Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
John 5:5-19 Healing of the Paralytic and Conflict with the Authorities
Verses 15-16: “The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because He did this on the Sabbath. “
Peter: Why does the Master look for trouble? There was no reason why he had to heal that man at the pool, and no reason why He had to heal him on the Sabbath, either. He must have known the healing would make the authorities furious.
James: True enough, He could have healed the man the next day and avoided trouble. After being ill for so long a time, one more day would not have mattered.
Peter: But why did the man feel he had to go and tell the authorities it was Jesus who cured him? He should have been grateful and kept his mouth shut instead of squealing. All he did was cause us problems.
John: Maybe not. What if Jesus knew the man would report Him to the Scribes and Pharisees, but healed him anyway?
James: You mean the Master wanted a confrontation with the authorities? That doesn’t make much sense.
John: No, not in the sense that He was looking for trouble, but maybe He wanted to show He was going to do good even if it ended up causing Him trouble.
Peter: Okay, but why did he pick that man to heal? There were so many others there who were just as sick, and some were even worse off than he was.
John: You could always ask Him why He chose that one!
Peter: Yeah, right. There’s not much chance He is going to explain Himself to me.
James: More of a chance that He would explain and you still wouldn’t understand Him!
Peter (laughing): “That’s right!”
John: None of us ever really understands Him that much.
Peter and James (simultaneously): What do you mean by that? We’re not stupid.
John: Well, yes we are when it comes to Him. That’s why you two were just laughing at yourselves. Why does Jesus heal some people and not others? That’s a mystery. Or, why heal only a few people but not everyone? Another mystery. How does He decide whom to heal and whom to leave be? Another mystery.
Peter: That’s true. It doesn’t seem to matter who you are, what you have or don’t have, or what condition you’re in. He heals whom He wants for His reasons.
John: And we have no idea how he does it. All we know is that He works wonders and has no difficulty doing so.
James: Yes, it is almost so normal for us to see Him do something extraordinary that it’s starting to seem ordinary.
Peter: How do you think He does his miracles? They seem so easy when He does them. Yet they would be impossible for anyone else.
John: I think the miracles are somehow connected to His Father. Remember the authorities asked Him why He healed the man on the Sabbath, and He told them, “My Father is working still, and I am working (verse 17)…and the Son can only do what He sees the Father doing (verse 19)”.
James: How does that explain the miracles?
Peter: I think the answer does involve His Father. Somehow He is in touch with his heavenly Father. Maybe His Father moves Him to work wonders.
John: Yes. He means it when He says his Father is working wonders. Since He is his Father’s Son, He should be working miracles too.
James: But His Father isn’t doing anything. God in heaven isn’t healing anyone.
John: Maybe He is doing something beyond what we see.
Peter: Keep talking. I think you are on to something.
John: You know how Jesus says over and over again “The Kingdom of God is near…the Kingdom of Heaven has arrived…the Kingdom of God is at hand”.
Peter and James: Sure.
John: Well, what if miracles are the way Jesus makes the Kingdom come among us? All the healing and wonders He works are His way of giving us a taste of the Kingdom. That’s how He shows us the kingdom is real, not just some abstract idea.
Peter: Okay. That explains how miracles promote the Kingdom, but explain to us the connection to His Father. How is Jesus doing what He sees the Father doing?
John: God created the world, right? The seas, the earth, the mountains, the sky, the stars, the sun and moon are all the work of His hands, right?
(James and Peter nod in agreement.
John: Well, God hasn’t let go of all He has made. He is still holding it in his hands. If He did let it go, everything would slip through His fingers and fall into nothingness.
Peter: Hmm, the Father not only makes everything; He also holds it altogether… yes, I see what you mean. By holding everything in His hands, He is creating it all at every moment. The miracle is ongoing.
James: Even on the Sabbath! So the Father is working all the time! If He ever stopped working, even for a moment, then everything would fall apart!
Peter: But what does the Sacred Torah mean when it says that the Lord God rested on the Sabbath from all the work He had done?
John: It means He contemplated it all. He sat back and enjoyed the beauty of everything He had made. It doesn’t mean that He put it down or let go of it, but that He looked on it all and felt good about making it, even loved it!
James: That makes a lot of sense to me! More sense than saying God rested because He was “tired”.
Peter: So since the Father “works” on the Sabbath by holding everything in His hands, gazing at it all, loving everything and keeping it all together, it is right for Jesus to do miracles on the Sabbath? Yes, it seems logical, but…”
John: But there is a difference that bothers you?
Peter: Well, the Master’s miracles seem a lot different from God’s. Jesus’ wonders are a lot smaller than God’s.
James: Also, Jesus’ miracles are quickly done and soon over, whereas God has been patiently holding the world together for a long, long time.
John: True, but a miracle is a miracle. What does it matter if it is a slow long miracle like holding the world together, or a small, quick one like healing a paralytic? It is still something none of us could make happen.
Peter: Maybe the Father’s miracles don’t seem so impressive to us because we are used to them. They slowly continue to occur, like the sun coming up every morning, and the crops growing, and the birds flying. We take ourselves and all the things around us for granted, and forget that God is holding everything together at every moment. So we don’t see it as a miracle.
John: That’s a wonderful insight. What the Father does long-term and slowly, the Son does short and swift, like healing a leper or giving sight to the blind man. And that’s why his miracles impress while the Father’s don’t.
Peter: You know, John, what I like about you is also what I hate about you: you see things more deeply than we do.
John: More deeply? Not really. What I see is this: that compared to the way Jesus sees, all of our seeing is pretty poor. Seeing how poorly we see is what makes me look intelligent.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Prayer for Religious Liberty in America
God Our Father, from your provident hand we have received our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have called us as your people and given us the right and duty to worship you, the only true God, and your Son, Jesus Christ. Through the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world, bringing the light and saving truth of the Gospel to every corner of society. We ask you to bless us in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty. Give us the strength of mind and heart to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened; give us courage in making our voices heard on behalf of the rights of your Church. and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith. Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father, a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters gathered in your Church in this decisive hour in the history of our nation, so that with every trial withstood, and every danger overcome- for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and all who come after us- this great land will always be " one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
1.)Today, what does it mean for the United States of America to be "under God?" Under His judgment? His blessing? His guidance? Could we possibly delude ourselves any longer into thinking that it means He is "on our side" and that our "democracy" is divinely inspired and sustained?
2.) Do the moral principles that originally formed the substructure of our American democratic system at its founding have any traction in today's Culture?
3.) Is our country devolving into a form of totalitarianism? Is the State attempting to absorb the role of the Church in society?
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Marriage Equality for same-sex couples
SR: What do you think of Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriages?
M: How tiresome! We have already discussed the topic.
SR: Yes, I remember you admired Obama’s use of language and choice of words in presenting his position.
M: It was well done, was it not? He expressed himself very nicely.
SR: Never mind how nicely he worded things or the expressions he used, what do you think of marriage equality for people of the same sex?
M: Marriage equality? It is another marvelous term which frames the outcome Obama wishes to achieve.
SR: Never mind the expression! What do you think of the idea?
M: The idea is a wonderful construction of words to sell his product to the American Public. Remember the saying: The medium is the message? The term marriage equality is good packaging for his message. Many have already bought the idea.
SR: I don’t think it is good packaging. I find it deceptive and contradictory.
M: From your perspective it looks that way, but not from his. He has a right to frame the question the way he wants.
SR: I disagree. He should frame the question fairly so that it corresponds to reality, instead of putting a spin on it that promotes his goals.
M: Really? I see nothing wrong with this phrasing of the issue. He is for the right of people of the same sex to enter into marriage, and says they should have that right recognized by law, just as people of opposite sex do. Why not call that marriage equality?
SR: Because two men cannot do what a man and a woman can do, namely generate new life. Nor can two women. So marriage equality between gay couples and heterosexual couples is a contradiction in terms. It is like a square circle: an absurd concept that does not fit the reality it purports to name. The mouth can say the words, but the mind cannot picture the reality. No same sex couple can couple and engender new life. That’s the reality of the situation.
M: Can you prove your assertion and get people to believe you? Obama has a good following behind his proposal.
SR: It is self evident and axiomatic. It doesn’t have to be proved because it is obvious, like the statement that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
M: It is not at all axiomatic. There is much more to marriage than the act of procreation.
SR: Of course there is. Man is to woman, and woman is to man, as lock is to key. But what is clearly distinct and unique to the male-female union is the generation of new life. That is why it is the distinguishing feature.
M: Aha! The lock and key metaphor shows that you are using the same slippery language as Obama! If it is fair for you to do, then he can use elusive language too.
SR: Man and woman are to each other as lock is to key. There is nothing deceptive about that. The use of lock and key imagery connotes the depth of rich meaning signified in the marriage union. It is accurate and corresponds to reality because husband and wife do unlock what is in each other by enabling one another to grow in various ways.
M: You may say so, but I believe you bear the burden of proof. You have to make your assertion so attractive that it compels consent.
SR: Truth is attractive. Truth is compelling. The truth is good and beautiful.
M: Only to those who already agree with you. Remember the words of the poet Robert Frost: “They say the truth will set you free. But my truth will bind you slave to me.”
SR: I have heard that verse somewhere.
M: Some people find your version of the truth enslaving, not freeing. They find your position too rigid, dogmatic, and in short, absolutely inflexible. What can you say to them to change their minds?
SR: I don’t know. I don’t know how to make anyone see what they don’t want to. Do you?
M: That is the weakness of your position. You want the truth to be freely embraced. Truth is too complex to speak for itself; also, too abstract. It has to be specific, concrete and alive.
SR: I agree with that! But instead of complex, I would use the word mysterious. Truth is simple but mysterious. The lived truth is what mysteriously compels assent. The lived truth is beautiful and attractive. Its witness has a splendor which moves people to freely say yes to it!
M: That is not the point I was trying to make. Now you are twisting my words for your purpose. But I digress. To return to my point: You need specific, living examples that personify the Truth of marriage you profess to see so clearly. Many in your Church do not share your vision of marriage. What does their lived experience say? What does their testimony give witness to if not the falsity of your position?
SR: I’m not sure. I need to think more about that. Maybe their lives witness to the mystery of God’s abounding mercy.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Dialogue on the HHS Mandate
SR: Signore Machiavelli, I am intrigued by your admiration of President Obama. What is it about him that interests you most?
M: His use of words, the way he takes words and reinterprets them so as to give them new meaning. His evolving use of words is creative and entertaining, no?
S: Perhaps, but what he does with words is also dangerous.
M: Ah! You refer to the way he neutralizes the Church by recasting freedom of religion as freedom of worship! What a clever way to render his opposition harmless!
SR: Since we are talking about words, I don’t think the word clever is fitting in the case. I think the term deceitful or diabolical would be more accurate.
M: But the man is a politician. This is what politicians do. They play with words to gain and keep power. Words are their weapons as much as guns and bombs. All is fair in war and love, and politics!
SR: Seriously, what do you think of his attempt to recast freedom of religion into freedom of worship?
M: A very smart move. Give the man credit for seeing a great opportunity and taking advantage of it. It is his chance to win the Culture War in one big battle.
SR: What about the other battles the Church and Obama are fighting over, such as Same-sex marriages, abortion, stem cell research, genetic engineering, contraception, and nanotechnology?
M: All those other battles become simple mop-up operations, because the Church will have lost her effectiveness in the marketplace, or what you today call The Public Square.
SR: What if Obama does not win his court case on the HHS Mandate? What if the courts rule in the Church’s favor and support freedom of religion?
M: Obama loses nothing. A little set-back is what he suffers, nothing more.
SR: Why do you say that?
M: First of all, most people do not realize the HHS Mandate is about freedom of religion. They think the issue is who will pay for reproductive health services. And they think Obama has wisely provided the solution by saying the Insurance companies will pay.
SR: You said “First of all”. Did you have something else to add?
M: Of course, of course. Secondly, many Christians and Catholics would love to see Obama win HHS battle in the courts, because he already has won their minds and hearts. They have no problem if their practice of religion is limited to the confines of a church building.
SR: So Obama has them even if the courts rule against him?
M: Of course! They do not want to be the “light of the world”, or “the salt of the earth”, or the “yeast in the bread”, to use your Biblical metaphors. They want to enjoy the comforts of religion without its challenges. It is what they already are doing. It is the civilized, tolerant way to behave instead of disturbing people with faith belief.
SR: But the Church is supposed to evangelize the culture, and witness to Christ in the world.
M: Perhaps in other countries, where people have nothing to lose. But in the United States people are usually too comfortable to evangelize. The Culture has already evangelized them. You should not blame Obama for taking advantage of the situation.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Threesome: Peter, James and John discuss Christ’s encounter with the rich young man.
Mark: 10:23 “Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God.’ And the disciples were amazed at his words.”
James: I’m surprised! I didn’t think the Master would let this young man go off like that.
Peter: I’ll say! What do you think He meant by promising we would all get everything back a hundredfold for following Him?
John: Never mind that. I have a better question: why do you think he told the young man to give up everything?
Peter: Why is that so important? We all had to give up everything!
John: Yes, but for us, everything was a couple of fishing boats, our nets, and our business contacts for selling fish. Not a big deal. But you could see from the way this man was dressed that he is wealthy.
James: Yes. He has a lot more to give up than we do.
Peter: You’re right. So, why make him give it up? Why not tell him to join us and bring everything he has with him? Wouldn’t that make more sense? And make life easier for all of us too?
John: That’s not the way the Master sees it. Obviously he liked this man. You could see that from the way He looked at him. And the man had a lot to offer. He was well educated, intelligent, devout, and an all around good person. He probably would have made a better preacher and teacher than any one of us. And he probably would have joined us, if he could have brought everything with him.
Peter: So you agree with me? Why not let him bring it all?
John: Because he would always have that wealth to fall back on. The riches would be his security, his source of life, behind everything else. The man would not be committed to Jesus. The wealth would be first in the man’s head, even if it was in the background, and Jesus would be secondary.
Peter: Maybe that’s it. Jesus insists on being our center; He is what connects us all. That’s how He sees it. And the money gets in the way. If the money is there, money becomes central.
James: Why do you think the Master told the man not to call Him “good”?
Peter: That’s not what Jesus was doing.
John: That’s right! Jesus was
smiling when He said that. He was using
the word the man used, but with a different meaning. It was a way of telling
the man: Good? You have no idea
exactly how GOOD I AM!
James: I guess I missed that. I was paying more attention to what He said next: “No one is good but God alone.”
John: Don’t try to figure that out.
Peter: Why not?
John: Because only He knows what He means by that. We could argue about that all day and never get anywhere.
James: What is there to argue about? He’s saying that only God is absolutely good; that’s all.
(Peter and John look at each other, and silently agree not to dig further into James’ statement.)
Peter: Fine. John, you were saying that this man was special, how he seemed better educated than we are, and how he could have made a more effective disciple than the lot of us. I think you’re right. So why did Jesus let him walk off? Why not talk to him more, discuss, explain things, and reason with him? He could have persuaded the man to leave his wealth behind if He really tried.
James: That’s right. Look how He never stops talking to us, explaining things over and over again, encouraging and correcting and moving us towards what He wants. He could have had his way with the man if he kept pushing.
John: Yes, but that’s not His way of doing things. He invites, He calls, He makes the opportunity available, but He doesn’t pressure or force or manipulate. He doesn’t play those games with anyone. Even with us. He keeps at us because we did say yes and decide to follow Him. But even now if we decided to walk off He would let us go.
Peter: Suppose you had all the money and possessions this man had, would you still be here? Or would you leave the group and go back to it?
John: I’m glad I don’t have to make that choice, but I think I would stay.
Peter: Today I feel that way. Other days, well, I don’t know. I like following Him. But I don’t know where He is going. It is an adventure, I have to admit that. But it is scary too. You can never tell what is going to happen next, or what He is going to do.
James: What about this man who went back to his riches? Can he get into the kingdom of heaven? Is he still on his way to God?
Peter: Well, he was on the right road before the Master called him, because he was keeping all the commandments. As long as he keeps that up, what’s the problem?
John: The wealth, the money. That’s the Master’s point. At any moment the money can take over and become central. The man could not even recognize it when that takes place. But if it does, then the man is no longer on the right way. Then the wealth controls him and the way he relates to people.
James: It's that dangerous?
Peter: The Master says it is. It’s probably a blessing we don’t have to make that choice. We probably would get seduced by the wealth. But what about the question I asked to begin with? Jesus promised we would all get back a hundredfold what we have given up to follow Him, remember? What do you think He meant by that? We surely are not going to get rich!
John: Relationships. That’s what He’s talking about, our friendship with one another because we follow Him. Look how different we all are. None of us would be close to another, or care about one another if we were not following Him. We would never choose to be friends or brothers in real life.
Peter: We still don’t like one another that much even though He keeps harping on it with us all the time.
John: That’s the point I’m trying to make! Following Him is what unites us. Everything else about us would have us fighting with one another all the time. We are so competitive, and have such different tastes, we could never get along. Only He can make us brothers.
James: Well, He hasn’t done it yet.
John: We’re all still with Him, aren’t we? That’s the important thing. If we manage to stay close to Him, I think we’ll end up caring about one another in spite of ourselves. That might be the biggest wonder He performs!
Friday, June 1, 2012
For The Fun of It: Obama's HHS Mandate
A second interview with Machiavelli
SR: Thank you for meeting with me again.
M: My pleasure. What do you wish to talk about today? Are you still stuck on Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriage? Or, do you want to talk about a different issue? I am expert on them all: freedom of religion/worship, same sex marriage, family life, contraception, abortion, stem cell research, and Church-State relations, whatever you want.
SR: I’d like to begin with the HHS mandate. May I ask you what you think of all the lawsuits the Catholic institutions are bringing against the mandate?
M: A very poor tactic, very poor. It is much too civilized, too tame and above all, too ad hoc. The Church will lose in the media even if they win in court because there is no comprehensive, coherent strategy.
SR: Why do you mean by too ad hoc? How can we lose if we win the case in court?
M: The Church loses, because they have let Obama set the agenda and define the terms of the debate. He continues to win in the court of public opinion even if he loses the legal case. He still comes off as being the man who doing his best to get health care for people, and the Church will look like it is not cooperating. That’s how the press will report it, and how the country will see it.
SR: And what would you advise? What should the bishops do?
M. Stop responding on an ad hoc basis to everything Obama does. The bishops need to realize they are involved in an ongoing Culture War. In a war, you do not blindly fight one battle after another; you need a global strategy instead. You think long term and attack your opponent’s vulnerabilities. By being so ad hoc, so limited and measured in their response, the bishops are letting Obama take the war to them and attack where they are vulnerable. At present the bishops look like office bureaucrats and timid corporation presidents, sending their lawyers and delegates to do their fighting for them.
SR: What do you suggest?
M: First of all, get a, how do you say? a ‘poster child’, someone who symbolizes their cause, personifies it. This person would be the General, the Commander in Chief, like Eisenhower in World War II. Better yet if the general is an attractive female, a woman. She will lead the way. She will be your ‘Mother Theresa’, your ‘Joan of Arc’, in charge of mobilizing the troops and taking the battle to Obama.
SR: I don’t get it. Why should the bishops do that? What’s wrong with filing all these lawsuits in court?
M: Nothing, but lawsuits are only one tactic. The Church needs many other strategies, in addition to the lawsuits. The Church is Obama’s one big obstacle to power in the Public Square. It is his main opposition in society. This war is always going on and on. You cannot fight only in the courts. The war has to be fought in the Public Square too. And there have to be different soldiers attacking from different sides, in different battles, with different weapons.
SR: Why do you think a woman would be a better Commander-in Chief than a man?
M: In the Culture War, women are better warriors than men. Women are more in touch with the spiritual, the personal and the human. Women are better at relating than men. So they are better at this kind of fight than men. Men are better with the impersonal, abstract and theoretical. Women know how to capture minds and hearts, to sway public opinion, and dramatize a cause, much better than men. It is that simple. Bishops have to learn how to make use of women and their fighting ability. Look at how smart Obama was, not so long ago. He telephoned that Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, and used her to achieve a great media victory in the Public Square. She thought he was helping her while he was using her. The Democrats were then able to portray themselves as the defenders of women, and paint the Republicans as enemies of the female sex. Now the Democrats accuse the Republicans of conducting a War on Women.
SR: The Church doesn’t conduct its affairs that way. It doesn’t turn serious issues into a soap opera.
M: Unless the Bishops learn how to act more effectively in public, they will lose the war, even if they win some battles. Look at how the American nuns are fighting with Rome. The sisters don’t just write position papers and file lawsuits. They demonstrate, and they have people out there picketing. Do they let Rome set the agenda? No! Do they let the Church set the terms of the debate? No! These women are too media savvy for that. They focus the issues their way. You ask the average person out in the streets what the bishops and sisters a fighting about; you know what answer you will get?
SR: No, what?
M: They will tell you Rome is reining in the Sisters because of the work they are doing with the poor! That is the answer you will get, because that is the message the Sisters have given the public through the Media.
SR: Perhaps so, but let’s stick to the HHS mandate. How should the Culture War General fight this battle?
M: She consults and plans. Then she organizes and mobilizes the troops, focusing on women at every level of Church and society, without excluding the men. For example, in the hospitals, she gets the nurses, the secretaries, the administrators, the receptionists, the unions and union representatives, etc. to attend rallies, to speak out, and to demonstrate. She sets up training classes in civil disobedience, gets the hospital personnel to stand fast in protest to the HHS mandate, swearing to go to jail rather than shut down or comply. She develops another strategy for all the Social Service agencies the Church runs, and another for the schools and universities. With the schools and universities, she focuses on the language battle.
SR: What do you mean by “language battle?”
M: The way Obama uses words, and the slippery way he changes their meaning without people noticing what he is doing. This is one of his best weapons in the Culture War. As long as the Church fights him using his word-weapons, he will win. Women are great in word-wars. They can see through his deceit and expose it.
SR: Thank you for your thoughts. You give me a great deal of food for thought.
M: Mark my words. History will prove me right!
SR: But one person cannot do all this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)