Solemnity of All Saints
(Revelation 7:2-4.9-14; I John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12a)
A distinguished defense attorney is asked, “Who is the most important person in the courtroom (to assure justice).” Perhaps it is the judge who sees that that due process is followed. Or maybe it is the collective members of the jury who adjudicate the case. Or possibly it is the trial lawyer who must persuade the jury of the client’s innocence. The attorney responds that after many decades practicing law as prosecutor, judge, and defense lawyer, he believes that the most important person in the courtroom is a reliable witness. Such a witness’s truthfulness and conviction become the determining factors in bringing about justice.
We can define saints as reliable witnesses to Jesus. By relying on God, by striving after righteousness, by reconciling opponents, by practicing all the beatitudes, saints witness to the primacy of Jesus’ message and the efficacy of his grace. Their words and, more so, their actions provide testimony that Jesus has risen from the day to actively support his followers.
The Church has officially declared only seven thousand or so saints. But this number hardly indicates all the people throughout twenty centuries of Christianity who have lived the beatitudes. Today we celebrate the millions of un-proclaimed saints who have given reliable witness to Jesus. Their number includes an African-American slave who lived so graciously that the slave-owning family buried her in the family plot proudly claiming her as kin. All of us have known people much better than ourselves who, we are sure, belong to the legion of reliable witnesses to Jesus.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time
(Philippians 1:1-11; Luke 14:1-6)
Paul’s opening sentence in the Letter to the Philippians gives us pause for reflection. He addresses the letter to “all the holy ones in Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” Is it not odd that there would be more than one bishop at the primitive church in Philippi? And who are all the deacons? We might stir up the waters a bit by recalling that in his Letter to the Romans, Paul describes Phoebe, a woman, as having a diaconal function. Remembering also that Paul’s work in Philippi began with his encounter of Lydia and other women, it is not preposterous to ask if some of the deacons referred to here are women.
It is possible that Paul has women in mind when he writes to the Philippians. However, this does not mean that they are ordained ministers as we think of the diaconate today. When Paul writes “deacon,” he may intend what we think of when we say “lay ecclesial minister.” Likewise, almost certainly he is not addressing multiple bishops as we consider the term but rather the community’s leaders, a virtual parish council. Obviously, Paul is writing before the time when bishop and deacon carry the theological meanings which they have today.
The Church has never definitively ruled out ordaining women to the diaconate. The matter is under study. However, even if making women-deacons never happens, women still perform valuable ministry. In a short story titled “The Deacon,” Mary Gordon describes a woman religious performing all kinds of services in a busy, urban parish. The tale reflects what many of us realize well. The Church simply could not function without the ministry of women.
(Philippians 1:1-11; Luke 14:1-6)
Paul’s opening sentence in the Letter to the Philippians gives us pause for reflection. He addresses the letter to “all the holy ones in Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” Is it not odd that there would be more than one bishop at the primitive church in Philippi? And who are all the deacons? We might stir up the waters a bit by recalling that in his Letter to the Romans, Paul describes Phoebe, a woman, as having a diaconal function. Remembering also that Paul’s work in Philippi began with his encounter of Lydia and other women, it is not preposterous to ask if some of the deacons referred to here are women.
It is possible that Paul has women in mind when he writes to the Philippians. However, this does not mean that they are ordained ministers as we think of the diaconate today. When Paul writes “deacon,” he may intend what we think of when we say “lay ecclesial minister.” Likewise, almost certainly he is not addressing multiple bishops as we consider the term but rather the community’s leaders, a virtual parish council. Obviously, Paul is writing before the time when bishop and deacon carry the theological meanings which they have today.
The Church has never definitively ruled out ordaining women to the diaconate. The matter is under study. However, even if making women-deacons never happens, women still perform valuable ministry. In a short story titled “The Deacon,” Mary Gordon describes a woman religious performing all kinds of services in a busy, urban parish. The tale reflects what many of us realize well. The Church simply could not function without the ministry of women.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, apostles
(Ephesians 2:19-22; Luke 6:12-16)
The names of Simon and Jude (really Judas) round out the list of Jesus’ apostles except for the notorious traitor, Judas Iscariot. The twelve form an inner circle of disciples whom Jesus appoints to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. In this light we might think of them as the Old Testament rulers in the period between the death of Moses and the institution of the kingdom. But we should not limit their purview to the bounds of old Israel. The new order which Jesus establishes is meant to include the entire world. To this end there are legends of apostles bringing the gospel as far as distant India and Spain.
Jude and Simon are placed at the end of the list because of their historical obscurity. Curiously, Jude has become one of the most prominent of the twelve perhaps because his name is associated with impossible causes which many people see themselves as having. As in the case of Jude, there is another Simon among the twelve, the one whom we regularly recognize as Peter. In order to distinguish the two in the gospel today, Luke mentions that Simon is known as a Zealot. It would be anachronistic to say that this means Simon belongs to a revolutionary band as the Zealots will become a couple decades later. But in order to understand the twelve as a disparate group united by love of the Lord, we may think of Simon as zealously faithful to Jewish Law in contrast to Matthew who may have been the publican Levi living an unholy life prior to his encounter with Jesus.
The homage we pay to Simon, Jude and all the apostles comes from their role linking us to Christ. They are sent to preach the good news and to lead the community which Jesus has established. If not for them, we would not be who we are – members of Christ’s body, the Church, striving to love faithfully with his Holy Spirit.
(Ephesians 2:19-22; Luke 6:12-16)
The names of Simon and Jude (really Judas) round out the list of Jesus’ apostles except for the notorious traitor, Judas Iscariot. The twelve form an inner circle of disciples whom Jesus appoints to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. In this light we might think of them as the Old Testament rulers in the period between the death of Moses and the institution of the kingdom. But we should not limit their purview to the bounds of old Israel. The new order which Jesus establishes is meant to include the entire world. To this end there are legends of apostles bringing the gospel as far as distant India and Spain.
Jude and Simon are placed at the end of the list because of their historical obscurity. Curiously, Jude has become one of the most prominent of the twelve perhaps because his name is associated with impossible causes which many people see themselves as having. As in the case of Jude, there is another Simon among the twelve, the one whom we regularly recognize as Peter. In order to distinguish the two in the gospel today, Luke mentions that Simon is known as a Zealot. It would be anachronistic to say that this means Simon belongs to a revolutionary band as the Zealots will become a couple decades later. But in order to understand the twelve as a disparate group united by love of the Lord, we may think of Simon as zealously faithful to Jewish Law in contrast to Matthew who may have been the publican Levi living an unholy life prior to his encounter with Jesus.
The homage we pay to Simon, Jude and all the apostles comes from their role linking us to Christ. They are sent to preach the good news and to lead the community which Jesus has established. If not for them, we would not be who we are – members of Christ’s body, the Church, striving to love faithfully with his Holy Spirit.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time
(Ephesians 6:1-9; Luke 13:22-30)
Pupils in Catholic schools used to ask many questions of religion teachers to both satisfy curiosity and to waste time. A typical question was, “Sister, if you were killed walking to church for confession, would you go to hell?” The sisters, who knew how to play the game as well, often answered, “What do you think?” In the gospel today we meet Jesus responding as nimbly as the sisters to a tough question.
“Lord, will only a few people be saved?” someone in the crowd asks Jesus. Perhaps the Pharisees trained the questioner to think that most people are lazy, no-good hell-bounds. People today, aware of God’s mercy, are more inclined to ask a question to the opposite effect, “Doesn’t God save everyone?” Although we may try to practice the faith, all of us have loved ones who ignore the commandments. “God surely cannot just condemn them to hell, can He?” we wonder.
Jesus adroitly sidesteps the issue. Whom the Father will save or damn is up to Him to decide. Yet Jesus seizes the opportunity to create a proverb. “Strive to enter through the narrow gate,” he advises. He means that we must discipline ourselves to do what is right and to avoid what is wrong. There is scant place among his followers for slouches who say, “A peek at pornography or a little lie won’t hurt anyone.” Nor are we faithful disciples if we ignore those in need.
(Ephesians 6:1-9; Luke 13:22-30)
Pupils in Catholic schools used to ask many questions of religion teachers to both satisfy curiosity and to waste time. A typical question was, “Sister, if you were killed walking to church for confession, would you go to hell?” The sisters, who knew how to play the game as well, often answered, “What do you think?” In the gospel today we meet Jesus responding as nimbly as the sisters to a tough question.
“Lord, will only a few people be saved?” someone in the crowd asks Jesus. Perhaps the Pharisees trained the questioner to think that most people are lazy, no-good hell-bounds. People today, aware of God’s mercy, are more inclined to ask a question to the opposite effect, “Doesn’t God save everyone?” Although we may try to practice the faith, all of us have loved ones who ignore the commandments. “God surely cannot just condemn them to hell, can He?” we wonder.
Jesus adroitly sidesteps the issue. Whom the Father will save or damn is up to Him to decide. Yet Jesus seizes the opportunity to create a proverb. “Strive to enter through the narrow gate,” he advises. He means that we must discipline ourselves to do what is right and to avoid what is wrong. There is scant place among his followers for slouches who say, “A peek at pornography or a little lie won’t hurt anyone.” Nor are we faithful disciples if we ignore those in need.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time
(Ephesians 5:21-33; Luke 13: 18-21)
No New Testament passage is more difficult for many people today than the first reading. A wife having to submit to her husband offends contemporary sensibility which sees absolute equality between the sexes. In order to avoid the difficulty some modern translations of the passage use a less grating word than “submit.”
In a couple of ways abuses of masculine power will be avoided. As much as the text obligates wives to submit to their husbands, it commands husbands to love their wives. That is, they should treat their wives with all possible care which implies pleasing them whenever possible. Also, it is a given that a woman does not have to comply with a husband’s dictate that is sinful. For example, the wife will not have to remain at home should the husband becomes violent.
Difficulties arise, of course, when husband and wife have differing opinions. She would like to paint the family room pink, but he prefers a soft green. Or he wants to leave a significant amount of their estate to charity, but she thinks their children will need the full inheritance. The directive in Ephesians does not prohibit discussion of problems or even final disagreement over resolutions. It does, however, mandate -- for unity’s sake and to demonstrate the Church’s subordination to Christ -- that she allow him ultimate determination of the matter.
(Ephesians 5:21-33; Luke 13: 18-21)
No New Testament passage is more difficult for many people today than the first reading. A wife having to submit to her husband offends contemporary sensibility which sees absolute equality between the sexes. In order to avoid the difficulty some modern translations of the passage use a less grating word than “submit.”
In a couple of ways abuses of masculine power will be avoided. As much as the text obligates wives to submit to their husbands, it commands husbands to love their wives. That is, they should treat their wives with all possible care which implies pleasing them whenever possible. Also, it is a given that a woman does not have to comply with a husband’s dictate that is sinful. For example, the wife will not have to remain at home should the husband becomes violent.
Difficulties arise, of course, when husband and wife have differing opinions. She would like to paint the family room pink, but he prefers a soft green. Or he wants to leave a significant amount of their estate to charity, but she thinks their children will need the full inheritance. The directive in Ephesians does not prohibit discussion of problems or even final disagreement over resolutions. It does, however, mandate -- for unity’s sake and to demonstrate the Church’s subordination to Christ -- that she allow him ultimate determination of the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)