Tuesday of the Thirty-third Week in Ordinary Time
(Revelation 3:1-6.14-22; Luke 19:1-10)
George Harrison expressed the desire of Zacchaeus and each of us when he sang, “Lord, I just want to see you.” Zacchaeus climbs a tree to get a bird eye’s view of Jesus passing by. We have to strain our imaginations to picture him. Although he is often portrayed as tall, ruddy, and long-haired, the gospels actually reveal nothing of what Jesus looked like.
But seeing Jesus with one’s eyes holds no great advantage. Most of those who saw Jesus did not choose to follow him. Indeed, the majority of witnesses to his miracles turned their backs on his call to conversion. More important than seeing Jesus is having faith in him. As he says in John’s Gospel, “’Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.’”
Surprising to many, Zacchaeus expresses such faith. As a tax collector, Zacchaeus is expected to swindle the poor, not to treat them with kindness. But he couldn’t be more generous as he promises to give the needy half of his possessions. The only recognizable motive for his doing so is his belief that since Jesus brings salvation, what better thing is there to do with one’s wealth than to share it with Jesus’ special friends.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Memorial of Saint Albert the Great, bishop and doctor of the Church
(Revelation 1:1-4.2:1-5; Luke 18:35-43)
It is one thing to see, but quite another to see with insight. A trainee can look at human tissue through a microscope, but a biologist names the different kinds of cells she sees. A fifth-grader can read a racing form, but a handicapper will more often than not pick winners.
In the gospel today Jesus enables a blind man to see, but the man sees more in Jesus than a healer. He recognizes him as a savior to be followed forever. Similarly, St. Albert the Great, whose feast we celebrate today, was an authority of his time on fauna and fossa, but his greater achievement perhaps was recognizing the glory of God in nature.
(Revelation 1:1-4.2:1-5; Luke 18:35-43)
It is one thing to see, but quite another to see with insight. A trainee can look at human tissue through a microscope, but a biologist names the different kinds of cells she sees. A fifth-grader can read a racing form, but a handicapper will more often than not pick winners.
In the gospel today Jesus enables a blind man to see, but the man sees more in Jesus than a healer. He recognizes him as a savior to be followed forever. Similarly, St. Albert the Great, whose feast we celebrate today, was an authority of his time on fauna and fossa, but his greater achievement perhaps was recognizing the glory of God in nature.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Memorial of St. Josephat, bishop and martyr
(II John 4-9; Luke 17:26-37)
It may seem that those whom the presbyter John accuses in the first reading today of not believing that Jesus Christ came in the flesh are spiritualists who have little appetite for carnal pleasure. The truth is likely the opposite. They probably believe that Jesus’ enlightenment is psychological to the extent that it does not matter what they do with their bodies. So they indulge vigorously in sexual pleasure. Of course, as the presbyter points out, Jesus is fully human, his grace chastens the body as well as the soul, and his followers must discipline themselves.
One wonders if pastoral challenges change much over the centuries. Today also a few still believe that they can live a promiscuous life and be faithful Christians. One woman is quoted in a book on preaching that this is what Jesus means when he says that he comes to bring life in its fullness. But the Church teaches strongly and consistently that following Christ includes curbing sexual desire so that fulfillment comes not in pleasure but in sacrificing oneself for the good of others.
(II John 4-9; Luke 17:26-37)
It may seem that those whom the presbyter John accuses in the first reading today of not believing that Jesus Christ came in the flesh are spiritualists who have little appetite for carnal pleasure. The truth is likely the opposite. They probably believe that Jesus’ enlightenment is psychological to the extent that it does not matter what they do with their bodies. So they indulge vigorously in sexual pleasure. Of course, as the presbyter points out, Jesus is fully human, his grace chastens the body as well as the soul, and his followers must discipline themselves.
One wonders if pastoral challenges change much over the centuries. Today also a few still believe that they can live a promiscuous life and be faithful Christians. One woman is quoted in a book on preaching that this is what Jesus means when he says that he comes to bring life in its fullness. But the Church teaches strongly and consistently that following Christ includes curbing sexual desire so that fulfillment comes not in pleasure but in sacrificing oneself for the good of others.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Memorial of St. Martin of Tours
(Philemon 7-20; Luke 17:20-25)
The Letter to Philemon differs from other Pauline letters in the New Testament in several ways. It is the shortest of the letters – so short that the editor several centuries ago did not divide it into chapters. Also, it is the only canonical letter which all scholars agree was genuinely written by St. Paul directed to an individual. Finally, the letter involves one specific issue – the acceptance of Onesimus back into Philemon’s household. Despite its brevity and specificity, we are wise to consider this letter well because, as one scholar maintains, “Philemon’s problem” is “the problem of any believer.”
Onesimus is a runaway slave who Paul has instructed in the Christian faith. Now Paul is sending him back to his master with the appeal that he be accepted as “a brother.” What does he mean here? Paul is at least suggesting that that Philemon not punish Onesimus for his flight. He is also hinting that Philemon set Onesimus free. Of course, even the first request might create trouble for Philemon. Slaves’ misconduct was expected to be punished to deter further transgression of rules. And if Philemon were to set Onesimus free, his other slaves would likely beat the same path to Paul’s door so that they too might gain liberty.
Fortunately, the institution of slavery barely exists today. But still Christians are plagued by the dilemma of what to do when contemporary norms conflict with moral principles. Should we fight in a war that our government starts with a preemptive strike? Should we vote for a political candidate with many excellent credentials except that she legitimizes abortion? Should we shop at stores which do not give employees health insurance? Scripture provides us no easy answers to these questions just as Paul gives Philemon no clear directive. We should, however, search for the right thing to do just as Paul expects Philemon to consider Onesimus a brother.
(Philemon 7-20; Luke 17:20-25)
The Letter to Philemon differs from other Pauline letters in the New Testament in several ways. It is the shortest of the letters – so short that the editor several centuries ago did not divide it into chapters. Also, it is the only canonical letter which all scholars agree was genuinely written by St. Paul directed to an individual. Finally, the letter involves one specific issue – the acceptance of Onesimus back into Philemon’s household. Despite its brevity and specificity, we are wise to consider this letter well because, as one scholar maintains, “Philemon’s problem” is “the problem of any believer.”
Onesimus is a runaway slave who Paul has instructed in the Christian faith. Now Paul is sending him back to his master with the appeal that he be accepted as “a brother.” What does he mean here? Paul is at least suggesting that that Philemon not punish Onesimus for his flight. He is also hinting that Philemon set Onesimus free. Of course, even the first request might create trouble for Philemon. Slaves’ misconduct was expected to be punished to deter further transgression of rules. And if Philemon were to set Onesimus free, his other slaves would likely beat the same path to Paul’s door so that they too might gain liberty.
Fortunately, the institution of slavery barely exists today. But still Christians are plagued by the dilemma of what to do when contemporary norms conflict with moral principles. Should we fight in a war that our government starts with a preemptive strike? Should we vote for a political candidate with many excellent credentials except that she legitimizes abortion? Should we shop at stores which do not give employees health insurance? Scripture provides us no easy answers to these questions just as Paul gives Philemon no clear directive. We should, however, search for the right thing to do just as Paul expects Philemon to consider Onesimus a brother.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
St. Leo the Great, pope and doctor of the Church
(Titus 1:1-9; Luke 17:11-19)
It is remarkable that the Letter to Titus has to remind the early Christians to obey state laws. We think of these men and women as so devout that they would never tell a lie much less steal a cow. Today we equate being Christian with being law-abiding although, unfortunately, wanton aberrations abound. There are also a few issues that have moved some contemporary Christians to civil disobedience.
Each year for that last twenty citizens led by a Catholic priest have protested the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas (SOA) located at Fort Benning, Georgia. Although the Army claims SOA trains Latin America military to be more ethical as well as more effective soldiers, it is also true that a couple of the most notorious thugs in recent hemispheric history have graduated from SOA. Protesters believe that the school needs to be shut down immediately. During the protests a contingent crosses a line defying a federal law.
Such crimes may be justified when the law itself is unjust. For example, when students during the Civil Rights crisis in the 1960s held sit-ins at all-white lunch counters, their violation of the law revealed the injustice of allowing public restaurants to discriminate along racial lines. However, it seems to be another case when protestors trespass on property prohibitive to everyone.
(Titus 1:1-9; Luke 17:11-19)
It is remarkable that the Letter to Titus has to remind the early Christians to obey state laws. We think of these men and women as so devout that they would never tell a lie much less steal a cow. Today we equate being Christian with being law-abiding although, unfortunately, wanton aberrations abound. There are also a few issues that have moved some contemporary Christians to civil disobedience.
Each year for that last twenty citizens led by a Catholic priest have protested the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas (SOA) located at Fort Benning, Georgia. Although the Army claims SOA trains Latin America military to be more ethical as well as more effective soldiers, it is also true that a couple of the most notorious thugs in recent hemispheric history have graduated from SOA. Protesters believe that the school needs to be shut down immediately. During the protests a contingent crosses a line defying a federal law.
Such crimes may be justified when the law itself is unjust. For example, when students during the Civil Rights crisis in the 1960s held sit-ins at all-white lunch counters, their violation of the law revealed the injustice of allowing public restaurants to discriminate along racial lines. However, it seems to be another case when protestors trespass on property prohibitive to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)