The Two Brothers in All of Us

         Probably today’s gospel passage (Luke 15:11-32) is one of the most powerful images used by Jesus in His preaching.  The “Parable of the Two Brothers” (sometimes called “The Prodigal Son”) reveals the boundless mercy of God.  Some of the Fathers of the Church interpreted the younger son as the Gentile people and the older brother as the Jewish people.  The younger son represents a people who were welcomed into the Father’s covenant despite their infidelity and idolatry, whereas the older son represents those who were with the Father the whole time but were unfaithful to Him in their hearts.         Nevertheless, the most important dimension of this parable is what it says about the spiritual life, because everyone one of us here goes through phases similar to the younger brother and the older brother.  Firstly, let us look at the younger brother.  His life represents the sad effects of sin.  When we sin, we are abusing our freedom.  Freedom is our inheritance – our gift – from the Father, who lets us “do what we want” with this gift.  When we abuse this gift by “loose living” (that is, sins of the world, the flesh and the devil), we are left empty.  We find ourselves in slavery, especially when things are so bad that we are jealous of what pigs eat.  Sin leads to hell.  Yes, hell is where we will go if we do not repent, but hell is also a present reality.  When we live so selfishly that our lives become closed in on ourselves that we have no love to give — this is hell.  And ultimately, if this is how we live our lives now, God will give us what we want for eternity: separation from Him and His kingdom in sæcula sæculorum.

         However, this spiral of sin does not have to end here.  Like the younger son, we can turn back to our loving Father, who runs toward us to embrace us, to kiss us.  Msgr. Rubino in this month’s edition of Homiletic & Pastoral Review gives a profound insight: “A significant break with Middle Eastern custom was the father’s action upon seeing the son. In the Middle East culture, old age was seen as a blessing, and reflected certain cultural norms, and ways of behavior.  Seeing his son in the distance, he runs to embrace him. He does not walk; he runs. For an older person to run was a significant loss of status, rank, and dignity as the father would have had to pull up his tunic, expose his bare legs, and run. The father’s behavior was totally beneath the understanding of how ‘senior citizens’ behaved. Surely aware of the customs of the day, he still ran to his prodigal son, risking harsh criticism from his guests for his behavior.” This is where the sacrament of confession comes in: Once the Father has run toward us after our inner detestation of sin, verbal confession is the Father throwing His arms around us; penance is the Father’s kiss.

          But what about the older son?  How do we see him in our spiritual life?  Those of us whose faith becomes simply a Sunday obligation are like the older son.  We go through the motions, but our hearts are far from the Lord.  We prefer entertainment to prayer; we prefer our political leaders over Christ (or our political parties instead of our Church); we are neither hot nor cold – just lukewarm.  As the “older brother,” we can learn something from the “younger brother.”  We need to repent; we need to ask for the gift of fervor from the Father; we need to ask Him to set us on fire for our faith.  As we approach the holy altar this Sunday, we thank God for slaughtering the fattened calf – the Lamb of God – who stands on the altar slain but living.  Let us, who have been lost, be found by the Father in the Son and through the Spirit. Amen.

It is Reasonable to Be Pro-Traditional Marriage

A few days ago, I was watching an interview with an Evangelical couple who owned a bakery in Oregon.  They had to close their bakery because, after refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, the community turned against them and boycotted their business.  In the interview, they cited their Biblical belief in marriage and, despite being persecuted for their belief, they accepted the consequence and trusted in God’s providence.  I was impressed with their solid faith and their willingness to stand up for their belief on national television.  However, I worry sometimes that supporters of traditional marriage can come off sounding as if this is only a religious belief.  Marriage between one man and one woman is certainly Biblical, but almost all cultures and all religions in all times have valued this understanding of marriage.  Even under the pagan law of ancient Rome, marriage was defined as “a union of male and female.”  Pagans knew this – not because of an awareness of Jewish values – but because of natural law, the moral law God has imprinted on the human heart (Romans2:15).

Because Catholics and Evangelicals are united on the Biblical understanding of traditional marriage (the sacramentality thereof notwithstanding), I encourage my Evangelical readers – and Catholics curious about how to address this topic with unbelievers – to consider the natural law arguments and those coming from science.  The Catholic tradition, utilizing faith and reason, takes all that is good from pagan philosophy and natural theology, and also does not reject evidence coming from the human sciences.  One year ago, Most Rev. John J. Myers, Archbishop of Newark, wrote a masterpiece on the reasons why the Catholic Church is against so-called “gay marriage” and why it is bad for society.  I invite my readers who are serious about this subject to read the letter online.  Of course, he covers the Biblical view and makes use of Christian tradition, but the most impressive part of his letter is his application of natural law, biology and secular studies to make the case that “same-sex marriage” is detrimental to civilized society.

The ideology behind support for “same-sex marriage” is a denial of objective morality, which has always been a slippery slope for humanity.  Archbishop Myers writes, “It is so important in our times for us to recognize and to overcome false and ultimately destructive ideologies that deny what thinkers from Plato and Aristotle, to Cicero and Aquinas, to the American founders, to Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi all affirmed: that objective truth exists and it is our task to discover it, be formed by it, and to conform our lives as individuals and communities in accord with the truth. We should want what is good, but something is not good simply because we want it. . . Such is the case with marriage. Many today believe that it is an arbitrary thing whose meaning and purpose is imposed by political or juridical fiat. It can mean one thing now and another later. But this has never been the case.”  The issue of re-defining marriage is larger than I can cover in this forum, but my point is that there is great support for our position outside of Biblical references.  As we continue to be maligned as “bigots” or “homophobes” by a hostile world for our sensible position, it is good to know that divine revelation and nature are on our side.

“Oh Lord It’s Hard To Be Humble”

In 1980, country music singer Mac Davis composed a light-hearted song about how vanity and popularity can go to one’s head.  The refrain is probably the most recognized and amusing part of the song: “Oh Lord it's hard to be humble / When you're perfect in every way. / I can't wait to look in the mirror / Cause I get better looking each day. / To know me is to love me / I must be a hell of a man. / Oh Lord it's hard to be humble / But I'm doing the best that I can.”

Although most of us are not this vain (at least we won’t admit to it :-), we all struggle with the capital sin of pride in its various manifestations: thinking we are better than others, refusing to admit when we are wrong, ambitious to get ahead, insistent on “having the last word,” and not respecting the opinions of others.  Indeed, it is hard to be humble.  The good news is that our Blessed Lord knows this.  And whether or not we want it, He will teach us the virtue of humility in one way or another.

In the gospel of today’s (Sept 1) Mass, Jesus watches how guests at a Pharisee’s home presume seats of honor (Luke 14:7-14).  Our Lord takes the opportunity (as is often the case when He observes vices) to give a parable — a parable concerning the conduct of invited guests and hosts: Guests of honor should be humble enough not to presume seats of honor; Hosts should be humble enough to invite those who do not present a social advantage.  For a challenging take on this teaching of Christ, I recommend Happy Are You Poor (Ignatius Press, 2003) by the late Fr. Dubay, S.M.

So, what is Jesus teaching about the nature of humility?  True humility is not timidity or mediocrity; it is not opposed to legitimately desire personal advancement, professional prestige and well-deserved recognition.  However, the humble person does not “show off” and knows his purpose in life is not to be praised but rather to carry out a mission for God and for others.  We might take an opportunity this Sunday to reflect on how the Lord might be asking us to practice this virtue in our particular state in life.  Do we have a puffed-up view of ourselves that needs to come down a few notches?  Do we refuse to apologize when we are clearly in the wrong?  Do we justify our own sins in order to avoid the confessional?  It is much easier to see these vices in others, but humility helps us see them in ourselves and to humbly ask for the Lord’s help in overcoming them.

It is hard to be humble, but a daily examination of conscience keeps our feet on the earth and our heart in the Lord’s hands.  God alone is perfect, and He wishes to perfect us in our weakness with His healing grace through the Cross of Christ.  [M]ay I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians6:14).

Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”?

The Swiss theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote a book in 1988 that expressed optimism for the salvation of many at the Final Judgment.  The basis for von Balthasar’s book is a quote from St. Paul: [God our savior] wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). “The question is whether God, with respect to his plan of salvation, ultimately depends, and wants to depend, upon man’s choice; or whether his freedom, which wills only salvation and is absolute, might not remain above things human, created, and therefore relative” (Dare We Hope, 15).  Von Balthasar examines the tension that can sometimes seem to exist between God’s justice and His mercy.  “On his earthly pilgrimage, man is . . . placed between fear and hope, simply because he is under judgment and does not know” (Ibid., 27).

While theologians have the license to debate the perceived harshness of God’s judgment (or the softness of His mercy), the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is not universal salvation.  In other words, the Catholic Church does not teach that everyone is going to heaven regardless of the lives they led or the god they worshipped.  “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end’” (CCC 161).  But what about those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Does this mean they are damned?

The Second Vatican Council reflected on this question and formulated a response that must be understood in its proper context: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life” (Lumen Gentium, 16).  Notice: Vatican II does not simply say non-Christians are going heaven; it reminds us that we still have the important task of evangelizing them.  (I will write on this in the future.)

Over the last few Sundays, we have been hearing many gospel passages in which our Lord is reminding us of the need to be vigilant and to persevere (Luke 11-13).  If we are all just going to go to heaven regardless of our relationship with Christ and our moral choices, it would not matter whether or not we persevere.  However, Christ reminds us in the gospel this Sunday (August 25): “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough” (Luke 13:24).  God does will that we all be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, but He will not force us.  He gives us free will to cooperate with His saving grace.  If we do not enter through the narrow gate, we have only ourselves to blame — not God.  Christ is the narrow gate, and if we commit ourselves to Him, we do dare to hope that we will all be saved.

Reflection for August 18

How can Christ set our Catholic Communities on Fire?

A Pastoral Reflection

Today's readings can be found here.

In the gospel of this Sunday’s Mass, our Lord says, “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!” (Luke 12:49).  As I am beginning my third year as priest in Centerville and Hilltop Lakes (also part-time in Madisonville), I would like to reflect on the ways Christ is kindling a fire in the communities I serve.  However, I would also like to suggest a few ways that can help this light to burn more brightly.

At St. Leo the Great, much has been accomplished so far in 2013.  During Lent, we undertook the renovation of our little church.  Just recently we paved our driveway with concrete.  The great news is that – thanks to your generosity – we are doing well financially and not in debt.  The aesthetic improvements are a visible sign to Centerville that Christ has ignited a great flame of faith in his Real Presence, which is the heart of our Catholic community and identity.  We look forward to the feast of St. Leo the Great on Sunday, November 10^th, and the raffle of the iPad.  At this point, now that much of the needed maintenance has been taken care of, we will be saving and planning for a church hall with classroom space.  I also plan to write the Bishop this year to ask if St. Leo’s is ready to be promoted to “parish” status.  (We’re still a mission of Crocket!).

At St. Thomas More, our new church could be paid off before the end of the year, and we look forward to new pews before Thanksgiving.  The number of families has doubled since the dedication of our church in December 2011.  At both St. Leo’s and STM, we were able to have Family Faith Formation during 2012-2013.  With the help of my deacons and catechists, I plan to continue Family Faith Formation this year.  For adult faith formation, we will be doing The Great Adventure Catholic bible study in order to gain a holistic approach to Sacred Scripture.  I also plan to ask the Bishop if STM can be officially made a “mission” of St. Leo’s.

Building projects, financial stability, and catechesis are great qualities to have in our Catholic communities, but if these strengths are not moving us to a deeper interior life and a stronger sense of mission, then we need to consider that maybe Christ’s flame needs a bit more fuel.  Perhaps we could consider a stronger commitment to devotional confession, attending daily Mass, and spending quality time with Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration.  I realize that Mass and Adoration may be difficult for some families, but I plan to work with the pastoral councils about how to encourage more participation in these spiritual and sacramental opportunities.  

Another way Christ might be wanting to ignite you is by volunteering for both the needs at the church (sacristy, floral, and liturgical ministries) and the needs in the larger community (visiting the homebound, nursing homes, pro-life activities).  I kindly ask that we all prayerfully reflect on our personal contribution to our Catholic communities.  Am I responding to Christ’s flame of faith in my heart through some form of generous giving?  Is Christ asking me to volunteer in some way?  Do I see confession, Mass and Adoration as sure ways for Christ to intensify my flame so that I can ignite Centerville and Hilltop Lakes with the love of Christ?  May the Holy Spirit guide your discernment and may Christ set you on fire to be the saint He has called you to be.

Part IV: Paul VI, John Paul II and Building the “Culture of Life”

Birth Control and the Catholic Church

On July 25, 1968, on the feast of St. James the Apostle, Humanæ Vitæ was promulgated by Pope Paul VI.  It is a relatively short encyclical and speaks of the moral threats to holy matrimony, the Magisterium's response, pastoral principles, and catechesis on the meaning of human sexuality.  In continuity with the Church’s tradition, he affirmed his predecessors’ teaching that contraception and sterilization are intrinsically disordered practices and always contrary to the ends of holy matrimony. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of fallout over this encyclical —especially among faculties of theology in many universities and seminaries.  Men training to be priests were either told to “soft-pedal” this teaching or “just don’t go there.”  Lay persons were told “birth control is just a matter of conscience despite Church teaching against it.”  Because correct teaching on the right formation of conscience was neglected in the years directly following Vatican II, this is regrettably the approach many still take in the Church today.

[Soon to be Saint] John Paul II did much during his pontificate to build upon Humanæ Vitæ and made significant contributions of his own to furthering a holistic approach to the human person, and in particular, to human sexuality.  His very life showed the contrast between a “culture of death” and the “Culture of Life,” which energized the faithful around the world to have a better sense of what it means to be Pro-Life.  Being Pro-Life does not just mean we are against abortion.  It means we are against anything that offends against human and Christian decency.  In fact, being Pro-Life is not essentially about “what we’re against.”  It means imitating the Fiat – the “Yes” – of our Lady to the call to follow God’s will, to respond affirmatively to the universal call of holiness, and to proclaim the Gospel of Life in word and action.

The Gospel of Life is essentially the message of Jesus Christ — that He came to give us abundant life (John 10:10).  Therefore the message of life is essentially evangelical.  I want my Evangelical readers to reflect on some of the prophecies that Paul VI had in his encyclical: He predicted that if artificial contraception became widespread and accepted in society, there would be higher rates of infidelity, divorce, and abortion (for abortion is the Plan B of contraception); that many men (including married men) would lose respect for women and view them as objects for selfish pleasure; and that governments would promote and enforce contraception on the weakest members of society.  These atrocities have all come true.  While there may not necessarily be a direct causal relationship, it would be absurd to say that artificial contraception has not contributed to the demise of healthy, holy human sexuality during the last 50 years.

Thankfully, there is a “New Springtime” of lay faithful who are committed to living out God’s plan for holy matrimony.  John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” has provided a positive approach to sexual ethics.  Many practice Natural Family Planning (NFP) to space births when necessary in a way that respects marital goods and that helps spouses to communicate better and grow together.  For more information about NFP, I invite you to visit The Couple to Couple League website.  Please continue to reflect on the points I have covered the last few weeks and pray for the spread of the Gospel of Life!

Reflection for August 4

Birth Control and the Catholic Church

(Part II: The Old & New Testaments and the Early Church)

When did the debate begin in the Catholic Church on artificial birth control?  When did a Catholic’s stance on this issue become the litmus test to determine one a “liberal” or a “conservative”?  Interestingly enough, the answer is the 20^th Century, which is quite recent when one considers that the Church is nearly 2,000 years old.  Yet, even before the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, we do not see among the Chosen People a debate about birth control.  The Jewish People considered children as gifts – as blessings – from the Lord.  There is an instance in Genesis in which the Lord is displeased with a perversion of the marital act:  When Onan “wasted his seed on the ground” in order to avoid conception, God struck him down (Gn 38:9-10).  We are also aware of offenses against the 6^th and 9^th Commandments and their respective punishments throughout the OT.

With the revelation of Jesus Christ, we see marriage restored to its former luster.  Not only is the dignity and indissolubility of holy matrimony restored by Christ, but He elevates this union to the level of sacrament, which is the basis of Humanæ Vitæ (written almost 1,900 years after Christ instituted this sacrament) and which has always been the foundation of the Church’s consistent teaching on marriage and the meaning of human sexuality.  With the epistles of St. Paul (in particular Ephesians 5), we learn that holy matrimony reflects Christ’s passionate love for His bride, the Church.  There are also passages of St. Paul and of the other writers of the New Testament on marriage and love, yet the NT is silent on the issue of artificial contraception itself (even though forms of birth control were practiced in the ancient world).  It was understood that marriage is naturally ordered to an end, a purpose, and that purpose is the proliferation of children.  There is no dispute in the NT about birth control.  The Council of Jerusalem was about circumcision — not contraception.

In the early Church Fathers, we do not encounter a debate about contraception, but what we do encounter (in continuity with the NT) is a clear condemnation of all anti-life practices including euthanasia, homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, masturbation, abortion (including post-natal abortion) and any form of birth control.  Once again, there was no question that one of the principal purposes of holy matrimony was to generate human life.  St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom might have argued over the effect concupiscence has on marital goods, but all the Fathers were in agreement that marriage is ordered to procreation.

Next we will review the contribution of St. Thomas Aquinas and the ecumenical councils, and we will look closely at Protestantism’s approach to artificial contraception and how it gradually changed.  The Catholic Church stood her ground, but Christianity at large was acutely weakened in the fight against the “culture of death” when nearly all Protestant denominations accepted birth control in the 20^th Century.  In spite of a mostly unified front against the evil of abortion, this difference of belief does affect how Catholics and Protestants (particularly Evangelicals) contribute to the Pro-Life movement.  Without threatening our Christian unity, the difference is at least worth discussing.

(Part III: Aquinas, the Reformation, and the Lambeth Conference)

The former ecumenical councils and the scholastics (4^th-14^th Centuries) continued to reinforce that the purpose of holy matrimony is the unity of spouses and the procreation of children.  Particularly with St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church developed a greater dogmatic, sacramental and moral vocabulary by which she could articulate the goods of Christian marriage.  Surprisingly, Protestantism in the 16^th Century did not challenge the Catholic Church’s position against artificial birth control.  Luther, Calvin and Zwingli – while challenging the sacramentality of marriage – never challenged Christian marriage’s natural end.  The Council of Trent in Session 24 dealing with the Sacrament of Matrimony did not see a need to issue a canon explicitly anathematizing those who use contraception.  It was simply not a point of dispute with the Protestants.  Both Catholic and Protestant countries had civil laws against the use of contraception until the 20^th Century.  Even in our own country, many states had laws in the books outlawing the sale of contraceptives until just a few decades ago.  Most of these lawmakers were Protestants.

It was not until 1930 during the Seventh Lambeth Conference that the Anglican Church approved contraception in limited cases.  This radical move prompted all Christians to begin to re-examine the ethics of family planning.  The Catholic Church quickly saw the slippery slope that had been paved by the Anglican Church for other Protestant denominations.  By the end of that year, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Casti Connubii – on the dignity of chaste wedlock – in which he expressed in detail the perennial teaching of the Church on the sanctity of marriage which precludes deliberate interference with the life process.  While affirming the legitimate need at times to “space births”, Pius XI condemned contraception and sterilization as a means to this end.  He declared them as “against nature and thus intrinsically evil.”  Popes Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII issued statements in subsequent decades in continuity with Casti Connubii.  However, from the Protestant side, there was very little resistance to the change of thought initiated by the Anglicans.  Many ecclesial communities – Reformed, Traditional and Evangelical – began to follow suit with the Anglicans.  The “limited cases” qualification got wider and eventually members of these Protestant communities were able to justify contraception for any reason.  Vatican II, while not issuing a document directly addressing artificial birth control, did affirm the dignity of the sacrament of matrimony in Gaudium et Spes; and in footnote 14 of that same document, part II, chapter 1, Paul VI personally intervened to quote Casti Connubii’s condemnation of contraception.

In the interim between the end of the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of Humanæ Vitæ, there were many who thought the Catholic Church would soon change this teaching.  Moral theologians debated about the absolute ban on all contraception — whether or not there are cases in which contraception could be licit or even necessary.  Pope Paul VI created a commission of theologians and specialists who came up with a Majority Report and a Minority Report in preparation of his encyclical.  These findings were published by the National Catholic Reporter and The Tablet in 1966, but it is unclear if they were ever meant to be public.  Many thought Paul VI was going to allow contraception in limited cases (similar to what the Anglicans had done in the 1930s).  Next week, we will focus on what Humanæ Vitæ actually said, how it was received, and what it means for the Pro-Life movement today.