Mary and Martha

The relationship and lesson from the readings on Tuesday really struck me, so i thought i would post about them. The first reading was Galatians 1:13-24, and the Gospel was Luke 10:38-42. The Gospel is the famous story of Martha and Mary, Mary is sat at the feet of Jesus listening to him speak, while Martha is rushing around, 'burdened with much serving.' When eventually she complains about Mary, Jesus replies that "There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her."

Related to this is the first reading from Galatians, where Paul goes into a bit more detail about his conversion. After his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul states that he "did not immediately consult flesh and blood" but instead went into the quiet of the Arabian desert for up to three years, before consulting the elders in Jerusalem and then beginning his mission to the Gentiles.

These two readings tell us a great deal about contemplation, and its relation to work and action. In the Gospel, it is worth noting that Jesus does not rebuke Martha for what she is doing. Of course not, she is doing very important work. Jesus would have been a very important guest, and it was right and polite to provide a good meal. Also, the text makes no mention that the three of them were the only ones in the house, there could have been others, who also wanted feeding and watering. Yet in all this hustle and bustle, is Martha listening to Jesus? If this event had not happened, would Jesus have entered into her house, taught for a number of hours and left, without Martha hearing a single word, or rejoicing in His presence?

This dichotomy is not one of either/or. Either contemplation of Christ, or action, it is finding a balance of both. We see this with St Paul's example. He is given this enormous mission to preach the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. However, instead of jumping straight into it, he spends three years contemplating what it is he has experienced, what his mission is, talking to God, and entering deeper into the mystery of what has been revealed to him on the road to Damascus. We have evidence from his other letters also that he continued to be a man of prayer after that, and this guided and formed his ministry. But surely if he hadn't spent three years in the desert, he could have preached the Gospel to even more people? NO!

Paul and Mary both realise something fundamental to Christian life. Jesus is the beginning, the centre and the end of the Christian life. This isn't meant in some abstract way, but in the sense that whatever we do, if it is not fully drenched in conversation with Christ, if it is not guided by His grace and His will, then any action will be ultimately futile, or will eventually turn itself away from God. When involved in active ministry, prayer is not something that wastes time, it is something that is so vital, that without it, anything else we do will be fruitless.

We can see this in certain religious orders, and models of the priesthood in the last 40 years. There are many flourishing orders that are classed as 'active' orders, i think of the Franciscans of the Renewal, the Sisters of Life, just in my local area of New York, also Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity. These are all active orders that are rooted fully in prayer, and they let it guide every hour of the day. A nun famously complained that they had too much to do, and implied this was because of the Holy Hour they had every day. Mother Theresa responded that if they were being overwhelmed, they should do two Holy Hours, and from then on they did. It is this type of order that does incredible work, and people look on wondering how they do so much, with so much energy and love. God can be seen to be truly at work in their ministries.

However, around the Second Vatican Council, many orders saw prayer life as a barrier to a more fuller, active ministry, and so abandoned things such as common recitation of the Office, Holy Hours and even daily Mass.
By doing this, they cut off the grace that had driven, supported and given fruit to their active ministry, and what gave it direction. Very quickly these orders, along with groups of priests committed to a 'new model' of priesthood, dried up. Vocations stopped almost instantly, habits and distinctive Christian signs were thrown away, active ministry turned from service of neighbour motivated by love into a pseudo-communist idea, and doctrinal orthodoxy disappeared overnight.

Without that contemplation, that relationship with Christ, both in the silence of heart, in the Scriptures and also through the sacraments, ministry in the world loses its fruitfulness. The 'better part' that Jesus speaks of is irreplaceable, that better part that Mary took, of sitting at the feet of Jesus, which some orders find so absorbing they dedicate everything to the 'better part' and remain totally contemplative. This is also fruitful, in visible ways, and in ways we cannot fully grasp now. By calling it 'the better part' Jesus shows us that we can have contemplation without the external activity and business of Martha, for sitting at the feet of Jesus is never wasted time. Yet activity without FIRST sitting at the feet of Christ and hearing Him speak to us, is simply the clashing of cymbals, because in order to do good and to love, we first need to learn and receive from Him who is Love, and who is Goodness, before we can give that to others.

Therefore this Gospel can speak to us today more so than ever before. Do we see prayer as an obligation, as something that gets in the way? If so, are we not like Martha who saw what Mary was doing as pointless and lazy? Do we not instead need to learn from Mary, and put aside that time to be spent at the feet of Jesus, to choose the 'better part' so that Christ can truly guide our activites and our lives?

Election 08 and the Catholic

Im watching the American election coverage with great interest, especially in relation to Catholic life issues, and if a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate. This is especially prominent in this election, with the Democrats coming out even more pro-abortion than usual, and certain Catholic politicians, such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi claiming that its fine for them to vote for abortion AND be a Catholic, despite the unanimous voice of bishops saying No.

Ive been trying to keep track of everything, but there is so much information which i havent been able to process, so instead of giving a comment on the subject, i thought i would post this video done by Grassroots, which i think sums up the Catholic vote issue pretty well.

See this video here

...He sent them into His vineyard

Greetings. I have had a busy few months, hence no posts. I have upped sticks and moved to New York, to St John Neumann Hall and Residence, where I am studying Philosophy and Latin. How very exciting! It is a busy schedule, but allows time for meditation, so allows me to post a bit more on my blog, which i am aware has been updated very inconsistently. However, it seems I have some very faithful readers, who always urge me to continue, so i shall!

Today's Gospel for the 25th Sunday, is the first part of Matthew 20, the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-16) Most homilies you will hear about this parable will focus on the moral lesson of the Scripture, that we should not begrudge those who received the same as us, about avoiding envy etc. Thats fine of course, but i feel that sometimes other elements can be neglected. So, i would like to look at the anagogical sense, how this Scripture applies to our understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven, and how this plays out here on Earth.

We know by faith that the Kingdom of Heaven is a Kingdom of happiness, forever in the presence of God, who "...shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away." (Rev 21:4) We also know that through Christ and His Church, that Kingdom is made present in a certain way, here on Earth. For instance we describe the Eucharist as a foretaste of the Kingdom of Heaven. However, to imagine that Earth is therefore equivalent with the Kingdom, and we can have Heaven on Earth is a grave error, and leads to slightly odd, and bizarre expectations, and this can often be seen reflected in the liturgy.

Because we are a Christian community, some expect the Christian life to be a 'mutually uplifting' feel good, smiley, huggy bubble. So in the liturgy at some places we have all the usual "Good MORNING everyone!!!" "Good morning Father" dialogues, with over the top signs of peace where everyone grins at each other, and self-affirming, sickly sweet Glorias and 'sending forth' hymns. In an environment like this, the Cross can become slightly out of place, a bit of an embarrasment. After all, we are a redeemed people, surely we should be focusing on mutual caring and joy in Christ, do we really need to keep reminding ourselves on the rather miserable and depressing crucifix? It is no surprise therefore, that many of the parishes that have such liturgies as i mention above, often abandon the traditional crucifix, for a cross with a resurrected Jesus on it, or a cross that is 'symbolic' or has some sort of strange picture of Jesus teaching on it.

Don't worry, this isn't a rant about liturgy, it simply helps us to understand one of the many messages that can be found in this passage. This parable is about the Kingdom of God, both what is in heaven (the reward given to those who choose to work in His vineyard) and what we have on Earth. Jesus Himself is the landowner, and as Christians he calls us to work in His vineyard. This is one of the fundamentals of being a Christian, the working in the vineyard. He does not ask us to sit in the vineyard looking at the nice plants, and smiling at each other, he calls us to work.

And it is tough. The parable shows this, the workers who are unhappy about the distribution of rewards talk about about 'the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' The Greek word for heat here is καυσων, which indicates a really scorching heat that dries up everything and would literally burn one's face. This vineyard was no picnic, these men worked hard and suffered. Dehydration, sunburn, aching muscles, extreme tiredness, these men had the lot. The parable also indicates that the landowner (who we see as representing Christ) called some of the men early in the morning, and worked them late into the evening. This 'day' (which would have represented a lifetime in Biblical language) was long, arduous, unforgiving, and tough. The work in the vineyard is linked intrinsically with suffering. We learn that Christ's work always involves suffering. Finally, the men are rewarded justly for what they have done. We see this as a promise of eternal reward in the next life, for those who work in His vineyard.

Worth noting as well, is that other labourers are stood around 'idle' before they are called by the landowner. The idleness of those not working, is directly contrasted with the hard work and the suffering of the labourers in the vineyard. We can see this reflected in the Saints, think of the recent Saints, and those going through the canonisation process, Bl Mother Theresa, John Paul II, St Therese of Liseux etc, all suffered greatly doing God's work. We are currently in the year of St Paul, and again he was, like all the Apostles, one who suffered and worked hard in the vineyard of the Lord, he says in 1 Corinthians,

"You remember our labour and toil, brethren; we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed to you the Gospel of God."

Finally, we look to Christ Himself, whose life was one of struggle, hard work and suffering. He grew up in poor surroundings, worked hard for 30 years as a carpenter, then dedicated Himself to public ministry, leading to His Passion and Death. If Christ is our model, and we look to the Scriptures for what the Christian life is really like, we should understand that it is one of struggle and hard work. We know that, if we keep going, eternal happiness awaits, and we can have a foretaste of that here on Earth. However, we cannot expect the Christian life to be one of permanent loveliness, quite the opposite in fact.

Therefore those happy, huggy liturgies miss the point, and it is one of the reasons they are not fruitful, and do not hold people. The single mother with five children, who hasnt slept properly in months might not feel like shaking hands with half the congregation at the sign of peace. The priest who has just anointed a victim of a car crash does not want to be a hypocrite and walk into the Church beaming like a child at Christmas day. Joy certainly comes with the Christian life, but so does suffering. Cross and Resurrection are inseperable. We need room at Mass to express our individual struggles, as well as our praises and thankfulness, to God. At Mass we unite and offer our struggles, sufferings, happiness and joys, consolations and desolations with Christ to the Father. Masses that ignore those struggles and sufferings that go hand in hand with the Christian life, and choose only emphasis on happiness and force a sickly sweet positivity onto the entire community, miss the point, and sideline the crucifix (often literally). A Mass where the Gloria, the sign of peace, and entrance and sending hymns are emphasised while the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei and the offering of sufferings in silence are dismissed as irrelevant, itself becomes irrelevant. This is because these happy externals might feel 'uplifting', but this 'lift' is not real, it is not something based in reality, and the joy it offers is a lie, as ultimately it is only through the crucifix, through that hard struggle in the vineyard that Christ speaks of in todays parable, that we can reach the Eternal reward in God's Kingdom, where our true joy, our true happiness lies.

Gitanjali

I was recently introduced to an Indian poetry collection called "Gitanjali" collected by a fellow called Rabindranath Tagore. It was a Jesuit who introduced me to it, and I have to admit that I was a little sceptical at first, with a little buzzer going off in my head screaming "DE MELLO ALERT!"

However, its beautiful! I'm working through it now, and i'm just going to post one or two nuggets i've found already. If you like it, you can find the full thing online.

If thou speakest not I will fill my heart with thy silence and endure it.
I will keep still and wait like the night with starry vigil
and its head bent low with patience.
The morning will surely come, the darkness will vanish,
and thy voice pour down in golden streams breaking through the sky.
Then thy words will take wing in songs from every one of my birds' nests, and thy melodies will break forth in flowers in all my forest groves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my prayer to thee, my Lord---strike,
strike at the root of penury in my heart.
Give me the strength lightly to bear my joys and sorrows.
Give me the strength to make my love fruitful in service.
Give me the strength never to disown the poor or bend my knees before insolent might.
Give me the strength to raise my mind high above daily trifles.
And give me the strength to surrender my strength to thy will with love.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and finally my personal favourite.....

When thou commandest me to sing it seems that my heart would break with pride;
and I look to thy face, and tears come to my eyes.
All that is harsh and dissonant in my life melts into one sweet harmony---and my adoration spreads wings like a glad bird on its flight across the sea.
I know thou takest pleasure in my singing. I know that only as a singer I come before thy presence.
I touch by the edge of the far-spreading wing of my song thy feet which I could never aspire to reach.
Drunk with the joy of singing I forget myself and call thee friend who art my Lord.
I know not how thou singest, my master!
I ever listen in silent amazement.
The light of thy music illumines the world.
The life breath of thy music runs from sky to sky.
The holy stream of thy music breaks through all stony obstacles and rushes on.
My heart longs to join in thy song, but vainly struggles for a voice.
I would speak, but speech breaks not into song, and I cry out baffled.
Ah, thou hast made my heart captive in the endless meshes of thy music, my master!

Vatican II - what do we do with it?

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and its implementation is still the hottest topic on the agenda of the Church, almost half a century after it was opened. Its' something Pope Benedict XVI has seen as the main task of his papacy, and rightly so. Whether one sees the Council as good, bad or something in between, very few would deny that it is the most important ecclesial event, both within the Catholic Church and in the Christian world as a whole.

To simplify things a little too much, we can see that there are two extremes the Church has to defend the legacy of the Council from. The first is the group who claim to 'embrace' the Council in its fullest. These 'progressives' or 'liberals' as they are called, have been the dominant force against the Council since it closed. They feel that the documents didn't go far enough, and want to claim a so-called "Spirit of the Council" which doesn't involve following the documents and what the Council proposed, but instead doing what they wanted the Council to say, usually involving the usual yawnsome list of 'reforms' we've heard a million times before, 'meal' emphasised liturgies, female priests, limited hierarchy, no infallibility, lowest common denominator ecumenism etc etc. Luckily, this very damaging movement (wherever it is dominant, you will find empty churches and no vocations) is literally dying out, as its proponents were mostly adults in the 1960's, and aren't really attracting any young people to its movement.

But a quiet movement on the other side of the spectrum has been rising slowly but surely for the last couple of decades, and with the release of the Motu Proprio last year, has received a bit of a boost, and this is the group on the more 'right' side, the radical traditionalists, or 'trids.' I honestly believe that these 'trid' groups are the new danger coming to the Church from the inside. These groups are dangerous as they are still gathering younger members, and pick on the large number of Catholics who are disillusioned with the damage done by the 'progressive' extremists on the other side. Reaction to extremism can often lead to extremism in the opposite direction, and this is what is happening here. It would be impossible in this small article to deal with all the issues of the Old Rite Mass, SSPX and schism etc etc. All i want to look at, is the idea of rejecting the Council as a whole.

There are many who argue that, because it seems like the Council set off a nasty chain reaction that led to an unleashing of latent forces within the Church, we should just pretend the Council never happened, go back to how it was before the time of Pope Paul VI (pictured left), and then that will fix the problem.

This argument usually becomes quickly fixed in canonical issues, on whether Vatican II was a dogmatic Council, and therefore what needs to be accepted as faith etc etc. However, i feel that this misses the issue completely, and fails on a fundamental level, on our understanding of the Church.

The Church is always the same Church. The Church of 2008 and the Church at the first Pentecost is the same Church, but yet it expresses itself differently in each era, and is constantly shaped by the experiences that it has., this is what we mean when we say that the Church is a living Church. While it is the same Church, it is constantly progressing and growing with time, much like a human being. So, therefore it is impossible just to 'go back' and say 'Right, lets pretend the Council didn't happen.' It would be false. It would be the equivalent of a University student saying "You know what, i didn't like my experience of university, so im going to pretend I'm back at school, before i came to university." It doesn't matter what that person does, they can dress up in a school uniform, drink White Lighting round the back of the school sheds, complain about P.E, whatever, they still cannot turn back the clock and become a teenage schoolboy again. Why? Because things have changed, the experiences we have change us, we grow, we move on, and even if we put ourselves in the same position, time has passed and we have changed, despite being the same person.

So going back and pretending that Vatican II never happened is simply make-believe. Vatican II did happen. Yes, its implementation wasn't perfect and one or two of the documents are a bit fuzzy, but we are here now, and we have to make the best of it. We can take the good things from Vatican II (of which i truly believe there are many eg Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, as well as a lot of the liturgical reforms) and continue to work with the things that haven't yet produced fruit, and try to make them do so. But the Church always moves forward, it never moves backwards, it can't by its very nature.

Putting our heads in the sand, pretending the Council and the past 40 years didn't happen is not an option. This is the definite message from the Vatican and Pope Benedict, who is determined that we avoid any hermeneutic of discontinuity (on either side of the spectrum) and really get to grips with the Council, implementing it in the way it is supposed to be implemented, in an organic way, in line with the organic development of the Church's thinking as it progresses through history. Ignoring Vatican II is not an option, and we cannot entertain those movements which wish to do so, as it will simply stunt the Church and mean that the potential fruits of the Council never come to fruition, which would be a terrible, terrible shame.

Mad Trad

Just want to draw your attention to a blog thats being resurrected, called Mad Trad

http://madtrad.blogspot.com/

Its really worth a visit, and he updates fairly regularly, and his posts are always informative and thought out, which is what you want really! :-)

The Judas Question

Hello again! I doubt that there are very many people reading the blog anymore, but I've decided to fire it up again anyway, and see what happens!

Today is Good Friday and as I'm going through the Gospel accounts, I'm constantly struck by the story of Judas, especially as (as is the case every Easter Triduum) the so called 'Judas Question' has been fired up in the secular media again. This time the traditional interpretation has been challenged by the BBC programme "The Passion." I haven't seen it so i dont intend to spend much time on it, but reports tell me that it's doing the quite cliched thing of telling us that Judas wasn't so bad after all, etc etc. Then as a result, there's the almost-as-cliched response coming from various Christian groups screaming "How dare you! Judas was a villain, and a rotter, and had very bad table manners!"

This is all fine, if a bit dull, and both sides make valid points. Judas wasn't the devil incarnate, nor was he just a bloke who made 'a silly mistake.' However, the problem is that with all this focus on the psychological motives of Judas, and the focus on his person, Judas' betrayal becomes simply an historical event, and starts to become irrelevant to us today. On his own, Judas is simply an interesting, slightly ironic, historical footnote.

However, the figure of Judas when understood correctly, continues to challenge us today, for is he so far away from us, from our behaviour? Yes, we can all look at the specific scenario and say 'Yeh, i wouldn't do that." but if we see all sin as a betrayal of that companionship with Christ, then when we sin are we not doing the same thing Judas did, but in a slightly different context? St Matthew's account seems to confirm this, when asked who will betray Him, Jesus doesn't mention Judas by name but instead speaks only of 'the one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me.' Judas' betrayal is not about a one-off event, its about Jesus being betrayed by even his closest companions, those who have dipped their hand into the bowl with Him.

So this story challenges us, it's not just there to make us feel down about ourselves, it's there so we learn about ourselves from Judas. We need to remember that however close we get to Christ, we never become immune to temptation, so just because we feel like we are part of some 'inner circle' this must never lead to over-confidence, because even those close to Him can end up betraying him for relatively little.

The Judas story also shows us how to respond when we sin. It's a common misconception that Judas never repented, this isn't quite true. Matthew 27:3 tells us that Judas did indeed repent in some way. However his repentence isn't based on a love of God (such as Peter's betrayal and repentence) or even one that repents of having offended God or his neighbour. It is a repentence that is turned in on itself, Judas only apologises to himself for the guilt he himself feels, for the damage he has done to his own person. This is shown in the Gospel accounts as he immediately takes his forgiveness into his own hands and tries to assuage his guilt and make himself feel better by trying to give the money back. While there is nothing wrong in making some form of reparation (we are told to do this at confession), for Judas it is done not to repair the wrong he has done, but to make himself feel better, and so he relies entirely on this reparation, and not a jot on the forgiveness of God. So when this is refused by the chief priests and elders, who won't take the money back, he finds himself in a position where he cannot attain forgiveness, as he is self-centred, not God centred, and his attempt at redeeming himself without God has failed. Ultimately it is this that leads him to the suicide on the tree, where unlike the tree upon which the Christ hangs, there is no self-giving, no love of other or of God, no obedience, and therefore no redemption.

Judas therefore provides us with an invaluable lesson that when we sin, we can't find our consolation in ourselves, trying to earn our forgiveness and salvation, as that will only lead to our self-destruction, as it did with Judas. We must find that forgiveness and salvation in the other tree, the tree that is our focus this Good Friday, from which grace, mercy, love and redemption flow freely to all who approach it.