1,721,077 research outputs found
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textFor people of the 21st century, and especially for people born and raised in a country ruled by democracy, the very notion of nobility as a social class is quite foreign. So the fact that Aloysius was born into a noble family and was heir to the family title of nobility may not mean to us as much as the fact that he was born into a wealthy and influential family. Wealth and clout we do understand. Why, then, would a young man give up that wealth and influence? There may not be a valid answer to that question, because "Why?" is a head question, while Aloysius' answer came from the heart, and we cannot quite address head questions with heart answers.|His answer addressed a deeper heart question: "What, then, will one gain by winning the whole world and forfeiting one's soul?" [Mt. 16:26] He really had it made by being the heir to the title of Marquis of Castiglione. He did not even have to enter the race to come ahead. Yet the gospel question kept hounding him. A question that in contemporary and non-scriptural form was answered by author Ann Quindlen in her commencement address at Villanova University, when she recalled the words sent to her by her father on a postcard: "If you win the rat race, you are still a rat." In that light, wealth and clout lose their tantalizing attraction.|Today's gospel, then, is most pertinent: "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" It sounded astonishing to the Apostles and it still sounds hard to us. Is something wrong with being rich? After all, the Patriarchs are portrayed as being immensely rich and their very wealth was seen as a sign of God's blessing. No, there is nothing wrong with possessing riches -and riches include our personal giftedness- but rather in being possessed by them, in allowing the tail to wag the dog. The more wealth and influence we can count on to sustain our sense of self-sufficiency, the harder it is for us to recognize and own our radical self-insufficiency before God. That is why it is so "hard for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God." The Patriarchs did recognize and own before God their self-insufficiency and, in the midst of their wealth, they remained anawim. So did Aloysius Gonzaga, the heir to the house of Castiglione
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textWhen years ago the youngest son of some dear friends of mine was being prepared for first communion, his mother explained to him that Jesus and Mary were the only two human beings conceived without original sin. That was quite intriguing for the young kid, who sought assurance: "The only two? No one else?" Upon reassurance, he asked: "Then, how come they are not in the Guinness Book of Records?" As Paul writes, "When I was a child, I thought like a child...". A few months ago I had the joy of blessing that inquisitive kid's marriage, certainly a far more mature person who no longer thinks as a child.||It is a happy timing that we celebrate Mary during this Advent season of expectation, because her experience was an advent/expectation of God's manifestation in her life. In the context of her post-annunciation life, the physical expectation of gestation was likely the easiest one, as is usually a mother's expectation of her first child's birth. By contrast, the remainder of her life before her Son's resurrection was often marked by darkness. Luke tells us repeatedly that "Mary did not understand," yet "she kept these things pondering them in her heart," waiting for light in a more trying kind of expectation with an attitude of total self-giving.|But self-giving is conditioned by freedom, indeed by a twofold freedom. First a freedom from: freedom from fear and insecurity, trusting that sharing of what we are -more important and demanding than sharing of what we have- will not impoverish us, but rather enrich us and expand the breadth of our hearts. But also a freedom for: a freedom of availability, which is more a result of the former than a goal to be directly pursued. Mary had this twofold freedom that allowed her to give God a blank check: "Let it be done to me according to your word." It also allowed her to proceed through darkness, pondering and remaining available to God's ways in her life.|As we honor Mary during this season of expectation anticipating the celebration of our having been redeemed -freed-, it is proper to pray for the gift of keeping that twofold freedom operative in our lives
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textToday's gospel scene brings back old childhood memories of my dad, my brother and myself walking alongside fields of still green wheat and picking some ears to eat the soft milky grains. No one ever accused us of stealing. After all, what is a few ears in a whole field of wheat? As a matter of fact stealing was not the point of the Pharisees' reproach either. Their point was the (to them) unacceptable objective violation of an established religious norm of behavior -or, at least, of their interpretation of that norm.||That is precisely what Jesus rejects: the absolutizing of norms regardless of context, of proportion or of human need; the placing of norms above people. And he reminds them of one case in their own respected tradition, where David, a lay person, acted in objective violation of a clear religious norm by unlawfully eating of the bread reserved for priests -David, "a man after God's own heart."[1Sam. 13:14]|| When we absolutize norms, we do not feel we have any need to make allowances for special circumstances: upbringing, personal acumen, sickness, need, emergencies... Absolutizing tricks us into feeling excused from using compassion, understanding, even common sense (arguably the least common of senses.) We need to remain aware that, in Jesus' mind, the Sabbath and other religious norms are for people and not vice versa. [Mk. 2:27]. I am convinced that we could diffuse much of the current internal tensions in the Church, if we had the attitude Jesus displays in today's gospel scene toward religious norms or guidelines. If we can learn vicariously from historically recent situations, the rigid literalism of the Taliban leaders might offer us some pause for reflection
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textSt. Peter Faber, S.J., one of the co-founders of the Society of Jesus, always prayed to the guardian angels of a locality, where he was going to exercise his priestly ministry. Most of us, I surmise, were taught in our childhood to pray to our personal guardian angel and those night prayers probably remained in our memories for some time. Personally, I have to admit that I have let go of that devotion and I am not necessarily proud of it.|Although it has never been defined by the Church as Catholic doctrine, devotion to the Guardian Angels has a long tradition in the Church. In today's gospel reading Jesus does refer to the little children's "angels in heaven". In the Old Testament we read on more than one occasion that the angel of the Lord appeared and talked to someone like Abraham or Gideon, but then the person visited responds by addressing the angel as Lord or God. As far as I know, within Catholic Theology "angelology" is far from clearly or completely established.|But there is a scene in the very beginning of the book of Genesis [4: 8], where Cain, who had just murdered his brother Abel and was being questioned by God about it, responds with a question of his own: Am I my brother's keeper? In a way, he was telling God that he did not consider himself his brother's "guardian angel". God did not answer Cain's question directly, but God's reproach and condemnation of Cain's deed amounts to an affirmative answer. We may not consider ourselves our brothers' or sisters' "guardian angels", yet we do have some responsibility not only not to hurt them, but also to help them in their various needs to the extent that we can
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textThere was an inner urging in the man who "ran up" just "as Jesus was setting out on a journey." He could not wait until the next time Jesus would pass by. He seems to have been a genuinely good person, who had learned the basics well, but who in his heart felt drawn to what St. John of the Cross calls a certain "I don't know what." This puzzled him, precisely because he had always observed the basics. Much to his surprise Jesus challenges him to think "outside the box."|"The box" provides us with a reassuring comfort zone. We like knowing what the rules are, because then we can put a check mark next to each one of them and give ourselves a pat on the back. It is the smug satisfaction of the Pharisee at prayer in the temple, who recites selectively some of the rules and check-marks them one by one and then declares himself righteous. Was the man in today's gospel reading expecting to hear from Jesus: "you have arrived"? Now that he had "mastered" the list, was he looking for an advanced list of "graduate level" rules that he could also check-mark?|Instead Jesus invites him to stretch his heart beyond the basics of rules and prescriptions. Rules give only a minimum: a floor, not a ceiling. Sidelines and rules serve as the minimum of many a sport, but no one wins a game by just staying inbounds and avoiding penalties. Jesus sensed that the man's heart was looking for a win, for something more, and Jesus liked that ─we are told that "Jesus looking at him loved him". But then Jesus told him something the man was not prepared to hear: you must make yourself vulnerable to God's invitation beyond rules and minima ─you cannot ask God to come where you are and meet you there. God must be allowed to remain Lord of the encounter. God's call to Abraham was both an invitation and a challenge to walk in God's presence: open-ended, no maps, no GPS, no announced destination.|That is a threatening proposition for us, who suffer from what I like to call the Google maps syndrome. We feel we need an identifiable destination and a highlighted route to get there. Can we allow ourselves to be drawn to an "I don't know what" or, for that matter, "I don't know whither"? Or will we, too, go away sad, because our lives are already heavily invested inside a box in ways that do not leave room for that much freedom and trust
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full text|We encounter in today's gospel readings one of the experiences that moved people to remark that Jesus spoke with authority, not like their Scribes [Mk. 1:22]. The Scribes could only claim authority by quoting from the Scriptures. Jesus does quote from the same source now and then, yet daring to improve upon the text. Today's passage is typical in this respect: you have heard that it was said to your ancestors... But I say to you.... Their ancestors had been told: You shall not kill, which Jesus sees only as a bare minimum in relating to others. Anyone failing to meet that minimum will be condemned. But there is far more beyond that minimum and Jesus extends his teaching into that vast domain: if you speak unkindly to your brother, you will be condemned. |As he makes them aware of God's disapproval of such attitude, he draws for them a pertinent conclusion: If you bring your gift to the altar and there you recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother and then come and offer your gift. In a ritual way we do respond to his injunction at the beginning of Mass by admitting: I confess... to you, my brothers and sisters.... But the reciting of ritual formulae can easily slide past our lips coming from our memory without coming from our hearts. |I have at times felt the need to leave the altar at the time of the offertory and look for the brothers and sisters, who may have anything against me. Not the most practical desire, given that those brothers and sisters may not even be in church at that moment (not to mention the risk that, if everyone else took that injunction literally, I might be facing an empty church). But I feel grateful for the urge all the same, for it challenges me to take the Lord's words seriously and it commits me, at least for the immediate future, to make the effort not to give any brothers or sisters a reason to have anything against me. |But if they do have anything against me, do I really have to wait until offertory time to seek reconciliation? Are we not challenged by God to make every moment of our lives -death included- an offering to God? In Paul's understanding of the Christian's life, ...while we live, we live for the Lord; and when we die, it is also for the Lord that we die [Rom. 14:8]. Every moment of our lives being an offering to the Lord, we certainly do not have to wait for the liturgical offertory to seek reconciliation with our sisters and brothers
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textAlthough today we remember the martyrdom of the Japanese Jesuit Paul Miki and his companions, the readings are those for the week day and I will focus my comments on those readings, rather than on the martyrs of this date.||The first reading recalls for us part of the creation narrative, of whose details there is an ample spectrum of understandings among believers. Entering that debate does not seem to me to be the purpose of the Daily Reflections, so I will comment on one particular dimension of the narrative that can have a more direct spiritual impact on readers. While it is true that in the common understanding creation consists in bringing something out of nothing, the narrative highlights God's creative action rather as bringing order out of an existing chaos and into an orderliness God saw as "very good". This creative activity of God continues daily in our own personal lives, as well as in the life of the Church: leading the chaos of darkness/obscurity toward the order of light, leading the chaos of self-seeking toward the order of being for others. God is certainly Creator for what he did in the primeval creation process, but also for what God continues to do (or desires to do) daily in our lives. The key difference is that the cosmic chaos did not resist God's creative action, whereas our personal chaos can and does resist it.|Seeing creation in this light gives a new twist to the idea of being "creative". For us to be involved in God's creative action today needs to include playing a role in bringing to some order the chaos we experience around us, not just within ourselves: the chaos of inequity, prejudice and discrimination, the chaos of violence both internationally and in our own streets and homes, the chaos of abused supremacy of various types. Not an involvement of ending chaos once for all, nor one of bringing order to the entire world (such well meant tall orders could easily seem to excuse us from attempting to do anything at all), but one of being contributors in leading the small world we touch somewhat away from chaos and somewhat toward more order. In one of my earlier reflections I quoted the words of Alfred Delp, a Jesuit hanged in Berlin's infamous Pl and ouml;tzensee prison by the Nazi regime: When through one man (meant inclusively, I am sure) a little more love and goodness, a little more light and truth come into the world, then that man's life has had meaning. In the present context one could add: "a little more order and a little less chaos".|The Gospel reading can be seen as challenging the selective pseudo-order the Pharisees had found in the stability and comfort of external observances that belied internal chaos. Jesus' reproach to them is reminiscent of an observation made by the late Belgian Jesuit Moritz Meschler, when he remarked rather casually that some animals need a shell, because they lack a backbone. We all need some sense of firmness (order) in our faith lives and, if we do not find it within ourselves (backbone), we will seek to surround ourselves with external shells that keep us from feeling wobbly. I am afraid that, as the Church gathered at the Vatican II council and opened wide or removed some existing shells, some of us began to feel less than firm and threatened by the challenge of having to grow our own backbone, as Jesus challenged the Pharisees to do. Instability and wobbliness are forms of chaos and we need to let God's creative action lead us gradually toward an order resulting from our own inner firmness rather than from external shells alone. But this can only be an ongoing life-long project, because the Lord's promise to the Apostles and to us is that the Spirit will "lead you to the complete truth" [Jn. 16:13], not settle us in it
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textActs 4: 32 tells us that the community of believers were of one heart and mind and that is how the apostles themselves are generally believed to have been, and –I surmise– that is also why Peter and Paul are celebrated together as pillars of the Church forming a harmonious dyad. Pillars they were all right and I have no doubt they were of one heart. But of one mind? They were that too, at least when the first Council of Jerusalem discussed essentials. However, oneness of mind in essentials did not necessarily mean oneness of mind in every single issue.|Even when enlightened by the Spirit, Peter's mind remained ultimately the mind of a good fisherman: down to earth, but not necessarily sophisticated, at least not in comparison to Paul's. Peter himself seems to admit to that much, as we read in his second letter: ...our beloved brother Paul... wrote to you, speaking of these things in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand... [2Pet. 3: 16]. One in heart they were, but oneness of mind was not to be taken for granted on Peter's side.|Or on Paul's side for that matter. It was not often that the two of them were together in the same place, but it did happen in Antioch. There Peter seems to have been backtracking on his conviction that associating with Gentiles was not forbidden to the followers of Jesus. Paul remembers that encounter very well: ...when Cephas came to Antioch, then I did oppose him to his face, since he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain people from James came, he used to eat with Gentiles; but as soon as these came, he backed up and kept apart from them for fear of the circumcised [Gal. 2: 11-12]. Not of one mind in that issue. Was Paul afraid that –out of fear– Peter could be sliding back into the dissembling that led him to deny –also out of fear– that he even knew Jesus?|Oneness of mind and heart speaks of unanimity (uni-animity or one-spirit-ness), not necessarily of uniformity. The apostolic faith planted by both Peter and Paul remained the same in its essentials, but in its details it was not cloned in every one of the many faith communities that sprang from their proclamation. Each exhibited its own identifying characteristics without being perceived as a threat to unanimity, a growth that in its diversity was seen as guided by the Holy Spirit. Today's Church extends over clearly diverse societies and cultures and, taking a clue from Peter and Paul, it strives to preserve unanimity. Micromanaging the growth of each local church over the planet may achieve the external impression of uniformity, but, in disregarding what is legitimately proper to the local church, it could hurt unanimity. Unanimity is a gift of the Spirit, uniformity is not. We need Paul's freedom to disagree with Peter and Peter's honest acknowledgment that there are levels of sophistication and depth in the grasping and articulation of our common faith, levels Peter was not always in a position to understand
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textThe liturgical rank of this day has been lowered to memorial of... and we might not be surprised by that. In our democratic society royal dignity does not have all that much meaning. Even colleges have discontinued their traditional Campus King and Campus Queen pageants. We do not quite know what royalty means. One thing this memorial does not mean is declaring Mary Queen for a Day, as in the old television program, and Putzfrau (cleaning woman) for the rest of the year.|Mary's dignity is necessarily associated with the dignity of her Son as King, which we celebrate on the last day of the liturgical year as the feast of Christ King. Jesus himself recognized such dignity before Pilate. As baptism incorporates us in the mission of Christ, it sends us to proclaim God's kingdom/reign.|But Christ's reign is a two-dimensional concept. Objectively, it refers to Christ's dignity and power. Subjectively, it refers to acceptance on our side, to our recognition of his values and priorities as the rule of our lives. Without our acceptance Christ's kingdom remains incomplete in us.|Mary's queenship shares in this two-dimensional nature. Objectively, it refers to Mary's dignity as Mother of Christ King. Subjectively, it refers to acceptance on our side, to our recognition of her life as exemplar for our own lives. Without such acceptance Mary's queenship remains incomplete in us and we would be making Mary Queen for a Day, for this one day
Daily Reflections (Meditations) on the Scriptures from the Roman Catholic Lectionary.
No full textThe first sentence of today's first reading is: You are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment and the rest of the reading makes it clear that he means passing judgment on others. Is Paul telling us to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", to be naive and undiscerning? Part of the prophetic role of the baptized is precisely that: to be prophetic, not to abstain from taking positions. Part of our being sent is to call evil what is evil and good what is good. But this does not necessarily mean that we have to set ourselves up as judges of others.|In the English language a pertinent distinction is offered in the use of two different words, namely, critiquing and criticizing. They both have the same etymological root in the Greek verb krinein, but they have different meanings. We critique products: books, poetry, paintings, music... We critique actions, strategies, principles... The moment we pass from products to persons, from actions to agents, we are no longer critiquing, we are criticizing. And in criticizing we are setting ourselves up as judges of our brothers and sisters, we become "personal" in our passing judgment. We are able to critique products, because, at least to some extent, we can "measure" their quality. But we do not have any sure gauge to measure the intention and heart of the agent, as distinct from the action itself, and so to criticize the person.|Paul's injunction envisages criticizing, not simple critiquing and it amounts to an injunction to avoid condemning. We are privileged to live at this time in the Church's history, when Pope Francis proclaims mercy as the guiding light of his ministry and acts accordingly. In less than two months ―December 8th― we will begin the extraordinary Holy Year of Mercy, an extraordinary jubilee year announced by him earlier this year and certainly not condemning belongs fully in the context of such year
- …
