(Mark 5)
The eminent psychologist Carl Rogers purportedly gave this breath-taking yet self-evident statistic, “One out of every one of us is hurting.” It is true. No one escapes suffering. Not only the poor and the sick need assistance. Conquerors of nations are sometimes insecure. And utterly beautiful women can worry if they are attractive.
Because pain pollutes the world like jet fuel the atmosphere around an airport, crowds besiege Jesus in the gospel today. Could he heal a sick child? Could he stop the chronic hemorrhaging of an impoverished woman? No doubt, he had a hundred similar requests as he steps across the sand. What would we add if we were there? Could he cure my cold? Could he lift me from depression?
Jesus generally takes note of our faith and grants our requests. At some point, however, he will have us stretch our faith into eternity. What we seek will not be immediately granted. We will die without experiencing a release from suffering. Then we will await his voice, “Little girl, arise” or “Little boy, arise.” And just like the twelve-year-old in the gospel, we will arise to a new world. We will be finally freed from all hurt and anxiety because Jesus will be fully present.
Homilette for Monday, January 29, 2007
(Mark 5)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Protestant theologian who taught in the United States before World War II. When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in the early 1930s, he found himself opposing the rule of the Nazis. Eventually, he was executed for taking part in a plot to kill Hitler. Before he died, he wrote a book called The Cost of Discipleship. In it the theologian explains that there is no such thing as cheap grace. Rather, it will cost one to be a Christian.
Some people are unwilling to pay the price. In the gospel today the Geresene townspeople show no interest in Jesus since he already cost them two thousand head of pigs. Too earnest businesspeople, they cannot appreciate Jesus’ restoring to sanity one of their townspeople, but only take note of their losses.
What does it cost us to follow Jesus? A half hour’s sleep in the morning? Maybe we have to eat our words rather than lash out at some perceived unfairness? Whatever it is, it is a bargain. What we expend is not ours to begin with, but a gift from God. What we receive, is eternal life – the joy of Jesus’ eternal companionship.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Protestant theologian who taught in the United States before World War II. When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in the early 1930s, he found himself opposing the rule of the Nazis. Eventually, he was executed for taking part in a plot to kill Hitler. Before he died, he wrote a book called The Cost of Discipleship. In it the theologian explains that there is no such thing as cheap grace. Rather, it will cost one to be a Christian.
Some people are unwilling to pay the price. In the gospel today the Geresene townspeople show no interest in Jesus since he already cost them two thousand head of pigs. Too earnest businesspeople, they cannot appreciate Jesus’ restoring to sanity one of their townspeople, but only take note of their losses.
What does it cost us to follow Jesus? A half hour’s sleep in the morning? Maybe we have to eat our words rather than lash out at some perceived unfairness? Whatever it is, it is a bargain. What we expend is not ours to begin with, but a gift from God. What we receive, is eternal life – the joy of Jesus’ eternal companionship.
Reflection for Friday, January 19, 2007
In December I preached at the Mass in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe in St. Helena, California. I tried to encourage the people present to value their families in fidelity to the Virgin Mother. I mentioned that family values do not include abortion or homosexual marriage.
Yesterday someone handed me the local newspaper which covered the event. The reporter had approached me after Mass to ask about the feast. I explained its significance and mentioned what I said in the homily. Unfortunately his article misstated my point. He had written that I urged the people to oppose homosexuality, not homosexual marriage. Perhaps he heard the second as the first. Anyway, the difference is crucial.
How can Catholics oppose homosexuality? It is like saying one opposes a bipolar condition. Although choice may have a role in one’s sexual orientation, it seems to be multi-faceted with some genetic input. Homosexuality cannot be called a moral evil. What may be considered morally evil are homosexual acts which, the Church teaches, are wrong since they violate the purpose of sexual relations.
Homosexual marriage does society a tremendous disservice as it attempts to institutionalize wrongful sexual relationships. It may have catastrophic social effects as birth rates may plummet with escalating numbers of these so-called marriages. More personally, it may encourage many maturing young men and women to make mistaken conclusions about their lives thus depriving them of the truly wonderful experiences of child-bearing and child-rearing.
Yesterday someone handed me the local newspaper which covered the event. The reporter had approached me after Mass to ask about the feast. I explained its significance and mentioned what I said in the homily. Unfortunately his article misstated my point. He had written that I urged the people to oppose homosexuality, not homosexual marriage. Perhaps he heard the second as the first. Anyway, the difference is crucial.
How can Catholics oppose homosexuality? It is like saying one opposes a bipolar condition. Although choice may have a role in one’s sexual orientation, it seems to be multi-faceted with some genetic input. Homosexuality cannot be called a moral evil. What may be considered morally evil are homosexual acts which, the Church teaches, are wrong since they violate the purpose of sexual relations.
Homosexual marriage does society a tremendous disservice as it attempts to institutionalize wrongful sexual relationships. It may have catastrophic social effects as birth rates may plummet with escalating numbers of these so-called marriages. More personally, it may encourage many maturing young men and women to make mistaken conclusions about their lives thus depriving them of the truly wonderful experiences of child-bearing and child-rearing.
Reflection for Friday, January 19, 2007
In December I preached at the Mass in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe in St. Helena, California. I tried to encourage the people present to value their families in fidelity to the Virgin Mother. I mentioned that family values do not include abortion or homosexual marriage.
Yesterday someone handed me the local newspaper which covered the event. The reporter had approached me after Mass to ask about the feast. I explained its significance and mentioned what I said in the homily. Unfortunately his article misstated my point. He had written that I urged the people to oppose homosexuality, not homosexual marriage. Perhaps he heard the second as the first. Anyway, the difference is crucial.
How can Catholics oppose homosexuality? It is like saying one opposes a bipolar condition. Although choice may have a role in one’s sexual orientation, it seems to be multi-faceted with some genetic input. Homosexuality cannot be called a moral evil. What may be considered morally evil are homosexual acts which, the Church teaches, are wrong since they violate the purpose of sexual relations.
Homosexual marriage does society a tremendous disservice as it attempts to institutionalize wrongful sexual relationships. It may have catastrophic social effects as birth rates may plummet with escalating numbers of these so-called marriages. More personally, it may encourage many maturing young men and women to make mistaken conclusions about their lives thus depriving them of the truly wonderful experiences of child-bearing and child-rearing.
Yesterday someone handed me the local newspaper which covered the event. The reporter had approached me after Mass to ask about the feast. I explained its significance and mentioned what I said in the homily. Unfortunately his article misstated my point. He had written that I urged the people to oppose homosexuality, not homosexual marriage. Perhaps he heard the second as the first. Anyway, the difference is crucial.
How can Catholics oppose homosexuality? It is like saying one opposes a bipolar condition. Although choice may have a role in one’s sexual orientation, it seems to be multi-faceted with some genetic input. Homosexuality cannot be called a moral evil. What may be considered morally evil are homosexual acts which, the Church teaches, are wrong since they violate the purpose of sexual relations.
Homosexual marriage does society a tremendous disservice as it attempts to institutionalize wrongful sexual relationships. It may have catastrophic social effects as birth rates may plummet with escalating numbers of these so-called marriages. More personally, it may encourage many maturing young men and women to make mistaken conclusions about their lives thus depriving them of the truly wonderful experiences of child-bearing and child-rearing.
Homilette for Thursday, January 18, 2007
(Mark 3)
The Ganges River holds a revered place in Hinduism. Men and woman in tremendous numbers converge on it for healing. People believe that by drinking its waters they might have eternal life.
In today’s gospel Jesus becomes a kind of Ganges River. He attracts huge numbers of people from the four corners of Palestine for healing. Jesus tells the demons whom he casts out not to mention that he is the Son of God. Evidently, he is not only concerned that the people would get the wrong idea of what this means. Any greater numbers would only create insoluble problems of logistics.
Today Jesus is more accessible in the Eucharist. But we Mass-goers might ask ourselves, why do we seek him? Is it for some advantage like healing? Or do we wish to learn from him the ways of everlasting life? Of course, this too is a terrific advantage, but it recognizes that some effort on our part will be called forth. When we come to Jesus, we must be ready to change our ways. If not, no matter how many advantages there are in his touch, in the long run it will not help us.
The Ganges River holds a revered place in Hinduism. Men and woman in tremendous numbers converge on it for healing. People believe that by drinking its waters they might have eternal life.
In today’s gospel Jesus becomes a kind of Ganges River. He attracts huge numbers of people from the four corners of Palestine for healing. Jesus tells the demons whom he casts out not to mention that he is the Son of God. Evidently, he is not only concerned that the people would get the wrong idea of what this means. Any greater numbers would only create insoluble problems of logistics.
Today Jesus is more accessible in the Eucharist. But we Mass-goers might ask ourselves, why do we seek him? Is it for some advantage like healing? Or do we wish to learn from him the ways of everlasting life? Of course, this too is a terrific advantage, but it recognizes that some effort on our part will be called forth. When we come to Jesus, we must be ready to change our ways. If not, no matter how many advantages there are in his touch, in the long run it will not help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)