A Catholic website for the modern reader
Good News
A Need for Sackcloth
Sackcloth, especially when accompanied by sitting in ashes, has a rich history in the Scriptures and the life of the early church. In today’s world it is considered as beyond medieval in terms of its relevance, and barbaric in terms of a punishment. In fact, though, it was less punishment than it was repentance.
Sackcloth and ashes were used as very public displays of one’s sins and a sign of contrition—a promise not to sin again once the time of repentance was finished. Perhaps we should consider bringing back the practice. And do so on a very public scale.
The Covid 19 pandemic has unmasked a number of deep-seated issues festering within us all. On the surface some seem selfish and even infantile. Such as the suggestion that wearing a mask impinges on our freedom.
Others appeal more fundamentally to the Constitution, with the suggestion that restricting religious services somehow violates the First Amendment. That position is sometimes coupled with the absurdity that God will protect worshippers from falling ill to the power of the virus. In reality, a number of ministers who claimed that protection and continued to lead worship services have themselves died from Covid 19. Not intending to sound insensitive, there might be some poetic justice in that.
One would hope that a rational Supreme Court would see through the fallacy of that First Amendment argument to the more fundamental principle of life. But that hope was dashed by Justices who are less rational than we thought. What is most disconcerting, from a Christian point of view, is the twisted logic that religious freedom supersedes the government’s power to protect its citizens during a pandemic. Take Washington, D.C.
I have long been an admirer of Archbishop Wilton Gregory. When Pope Francis appointed him to head the Archdiocese I thought it was an excellent choice, as was the decision to elevate Gregory to the College of Cardinals. This is a man whom I have always considered to be a faithful advocate of the Gospel, both in word and deed.
However, he recently joined the chorus of misguided religious leaders by filing a lawsuit against the District of Columbia’s restrictions on houses of worship. He even argued his case in an op-ed piece printed in the Washington Post. Others have already demonstrated the weaknesses of the Cardinal’s position, particularly his comparison of religious services to retail establishments and liquor stores. Shoppers do not gather together for an hour shouting and singing God’s praises as they select their bread and wine.
Indeed Cardinal Gregory is correct to emphasize the importance of worship to believers, as well as the significance of the Christmas season. Yet Easter, being the core of the Christian Kerygma, is far more important. Yet the church survived the restrictions in place last spring. Still, there is a deeper concern at issue here. And it is to be found in the Gospel itself.
In the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel (25:31-46) we are presented with the measurement of one’s worthiness to enter into the Kingdom. It has nothing to do with church attendance or, for that matter, with prayer. The sole criteria is how we treat one another, specifically those in need. Don’t get me wrong. Worship is important. But when it jeopardizes the health of the community—especially during a pandemic—it takes a back seat to restrictions. Does anyone really believe that God cares more about us worshipping him than he does about us protecting each other? The passage cited above would suggest exactly the opposite: “What you did to the least of these you did to me.” Cardinal Gregory would never suggest, in word, that we expose each other to Covid 19. But his lawsuit does exactly that—in deed.
There is an obvious contingency at work here. It is known as a super spreader event. Gathering people together during a pandemic, inside a closed building, to sing and pray aloud, exposes not only the worshippers, but the broader community to Covid 19. Couple that with what Jesus says, and we can conclude that the contingency is clearly sinful.
Perhaps the Cardinal would consider another way to proclaim the Good News. More powerful than lawsuits or op-ed articles in the local paper, would be acknowledging super spreader events and the sinfulness of encouraging them. A week or ten days of wearing sackcloth and ashes in the nation’s capitol might awaken in all Catholics a commitment to the Good News. Who knows? It might even even have an effect on Congress.
Sackcloth and ashes were used as very public displays of one’s sins and a sign of contrition—a promise not to sin again once the time of repentance was finished. Perhaps we should consider bringing back the practice. And do so on a very public scale.
The Covid 19 pandemic has unmasked a number of deep-seated issues festering within us all. On the surface some seem selfish and even infantile. Such as the suggestion that wearing a mask impinges on our freedom.
Others appeal more fundamentally to the Constitution, with the suggestion that restricting religious services somehow violates the First Amendment. That position is sometimes coupled with the absurdity that God will protect worshippers from falling ill to the power of the virus. In reality, a number of ministers who claimed that protection and continued to lead worship services have themselves died from Covid 19. Not intending to sound insensitive, there might be some poetic justice in that.
One would hope that a rational Supreme Court would see through the fallacy of that First Amendment argument to the more fundamental principle of life. But that hope was dashed by Justices who are less rational than we thought. What is most disconcerting, from a Christian point of view, is the twisted logic that religious freedom supersedes the government’s power to protect its citizens during a pandemic. Take Washington, D.C.
I have long been an admirer of Archbishop Wilton Gregory. When Pope Francis appointed him to head the Archdiocese I thought it was an excellent choice, as was the decision to elevate Gregory to the College of Cardinals. This is a man whom I have always considered to be a faithful advocate of the Gospel, both in word and deed.
However, he recently joined the chorus of misguided religious leaders by filing a lawsuit against the District of Columbia’s restrictions on houses of worship. He even argued his case in an op-ed piece printed in the Washington Post. Others have already demonstrated the weaknesses of the Cardinal’s position, particularly his comparison of religious services to retail establishments and liquor stores. Shoppers do not gather together for an hour shouting and singing God’s praises as they select their bread and wine.
Indeed Cardinal Gregory is correct to emphasize the importance of worship to believers, as well as the significance of the Christmas season. Yet Easter, being the core of the Christian Kerygma, is far more important. Yet the church survived the restrictions in place last spring. Still, there is a deeper concern at issue here. And it is to be found in the Gospel itself.
In the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel (25:31-46) we are presented with the measurement of one’s worthiness to enter into the Kingdom. It has nothing to do with church attendance or, for that matter, with prayer. The sole criteria is how we treat one another, specifically those in need. Don’t get me wrong. Worship is important. But when it jeopardizes the health of the community—especially during a pandemic—it takes a back seat to restrictions. Does anyone really believe that God cares more about us worshipping him than he does about us protecting each other? The passage cited above would suggest exactly the opposite: “What you did to the least of these you did to me.” Cardinal Gregory would never suggest, in word, that we expose each other to Covid 19. But his lawsuit does exactly that—in deed.
There is an obvious contingency at work here. It is known as a super spreader event. Gathering people together during a pandemic, inside a closed building, to sing and pray aloud, exposes not only the worshippers, but the broader community to Covid 19. Couple that with what Jesus says, and we can conclude that the contingency is clearly sinful.
Perhaps the Cardinal would consider another way to proclaim the Good News. More powerful than lawsuits or op-ed articles in the local paper, would be acknowledging super spreader events and the sinfulness of encouraging them. A week or ten days of wearing sackcloth and ashes in the nation’s capitol might awaken in all Catholics a commitment to the Good News. Who knows? It might even even have an effect on Congress.
Rushing the Pope
Every pope has to deal with throngs of people. They crowd St. Peter’s Square, the streets along papal routes, and push past each other for at least a view, if not an opportunity to touch. But Pope Francis has to fend off more than any of his predecessors, for he has been “rushed”, a.k.a. “Limbaughed”. Yup, the same. The talk show host who, in his own mind, is larger than life.
In my more sane moments, I believe that it is better to ignore people like Limbaugh. So much of what he says is spoken out of ignorance—in the true sense of the word. He lacks knowledge. Giving him more attention runs the risk of expanding his already immense ego. However, he has a large following, turning the old aphorism into a truism: He knows just enough to be dangerous. On top of which he seems to be a touch schizophrenic. First he liked Francis, now he despises him. All within seven months.
For the first few months Limbaugh waxed ineloquently about the pope, assuming he was a conservative who would make the liberals—both in and outside the church—squirm. When answering questions and consenting to interviews, the pope mused about equality and acceptance. Still, he did not fundamentally alter church teaching. He even promulgated a document mostly written by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
Then came Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, The Joy of the Gospel. This is an almost overwhelming document. It is not written in typical ecclesiastical language. Nor is it an academic treatise from an ivory tower. It is the result of a life lived among God’s people. It is very readable, personal, even tender in style. But it is also uncomfortable in its call to joy and in its challenge to the economic principles and individualism that have seduced many a believer and obscured the teachings of Jesus. Hence, the title.
This is all about the Gospel. It is not an economic document, but it recognizes that the Good News of Jesus Christ must be applied to every facet of life, even the economy. In fact, given the desire for wealth, the drive to maximize profit at the expense of human beings, The Joy of the Gospel is profoundly applicable to the economy. That’s what bothers people like Limbaugh.
Like many others who have criticized Pope Francis’ Exhortation, Limbaugh rants against the application of the Gospel to economics. As if the economy is somehow exempt from the Good News, from the call of Jesus. As if capitalism is a competing gospel. Sadly, for many an American I suspect it is.
Limbaugh probably doesn’t know that the term capitalism is of relatively recent coinage. It is anachronistic to suggest that it is the economic principle on which this nation has built. As an economic system, it can only claim our allegiance if it advances the principles of the Gospel. Unfettered capitalism certainly does not.
Jesus came to free us from sin. However, that terminology has become almost meaningless in today’s world, because while we easily condemn one another, we rarely look to the sin in ourselves. We do not bother to question what drives us on a daily basis.
Perhaps capitalism is not inherently evil. But no system that places profit over people, that dismisses the downtrodden or disperses inequality can simultaneously advance the Gospel. Dependence has been imbued with a negative connotation in the capitalistic world. Yet Jesus calls us to be dependent on God. It is not for nothing that he cautions us, “No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
Popes are not always right. And there is room for dialogue and even disagreement. But one has to wonder why so many apostles of capitalism are so uncomfortable with Pope Francis’ apostolic letter. They seem more reactionary than dialogic in their dissent—squirming as the Gospel inches ever closer to their raison d’être.
I am reminded of a scene in John’s Gospel in which Jesus’ teaching makes many of his listeners uncomfortable, causing even some of his disciples to abandon him. He then turns to the twelve and asks, “Do you wish to leave also?” Peter responds, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
As Rush Limbaugh and his kind turn their backs and leave, I think I’ll stay for awhile.
In my more sane moments, I believe that it is better to ignore people like Limbaugh. So much of what he says is spoken out of ignorance—in the true sense of the word. He lacks knowledge. Giving him more attention runs the risk of expanding his already immense ego. However, he has a large following, turning the old aphorism into a truism: He knows just enough to be dangerous. On top of which he seems to be a touch schizophrenic. First he liked Francis, now he despises him. All within seven months.
For the first few months Limbaugh waxed ineloquently about the pope, assuming he was a conservative who would make the liberals—both in and outside the church—squirm. When answering questions and consenting to interviews, the pope mused about equality and acceptance. Still, he did not fundamentally alter church teaching. He even promulgated a document mostly written by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
Then came Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, The Joy of the Gospel. This is an almost overwhelming document. It is not written in typical ecclesiastical language. Nor is it an academic treatise from an ivory tower. It is the result of a life lived among God’s people. It is very readable, personal, even tender in style. But it is also uncomfortable in its call to joy and in its challenge to the economic principles and individualism that have seduced many a believer and obscured the teachings of Jesus. Hence, the title.
This is all about the Gospel. It is not an economic document, but it recognizes that the Good News of Jesus Christ must be applied to every facet of life, even the economy. In fact, given the desire for wealth, the drive to maximize profit at the expense of human beings, The Joy of the Gospel is profoundly applicable to the economy. That’s what bothers people like Limbaugh.
Like many others who have criticized Pope Francis’ Exhortation, Limbaugh rants against the application of the Gospel to economics. As if the economy is somehow exempt from the Good News, from the call of Jesus. As if capitalism is a competing gospel. Sadly, for many an American I suspect it is.
Limbaugh probably doesn’t know that the term capitalism is of relatively recent coinage. It is anachronistic to suggest that it is the economic principle on which this nation has built. As an economic system, it can only claim our allegiance if it advances the principles of the Gospel. Unfettered capitalism certainly does not.
Jesus came to free us from sin. However, that terminology has become almost meaningless in today’s world, because while we easily condemn one another, we rarely look to the sin in ourselves. We do not bother to question what drives us on a daily basis.
Perhaps capitalism is not inherently evil. But no system that places profit over people, that dismisses the downtrodden or disperses inequality can simultaneously advance the Gospel. Dependence has been imbued with a negative connotation in the capitalistic world. Yet Jesus calls us to be dependent on God. It is not for nothing that he cautions us, “No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
Popes are not always right. And there is room for dialogue and even disagreement. But one has to wonder why so many apostles of capitalism are so uncomfortable with Pope Francis’ apostolic letter. They seem more reactionary than dialogic in their dissent—squirming as the Gospel inches ever closer to their raison d’être.
I am reminded of a scene in John’s Gospel in which Jesus’ teaching makes many of his listeners uncomfortable, causing even some of his disciples to abandon him. He then turns to the twelve and asks, “Do you wish to leave also?” Peter responds, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
As Rush Limbaugh and his kind turn their backs and leave, I think I’ll stay for awhile.
Desperately Seeking Satan
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois is on a quest. That’s OK. Most Christians are. The difference is that, while most are seeking the kingdom of God, Paprocki is seeking the devil. Same-sex marriage has come to Illinois and on November 20, 2013 he held a Mass of exorcism in reparation for the state’s new marriage equality law.
He appears to draw his inspiration not from Jesus, but from the French poet Charles Baudelaire who once wrote: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.” That’s clever and lends itself to the drama of Hollywood screenplays. But does it convince?
There is no question that evil exists and that it is the opposite of good. The problem seems to originate with the personification of evil as “Satan” or the devil. That is simply simplistic. The result of creation myths attempting to explain the existence of evil. However, casting evil as a person, while not fully exonerating us, lessens our culpability for making poor decisions. It also tends to remove the nuance of many of those decisions. Not everything is right or wrong.
Nor is opposing evil the same as pursuing good. It is a question of focus. If one over-emphasizes evil, good is diminished. Paprocki’s crusade against same-sex marriage is on point. In Christianity, as in most religious traditions, love is a good to be sought. As I have commented in the past, the most profound statement about God occurs in the First Letter of John when he writes: “God is love.”
In fact, the second time he writes those words, in chapter 4:16, he states: “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” Because Paprocki is opposed to homosexuality, his screed against same sex-marriage actually diminishes love and in the process diminishes God.
Reducing love to sexuality and/or sexual orientation makes it elusive, as even many heterosexual couples have discovered. Love is greater than sex. But when sex is an expression of love the presence of God is unveiled. And revealing the presence of God should not be shunned. After all, it cannot help but make the world better.
The Good News of Jesus Christ, the coming of the kingdom of God, cannot be about condemnation. Jesus, himself, cautions Paprocki—and the rest of us—“do not condemn and you will not be condemned.” Jesus could not be any clearer than his statement: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
There is value in looking to poets for inspiration. Paprocki turns to Baudelaire. I am tempted to invoke Shakespeare. Perhaps Paprocki protests too much? History is also a good teacher. From that perspective the bishop from Illinois reminds me of the 1950’s senator from Wisconsin. Joseph McCarthy was looking for Communists under the mattresses of every American. How poetically comical that Paprocki is also looking in people’s bedrooms. This time, however, it is to find the devil under the sheets.
He appears to draw his inspiration not from Jesus, but from the French poet Charles Baudelaire who once wrote: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.” That’s clever and lends itself to the drama of Hollywood screenplays. But does it convince?
There is no question that evil exists and that it is the opposite of good. The problem seems to originate with the personification of evil as “Satan” or the devil. That is simply simplistic. The result of creation myths attempting to explain the existence of evil. However, casting evil as a person, while not fully exonerating us, lessens our culpability for making poor decisions. It also tends to remove the nuance of many of those decisions. Not everything is right or wrong.
Nor is opposing evil the same as pursuing good. It is a question of focus. If one over-emphasizes evil, good is diminished. Paprocki’s crusade against same-sex marriage is on point. In Christianity, as in most religious traditions, love is a good to be sought. As I have commented in the past, the most profound statement about God occurs in the First Letter of John when he writes: “God is love.”
In fact, the second time he writes those words, in chapter 4:16, he states: “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” Because Paprocki is opposed to homosexuality, his screed against same sex-marriage actually diminishes love and in the process diminishes God.
Reducing love to sexuality and/or sexual orientation makes it elusive, as even many heterosexual couples have discovered. Love is greater than sex. But when sex is an expression of love the presence of God is unveiled. And revealing the presence of God should not be shunned. After all, it cannot help but make the world better.
The Good News of Jesus Christ, the coming of the kingdom of God, cannot be about condemnation. Jesus, himself, cautions Paprocki—and the rest of us—“do not condemn and you will not be condemned.” Jesus could not be any clearer than his statement: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
There is value in looking to poets for inspiration. Paprocki turns to Baudelaire. I am tempted to invoke Shakespeare. Perhaps Paprocki protests too much? History is also a good teacher. From that perspective the bishop from Illinois reminds me of the 1950’s senator from Wisconsin. Joseph McCarthy was looking for Communists under the mattresses of every American. How poetically comical that Paprocki is also looking in people’s bedrooms. This time, however, it is to find the devil under the sheets.