Friday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 11:1-9; Mark 8:34-9:1)
Not only athletes but quite regular men and women look to artificial sources for self-enhancement. After all, if steroids could turn an average hitter into superstar, might they not make any body everyone’s desire or envy by adding proportion? The reading from Genesis today teaches us that the use of technology to boost oneself is really almost as old as the human species itself.
The inhabitants of Babel live not long after Noah who was the first born human after the death of Adam. God told Noah and his sons to “multiply and fill the earth.” Yet some of his descendants come together to build the city of Babel! By their own admission their purpose is egotistical. They want “to make a name for themselves” by means of technology -- molding bricks and hardening them with fire. They seem to think that they might rival God by constructing a tower so high that it reaches heaven. The idea is ludicrous, of course. God has to go down to stop the folly before the people destroy themselves.
What Genesis is critiquing is not the desire of humans to improve themselves but the hubris or pride that drives them to attempt bypassing God in their efforts to win the adulation of others. People want to become idols – to be considered gods among their peers. God is not jealous. He knows quite well that whatever humans make of and by themselves, they will never be more than blind cockroaches in comparison to Him. But God wants His noblest creatures to do better than that. He confuses their languages and resends them throughout the world to open their eyes as it were. God wants us to respect and admire the richness of different individuals and cultures so that we might turn back to him in awe and gratitude.
Homilette for Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thursday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 9:1-13; Mark 8:27-33)
Remember the campaign question, “Where’s the beef?” It did more than inquire into political benefits. It hinted at the human craving for meat. We see this predilection for the flesh of animals in the first reading today.
Noah has just emerged from the ark with representatives of all animal species. They have journeyed together for at least forty days and more likely a year. They have shared a common diet which certainly did not contain any meat. Then Noah, without being asked, sacrifices some meat to God. No doubt, he thinks that since humans have a taste for meat, God would savor it as well. God then makes a concession to humankind. Because of their liking, humans may eat the flesh of animals as long as they respect their life blood.
Also, God demands that human society execute murderers. As much as abolitionists might like to overlook the command, the imperative is clear. “If anyone sheds the blood of man,” God says, “by man shall his blood be shed...” Then how can the Church teach that capital punishment is no longer to be practiced? A few considerations are in order about Pope John Paul II’s 1995 appeal to end the death penalty. First, he never claimed that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, only that that governments which are able to remove murderers from society without executing them should do so. Second, he allowed for governments which cannot safely put away murderers to execute them. Third, he proclaimed the need to stop killing criminals as urgent today to counter the culture of death that has become so prevalent with mobsters and abortionists getting away with murder. We might say that the pope is asking God to make a concession as He did in allowing humans to eat meat. As early humans were likely to have rebelled if they were not allowed to eat meat, so too will members of our society continue killing one another gratuitously if we do not provide cogent example of not killing anyone.
(Genesis 9:1-13; Mark 8:27-33)
Remember the campaign question, “Where’s the beef?” It did more than inquire into political benefits. It hinted at the human craving for meat. We see this predilection for the flesh of animals in the first reading today.
Noah has just emerged from the ark with representatives of all animal species. They have journeyed together for at least forty days and more likely a year. They have shared a common diet which certainly did not contain any meat. Then Noah, without being asked, sacrifices some meat to God. No doubt, he thinks that since humans have a taste for meat, God would savor it as well. God then makes a concession to humankind. Because of their liking, humans may eat the flesh of animals as long as they respect their life blood.
Also, God demands that human society execute murderers. As much as abolitionists might like to overlook the command, the imperative is clear. “If anyone sheds the blood of man,” God says, “by man shall his blood be shed...” Then how can the Church teach that capital punishment is no longer to be practiced? A few considerations are in order about Pope John Paul II’s 1995 appeal to end the death penalty. First, he never claimed that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, only that that governments which are able to remove murderers from society without executing them should do so. Second, he allowed for governments which cannot safely put away murderers to execute them. Third, he proclaimed the need to stop killing criminals as urgent today to counter the culture of death that has become so prevalent with mobsters and abortionists getting away with murder. We might say that the pope is asking God to make a concession as He did in allowing humans to eat meat. As early humans were likely to have rebelled if they were not allowed to eat meat, so too will members of our society continue killing one another gratuitously if we do not provide cogent example of not killing anyone.
Homilette for Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wednesday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 8:6-13.202-22; Mark 8:22-26)
“I see,” said the blind man. He is only being ironic. He does not claim to have sight as we usually think of it. But he may have insight – the ability to see the truth of things. Insight is the kind of vision which the blind man of today’s gospel ends with.
Jesus first gives the blind man physical sight to distinguish shapes and colors. But he is challenged to discern the nature of things. People to him are walking trees. Then Jesus tries again, and the man sees clearly. Most of all, his newly gained sight enables him to recognize Jesus as the long awaited one of Israel who is to bring shalom, the fullness of peace, to the land.
In the contemporary world thoroughly given to the awe of science and technology, we are challenged to identify Jesus. We may claim him as our “Lord and God,” but what do these terms mean if we spend our lives in pursuit of fortune or adventure? Mark’s gospel calls us to unrelenting recognition of Jesus as the source, end, and sustaining force of our lives.
(Genesis 8:6-13.202-22; Mark 8:22-26)
“I see,” said the blind man. He is only being ironic. He does not claim to have sight as we usually think of it. But he may have insight – the ability to see the truth of things. Insight is the kind of vision which the blind man of today’s gospel ends with.
Jesus first gives the blind man physical sight to distinguish shapes and colors. But he is challenged to discern the nature of things. People to him are walking trees. Then Jesus tries again, and the man sees clearly. Most of all, his newly gained sight enables him to recognize Jesus as the long awaited one of Israel who is to bring shalom, the fullness of peace, to the land.
In the contemporary world thoroughly given to the awe of science and technology, we are challenged to identify Jesus. We may claim him as our “Lord and God,” but what do these terms mean if we spend our lives in pursuit of fortune or adventure? Mark’s gospel calls us to unrelenting recognition of Jesus as the source, end, and sustaining force of our lives.
Homilette for Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 5:5-8.7:1-5.10; Mark 8:14-21)
On top of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, stone statues of the twelve apostles look over the world that they have struggled to win for Christ. Each member of the band appears so magnificent in wisdom and power that we are challenged to reconcile these figures with the fumbling characters we meet in the gospel today.
The twelve have twice witnessed Jesus distribute a thousand times more bread than they had at hand. Yet they worry about having enough food in the boat when they have one loaf – that is, the Lord himself! Like most people, they cannot get over the human condition of scarcity. They cannot see that in Christ’s company they have more than enough.
Put a bit of yeast in a little dough and in a short time you find a full loaf of bread. Yeast or leaven puffs up making something appear more massive than it is. “The leaven of the Pharisees” and “the leaven of Herod” puff up their carriers to the extent that they cannot recognize God’s messengers. The Pharisees think that they are defending God as they demand signs on the spot from Jesus, even after he has repeatedly given witness to his divine commission. In decapitating John, Herod pretends to have authority over innocent life. Jesus warns his disciples against both kinds of arrogance. They and we are neither to worry about what is lacking nor to think of our own virtue as sufficient. Rather, they and we must trust in Jesus.
(Genesis 5:5-8.7:1-5.10; Mark 8:14-21)
On top of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, stone statues of the twelve apostles look over the world that they have struggled to win for Christ. Each member of the band appears so magnificent in wisdom and power that we are challenged to reconcile these figures with the fumbling characters we meet in the gospel today.
The twelve have twice witnessed Jesus distribute a thousand times more bread than they had at hand. Yet they worry about having enough food in the boat when they have one loaf – that is, the Lord himself! Like most people, they cannot get over the human condition of scarcity. They cannot see that in Christ’s company they have more than enough.
Put a bit of yeast in a little dough and in a short time you find a full loaf of bread. Yeast or leaven puffs up making something appear more massive than it is. “The leaven of the Pharisees” and “the leaven of Herod” puff up their carriers to the extent that they cannot recognize God’s messengers. The Pharisees think that they are defending God as they demand signs on the spot from Jesus, even after he has repeatedly given witness to his divine commission. In decapitating John, Herod pretends to have authority over innocent life. Jesus warns his disciples against both kinds of arrogance. They and we are neither to worry about what is lacking nor to think of our own virtue as sufficient. Rather, they and we must trust in Jesus.
Homilette for Monday, February 16, 2009
Friday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time
(Genesis 4:1-15.25; Mark 8:11-13)
The story of Cain and Abel has been noted as an anthropological explanation of the enmity between farmers and herders. We can also see it as a model for sibling rivalry. Although we may expect brothers and sisters to be the best of friends, they often compete with one another. The reasons are obvious. Each desires his or her parents’ utmost attention but is often forced into the back seat. Perhaps the last-born child receives inordinate affection because the parents are tired of disciplining. Or perhaps the eldest through constant parental prodding becomes an overachiever whose accomplishments the second cannot match.
In the fourth preface for weekday masses, the priest prays that God has no need of our sacrifice. Indeed, God does not ask sacrifices from Cain and Abel. Responding to an instinctual impulse, the elder brother makes his harvest offering. Possibly out of imitation, Abel serves up a lamb. The text does not explain why Cain’s gift is rejected, but it is not hard to imagine a reason. Too often sacrifices to God are half-hearted. For example, many make feeble attempts during Lent to refrain from sweets. Also, as the standard critique of Friday abstinence held, some people give up steak only to dine on lobster!
Cain reacts to God’s preference of Abel’s sacrifice by murdering him. It is no impetuous act but methodically arranged to indicate the depth of the elder brother’s hatred. As the Lord takes notice of the act, we discover what God really expects of us. Our sacrifices are not important; we must strive harder to live in peace with all our brothers and sisters.
(Genesis 4:1-15.25; Mark 8:11-13)
The story of Cain and Abel has been noted as an anthropological explanation of the enmity between farmers and herders. We can also see it as a model for sibling rivalry. Although we may expect brothers and sisters to be the best of friends, they often compete with one another. The reasons are obvious. Each desires his or her parents’ utmost attention but is often forced into the back seat. Perhaps the last-born child receives inordinate affection because the parents are tired of disciplining. Or perhaps the eldest through constant parental prodding becomes an overachiever whose accomplishments the second cannot match.
In the fourth preface for weekday masses, the priest prays that God has no need of our sacrifice. Indeed, God does not ask sacrifices from Cain and Abel. Responding to an instinctual impulse, the elder brother makes his harvest offering. Possibly out of imitation, Abel serves up a lamb. The text does not explain why Cain’s gift is rejected, but it is not hard to imagine a reason. Too often sacrifices to God are half-hearted. For example, many make feeble attempts during Lent to refrain from sweets. Also, as the standard critique of Friday abstinence held, some people give up steak only to dine on lobster!
Cain reacts to God’s preference of Abel’s sacrifice by murdering him. It is no impetuous act but methodically arranged to indicate the depth of the elder brother’s hatred. As the Lord takes notice of the act, we discover what God really expects of us. Our sacrifices are not important; we must strive harder to live in peace with all our brothers and sisters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)