Memorial of St. Philip Neri, priest
(Acts 20:17-27; John 17:1-11a)
Ten years ago a movie related the saga of an all-black (except for officers) regiment during the Civil War. The unit overcomes external prejudice and internal fear to become a crack fighting force. The last scene shows the courageous soldiers going into their final battle where they will be killed fighting not only for their country but for the freedom of their people. The movie was titled “Glory” because the men give their lives for a cause much bigger than individual happiness.
In the gospel Jesus speaks of the glory he intends to achieve by doing his Father’s will. That will, of course, is no less than the redemption of humanity through Jesus’ death on the cross. The world has never before seen such self-sacrifice because Jesus himself has no part in the sin which demands his life for expiation. However, there is a link between the glory won by soldiers dying for their country and that of Jesus giving himself over to crucifixion. In as much as the soldiers transcend the pitfalls of war – hatred, brutality, pride, and licentiousness – to serve both God and country, the glory they achieve reflects and, indeed, adds to the glory Jesus attains in his death and resurrection.
Homilette for Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday of the Seventh Week of Easter
(Acts 19:1-8; John 16:29-33)
As we pray for our war dead today, we need to face the horror of it all. Once a movie featuring the British Air Force during World War I exposed the frivolousness with which aviators spoke about battle. The film made clear that only because they never witnessed the actual deaths or saw the remains of fallen comrades, could pilots boast of the glory of combat. Surely, a more realistic viewpoint is that of the infantryman like Wilfred Owen, the English poet who died in World War I. He writes that if we could see war’s vile and gore, we would not say “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (that it is a sweet and noble thing to die for one’s country).
In the gospel Jesus assures us that despite the horror of war or of any other evil, we can be at peace. We need not worry because he has conquered the twin nemeses of evil and death. We only have to remain close to him. And if we, like his disciples, find ourselves separated from him, we only have to turn again in his direction asking forgiveness.
(Acts 19:1-8; John 16:29-33)
As we pray for our war dead today, we need to face the horror of it all. Once a movie featuring the British Air Force during World War I exposed the frivolousness with which aviators spoke about battle. The film made clear that only because they never witnessed the actual deaths or saw the remains of fallen comrades, could pilots boast of the glory of combat. Surely, a more realistic viewpoint is that of the infantryman like Wilfred Owen, the English poet who died in World War I. He writes that if we could see war’s vile and gore, we would not say “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (that it is a sweet and noble thing to die for one’s country).
In the gospel Jesus assures us that despite the horror of war or of any other evil, we can be at peace. We need not worry because he has conquered the twin nemeses of evil and death. We only have to remain close to him. And if we, like his disciples, find ourselves separated from him, we only have to turn again in his direction asking forgiveness.
Homilette for Friday, May 22, 2009
Friday of the Sixth Week of Easter
(Acts 18:9-18; John 16:20-23)
The account of Gallio’s judgment in Acts today is significant for two reasons. First, it gives a clue for dating Paul’s missionary activities. Second, it gives biblical precedent for the separation of Church and state.
Roman records show that Gallio was proconsul in Corinth for only the summer of 51 A.D. Because Paul is thought to have left Corinth shortly after the episode with Gallio, he must have stayed there from 50 to 51 A.D. (if what Acts says about his being there only a year and a half is accurate). That year then acts as a hinge for determining other dates in Paul’s sojourn. Although the date is disputed, Paul likely concluded the controversy over circumcision in Jerusalem in 49 A.D. Also, his first letter to the Thessalonians, the earliest New Testament piece and written in Corinth, carries a 50-51 A.D. vintage.
The Jews haul Paul off to the tribunal because he is converting non-Jewish “God-fearers” to Christ rather than to an orthodox Judaism. However, Gallio, the emperor’s representative, believing it imprudent for the state to meddle in religious affairs, dismisses the case. His action is reminiscent of the position that the Church takes vis-à-vis government. The Church teaches that a government must not allow religious belief to be imposed on any person. Rather, it should guarantee every person the freedom to choose the faith that his or her conscience dictates. Americans should be thankful that their government has followed this rule and that their representatives to Vatican II successfully explicated the doctrine there.
(Acts 18:9-18; John 16:20-23)
The account of Gallio’s judgment in Acts today is significant for two reasons. First, it gives a clue for dating Paul’s missionary activities. Second, it gives biblical precedent for the separation of Church and state.
Roman records show that Gallio was proconsul in Corinth for only the summer of 51 A.D. Because Paul is thought to have left Corinth shortly after the episode with Gallio, he must have stayed there from 50 to 51 A.D. (if what Acts says about his being there only a year and a half is accurate). That year then acts as a hinge for determining other dates in Paul’s sojourn. Although the date is disputed, Paul likely concluded the controversy over circumcision in Jerusalem in 49 A.D. Also, his first letter to the Thessalonians, the earliest New Testament piece and written in Corinth, carries a 50-51 A.D. vintage.
The Jews haul Paul off to the tribunal because he is converting non-Jewish “God-fearers” to Christ rather than to an orthodox Judaism. However, Gallio, the emperor’s representative, believing it imprudent for the state to meddle in religious affairs, dismisses the case. His action is reminiscent of the position that the Church takes vis-à-vis government. The Church teaches that a government must not allow religious belief to be imposed on any person. Rather, it should guarantee every person the freedom to choose the faith that his or her conscience dictates. Americans should be thankful that their government has followed this rule and that their representatives to Vatican II successfully explicated the doctrine there.
Homilette for Thursday, May 21, 2009
Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter
(Acts 18:1-8; John 16:16-20)
We know the mechanism of weeping. It is caused by secretion of fluid from the lachrymal glands to lubricate the surface between the eyeball and the eyelid. But exactly why people cry is an open question. Some say simply that it is a response to strong emotions. Others, proceeding from biochemical analysis, claim that it removes hormones associated with stress.
Self-introspection associates crying with loss of affection. We cry when those who love us take their leave. So parents sob at weddings, and the bereaved weep at funerals. For this reason Jesus anticipates the tears of his disciples on the night before his death in the gospel today.
In another gospel and with a different context Jesus tells his disciples, “Blessed are they who mourn for they will be comforted.” The result of tear-shedding in both cases, however, is the same. Crying will not necessarily produce heavenly comfort, but it does when the cause of the tears is the need for Jesus to direct us through moral turmoil and to share our suffering. Also, we must remember that he is not completely gone. Rather he has sent his Spirit to accompany us. The Holy Spirit brings us a foretaste of the joy which comes to fullness as we enter eternal life.
(Acts 18:1-8; John 16:16-20)
We know the mechanism of weeping. It is caused by secretion of fluid from the lachrymal glands to lubricate the surface between the eyeball and the eyelid. But exactly why people cry is an open question. Some say simply that it is a response to strong emotions. Others, proceeding from biochemical analysis, claim that it removes hormones associated with stress.
Self-introspection associates crying with loss of affection. We cry when those who love us take their leave. So parents sob at weddings, and the bereaved weep at funerals. For this reason Jesus anticipates the tears of his disciples on the night before his death in the gospel today.
In another gospel and with a different context Jesus tells his disciples, “Blessed are they who mourn for they will be comforted.” The result of tear-shedding in both cases, however, is the same. Crying will not necessarily produce heavenly comfort, but it does when the cause of the tears is the need for Jesus to direct us through moral turmoil and to share our suffering. Also, we must remember that he is not completely gone. Rather he has sent his Spirit to accompany us. The Holy Spirit brings us a foretaste of the joy which comes to fullness as we enter eternal life.
Homilette for Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday of the Sixth Week of Easter
(Acts 17:15.22-18:1; John 16:12-15)
The scene of the first reading will inspire many Christians. Athens represents the epitome of Western Civilization, the home of the philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; of the playwrights Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, and Euripides; and of the historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Now Paul, the best educated and most successful of Christian missionaries, clears his throat to speak to the learned populace. His words do not disappoint us. They, in colloquial terms, “meet the people where they are.” They hint at the superior Greek culture and mention its traditional regard for religion. They also appeal to the people’s strong sense of justice. Certainly, we feel, Paul will win Athens for Christ.
Of course, the result of Paul’s preaching is catastrophic. The Athenians not only reject his ideas; they scoff at him. Their response, “We should like to hear you on this some other time,” is only a nice way of saying, “Get lost.” But Paul learns from this bitter experience. No longer will the apostle meet his audiences with lofty elocution. He will tell the Corinthians that he came preaching Christ crucified. Following Paul, Christianity through the centuries has often defended the gospel with reasonable argument. But it has realized all along that faith is God’s gift that neither rhetoric nor logic can implant.
(Acts 17:15.22-18:1; John 16:12-15)
The scene of the first reading will inspire many Christians. Athens represents the epitome of Western Civilization, the home of the philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; of the playwrights Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, and Euripides; and of the historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Now Paul, the best educated and most successful of Christian missionaries, clears his throat to speak to the learned populace. His words do not disappoint us. They, in colloquial terms, “meet the people where they are.” They hint at the superior Greek culture and mention its traditional regard for religion. They also appeal to the people’s strong sense of justice. Certainly, we feel, Paul will win Athens for Christ.
Of course, the result of Paul’s preaching is catastrophic. The Athenians not only reject his ideas; they scoff at him. Their response, “We should like to hear you on this some other time,” is only a nice way of saying, “Get lost.” But Paul learns from this bitter experience. No longer will the apostle meet his audiences with lofty elocution. He will tell the Corinthians that he came preaching Christ crucified. Following Paul, Christianity through the centuries has often defended the gospel with reasonable argument. But it has realized all along that faith is God’s gift that neither rhetoric nor logic can implant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)