a tool of evaluation. In fact, in the long run we are probably more likely to recall a wrong answer on a test than a correct one.
The crucial lesson in Abraham’s test is that he, and by extension we, must subordinate ourselves completely to God. We are not the most important person even, in our own small universe; He is. If Abraham is ever to father a truly great nation, he and his descendants must learn that national interest does not trump justice, that one’s leisure should not take preclude the obligation to worship, and that one’s concern for family is not a reason for denying the poor outside one’s door. Question God’s reasons if we must, but always render Him sovereignty over our lives!
Homilette for Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wednesday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 21:5.8-20a; Matthew 8:28-34)
The townspeople of the gospel today seem like ingrates after Jesus relieves them of a public menace. They beg Jesus to leave their territory because he has cast out demons from two men who threatened travelers. But these people, who are pagan, may be just unsure of who Jesus is. Obviously he has supernatural power. Will he now use it against them? They simply do not want to take any chances.
Much of Matthew’s gospel probes the question, who is Jesus? His words calm storms and heal people’s lifelong illnesses. His teaching based on purity of heart possesses an authority that converts prostitutes and swindlers to righteousness. Jews as well as pagans wonder about the nature of this authority. Near the end the aristocracy of Jerusalem condemns him to death as an enemy of the people. But the final verdict is made by an objective observer, the pagan soldier who after seeing Jesus suffer nobly, declares, “Truly, this was the son of God.”
Many today wonder not so much about Jesus's identity but about the legacy he has left. They question whether Christians truly live the righteousness that Jesus taught. Although Christian virtue is bountifully manifest in figures like St. Francis, there is always evidence of coexistent vice. By daily pursuing the good in his name, we give mounting evidence that Jesus is truly the son of God.
(Genesis 21:5.8-20a; Matthew 8:28-34)
The townspeople of the gospel today seem like ingrates after Jesus relieves them of a public menace. They beg Jesus to leave their territory because he has cast out demons from two men who threatened travelers. But these people, who are pagan, may be just unsure of who Jesus is. Obviously he has supernatural power. Will he now use it against them? They simply do not want to take any chances.
Much of Matthew’s gospel probes the question, who is Jesus? His words calm storms and heal people’s lifelong illnesses. His teaching based on purity of heart possesses an authority that converts prostitutes and swindlers to righteousness. Jews as well as pagans wonder about the nature of this authority. Near the end the aristocracy of Jerusalem condemns him to death as an enemy of the people. But the final verdict is made by an objective observer, the pagan soldier who after seeing Jesus suffer nobly, declares, “Truly, this was the son of God.”
Many today wonder not so much about Jesus's identity but about the legacy he has left. They question whether Christians truly live the righteousness that Jesus taught. Although Christian virtue is bountifully manifest in figures like St. Francis, there is always evidence of coexistent vice. By daily pursuing the good in his name, we give mounting evidence that Jesus is truly the son of God.
Homilette for Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis19:15-29; Matthew 8:23-27)
It may seem like the lesson of Sodom is one of revulsion with homosexual behavior. Remembering the context of the story, we realize that the angels warn Lot to flee the city before God annihilates it out of outrage from the townsmen’s attempt to violate Lot’s guests. But as often happens in Genesis, the wisdom is more profound than what first meets the eye.
When the three strangers visited Abraham in the country, he welcomed them like kings. He gave them water to refresh their skin and a feast to recover inner forces. Now in the city of Sodom, Lot similarly treats two of the same travelers, but his neighbors threaten them. Indeed, the men of Sodom move to rape the travelers as apparently is their custom. Lot in a rather foolish effort to protect his guests offers the men his virgin daughters, but the Sodomites reject the women.
The men of Sodom, like those of Babel earlier in Genesis, demonstrate the corruption of the city. City dwellers conspire to advance their knowledge and technology, but their progress leads them astray. They become arrogant which is to say that city-dwellers see themselves as independent of God’s authority. Not accountable to a higher power, they take advantage of those who are not their own but still represent the Creator’s handiwork. This turning inward on themselves causes the men of Sodom to even despise women. There is no antidote for such barbarity. God must destroy them completely. Although it is a hard lesson, city dwellers must develop a righteous fear of God to accompany their advancement in science.
(Genesis19:15-29; Matthew 8:23-27)
It may seem like the lesson of Sodom is one of revulsion with homosexual behavior. Remembering the context of the story, we realize that the angels warn Lot to flee the city before God annihilates it out of outrage from the townsmen’s attempt to violate Lot’s guests. But as often happens in Genesis, the wisdom is more profound than what first meets the eye.
When the three strangers visited Abraham in the country, he welcomed them like kings. He gave them water to refresh their skin and a feast to recover inner forces. Now in the city of Sodom, Lot similarly treats two of the same travelers, but his neighbors threaten them. Indeed, the men of Sodom move to rape the travelers as apparently is their custom. Lot in a rather foolish effort to protect his guests offers the men his virgin daughters, but the Sodomites reject the women.
The men of Sodom, like those of Babel earlier in Genesis, demonstrate the corruption of the city. City dwellers conspire to advance their knowledge and technology, but their progress leads them astray. They become arrogant which is to say that city-dwellers see themselves as independent of God’s authority. Not accountable to a higher power, they take advantage of those who are not their own but still represent the Creator’s handiwork. This turning inward on themselves causes the men of Sodom to even despise women. There is no antidote for such barbarity. God must destroy them completely. Although it is a hard lesson, city dwellers must develop a righteous fear of God to accompany their advancement in science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)