Monday of the Twenty-fifth Week in Ordinary Time
(Ezra 1:1-6; Luke 8:16-18)
Tension reigns today between Iran (modern Persia) and Israel (the Jewish state that incorporates most of the former Kingdoms of Judah and of Israel). President Ahmadinejah of Iran has made threatening remarks against the Israeli regime. Meanwhile, President Netanyahu of Israel proverbially talks softly but carries a big, big stick – nuclear weapons!
The first reading from the Book of Ezra reminds us that relations between the two nations were not always strained. In fact, with a long history of association, Iran and Israel have shared many ups and downs. The peak, recounted in the reading from Ezra today, sees King Cyrus of Persia promoting the reestablishment of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalemites have been living as exiles in Babylonia for seventy years when Cyrus liberated them.
Christians may consider this return of the Jews to Jerusalem as a type or preview of Jesus’ going up to the holy city at the end of his ministry. His death and resurrection there will establish a new Temple constructed not of stones but of his flesh and blood. In his temple people will give the most fitting praise to God. That praise today would be incomplete, however, if it is not accompanied by a plea for peace among the rival nations.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Memorial of Saint Cornelius, pope and martyr, and Saint Cyprian, bishop and martyr
(I Timothy 6:2c-12; Luke 8:1-3)
A cartoon shows a fat corporate executive describing a recent business decision. “It was a matter,” he says, “of either losing a friend or losing money.” No doubt is left as to which of the two the tycoon values more.
However, the New Testament repeatedly indicates that money makes a poor substitue for a friend. In Luke’s gospel Jesus often warns against the accumulation of wealth although, as today’s passage indicates, he and his disciples had needs which the women’s money met. Perhaps Scripture is nowhere more wary of money than in the first reading. We should note, however, that First Timothy does not condemn money itself as the root of evil but “the love of money.”
Should charities accept money from patently sinful sources? Much good can be done with so-called tainted money, but then virtue’s kissing vice leaves many people morally bewildered. Scandal must be avoided, but at times thieves may make reparation for their crimes by privately reciprocating institutions that care for the needy.
(I Timothy 6:2c-12; Luke 8:1-3)
A cartoon shows a fat corporate executive describing a recent business decision. “It was a matter,” he says, “of either losing a friend or losing money.” No doubt is left as to which of the two the tycoon values more.
However, the New Testament repeatedly indicates that money makes a poor substitue for a friend. In Luke’s gospel Jesus often warns against the accumulation of wealth although, as today’s passage indicates, he and his disciples had needs which the women’s money met. Perhaps Scripture is nowhere more wary of money than in the first reading. We should note, however, that First Timothy does not condemn money itself as the root of evil but “the love of money.”
Should charities accept money from patently sinful sources? Much good can be done with so-called tainted money, but then virtue’s kissing vice leaves many people morally bewildered. Scandal must be avoided, but at times thieves may make reparation for their crimes by privately reciprocating institutions that care for the needy.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows
(I Timothy 4:12-16; John 19:25-27)
The son of an eighty-plus year-old man just died. The father says that it is hard to describe the loss he feels. Every day his son used to call him at noon. Now noontime, like a bell without a clapper, rings completely hollow. We can imagine Mary at the cross, far from glorying in her son’s triumph over sin, feels the emptiness of most parents of dead children.
In the gospel Jesus entrusts his mother to his beloved disciple. The act not only guarantees her welfare but also, in a more profound way, represents the beginning of the Church. Mary will form, in a sense, the heart of the community by not only remembering Jesus’ earliest days but also revealing the significance of his mission.
Many old men and women sit alone in apartments and nursing homes. Their physical needs may be provided for, but they need to hear the voices of people who care about them. We will never replace a son or daughter who is no longer or perhaps never was there for them. But like the beloved disciple to Mary, we may provide some consolation.
(I Timothy 4:12-16; John 19:25-27)
The son of an eighty-plus year-old man just died. The father says that it is hard to describe the loss he feels. Every day his son used to call him at noon. Now noontime, like a bell without a clapper, rings completely hollow. We can imagine Mary at the cross, far from glorying in her son’s triumph over sin, feels the emptiness of most parents of dead children.
In the gospel Jesus entrusts his mother to his beloved disciple. The act not only guarantees her welfare but also, in a more profound way, represents the beginning of the Church. Mary will form, in a sense, the heart of the community by not only remembering Jesus’ earliest days but also revealing the significance of his mission.
Many old men and women sit alone in apartments and nursing homes. Their physical needs may be provided for, but they need to hear the voices of people who care about them. We will never replace a son or daughter who is no longer or perhaps never was there for them. But like the beloved disciple to Mary, we may provide some consolation.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
(Numbers 21:4b-9; Philippians 2:6-11; John 3:13-17)
Very shortly mass in most English-speaking countries will be celebrated with a new translation from the Latin. Catholics will notice the difference from the very beginning of the service as they answer the priest’s greeting with the words, “And with your spirit.” During the consecration of the bread and wine, they will hear a more jarring change. Rather than say that Jesus’ blood was shed “for all” as he has done for forty years ago, the priest will say that it was shed “for many.” The Holy See has assured that the Church believes that Jesus died for all and not just a chosen many. The issue is being faithful to the words that are found in the gospel text which uses “many” although in an open-ended sense which includes everyone.
Today’s gospel leaves no doubt that Jesus did, in fact, die for all. The two verses that conclude the reading are said to be the loveliest in all Scripture. They end with the words, “For God did not send his Son to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”
The matter at hand has practical implications. If Jesus did not die for all, then people might try to name those who are excluded. Some will say the Chinese are without salvation and begin to discount them as an honorable people. Others would make a similar assessment of Africans or Muslims. This kind of thinking, of course, is racist. Jesus died for all because God loves all as His creation. We too strive to love all because we love God first and foremost.
(Numbers 21:4b-9; Philippians 2:6-11; John 3:13-17)
Very shortly mass in most English-speaking countries will be celebrated with a new translation from the Latin. Catholics will notice the difference from the very beginning of the service as they answer the priest’s greeting with the words, “And with your spirit.” During the consecration of the bread and wine, they will hear a more jarring change. Rather than say that Jesus’ blood was shed “for all” as he has done for forty years ago, the priest will say that it was shed “for many.” The Holy See has assured that the Church believes that Jesus died for all and not just a chosen many. The issue is being faithful to the words that are found in the gospel text which uses “many” although in an open-ended sense which includes everyone.
Today’s gospel leaves no doubt that Jesus did, in fact, die for all. The two verses that conclude the reading are said to be the loveliest in all Scripture. They end with the words, “For God did not send his Son to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”
The matter at hand has practical implications. If Jesus did not die for all, then people might try to name those who are excluded. Some will say the Chinese are without salvation and begin to discount them as an honorable people. Others would make a similar assessment of Africans or Muslims. This kind of thinking, of course, is racist. Jesus died for all because God loves all as His creation. We too strive to love all because we love God first and foremost.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Memorial of Saint John Chrysostom, bishop and doctor of the Church
(I Timothy 3:1-13; Luke 7:11-17)
Of all the qualities for a bishop named in the first reading today, the most striking for Catholics today is that he be a man who is “married only once.” Before one jumps to the conclusion that Scripture prescribes a married clergy, it must be remembered that the letter was written at a time when the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon were still coalescing. There were married clergy in the first Christian centuries, but they were expected, at least in the writings of the time, not to have sexual relations with their wives.
Evidently St. John Chrysostom never married. In fact, he lived for a while as a monk although could not permanently tolerate the harshness of desert life. As a bishop he distinguished himself for his rejection of the high life of his see, the patriarchy of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Allowing married men to become priests and bishops in masse would resolve the shortage of clergy in many countries today. However, it would no doubt open the door to other problems like the scandal of clergy divorces. A stronger reason to keep the current discipline of celibacy is the witness that it gives in a world supersaturated with sex. People need strong models of happy lives that don’t seek pleasure in viewing pornography or find sexual satisfaction an essential for personal fulfillment.
(I Timothy 3:1-13; Luke 7:11-17)
Of all the qualities for a bishop named in the first reading today, the most striking for Catholics today is that he be a man who is “married only once.” Before one jumps to the conclusion that Scripture prescribes a married clergy, it must be remembered that the letter was written at a time when the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon were still coalescing. There were married clergy in the first Christian centuries, but they were expected, at least in the writings of the time, not to have sexual relations with their wives.
Evidently St. John Chrysostom never married. In fact, he lived for a while as a monk although could not permanently tolerate the harshness of desert life. As a bishop he distinguished himself for his rejection of the high life of his see, the patriarchy of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Allowing married men to become priests and bishops in masse would resolve the shortage of clergy in many countries today. However, it would no doubt open the door to other problems like the scandal of clergy divorces. A stronger reason to keep the current discipline of celibacy is the witness that it gives in a world supersaturated with sex. People need strong models of happy lives that don’t seek pleasure in viewing pornography or find sexual satisfaction an essential for personal fulfillment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)