ANATOMY OF HARRISON BUTKER'S SPEECH: WHAT I GOT WRONG

By Rev. Deogratias O. Ekisa S.T.D.

June 1, 2024

What a spirited defence!

“Why are you all attacking a good man?”  That was a response I received when I criticised Harrison’s Butker’s commencement speech.  Those sentiments came from all quarters, not just from my usual sparring suspects.  Some came in the form of vehement demands made on my Facebook posts to take them down, others in the form of private friendly supplications to desist from any further criticism of the footballer’s speech.  Based on the intensity and frequency of the requests, you would think that I had called Mother Teresa a prostitute or the Pope a heretic.  Actually, the latter has often been done. It is interesting that no such spirited defence has been marshalled on the Holy Father’s behalf.

In the last week I have asked myself, if on the one hand, I could have gotten it all wrong.  On the other hand I have also wondered how seemingly good Catholic people, could be so wrong in their defence of what is clearly a problematic speech according to me.

Of course this speech and the whole saga surrounding it, like most things, is not black or white, but is far more complex; there is both good and bad in it.  And so, like my mother would cut off the spoilt part of the banana or potato and feed us with the good part, I can rightly criticize the problematic aspects of the speech, even as I acknowledge the good, however little there was in my estimation.

The demands and requests of my friends, however, went further than that – they wanted no criticism, or at least no strong, public criticism of Butker. For in their estimation, there were no rotten parts to the potato or if any, they would only cause a mild tummy ache that Alka-Seltzer could easily treat.  And the basis for these appeals was that as a layman and a non-theologian, he could not be expected to know the finer distinctions of theology, and was merely sharing his understanding of the faith.  Even the bishops who came to his defence simply indicated that he had said some good things that needed to be said, without addressing any of the problematic areas.

What about the problematic areas of the speech?

I, on the other hand, thought that the problems in his speech were serious enough to warrant addressing, and this was to be done in the public forum in which they were being disseminated.  I defer to others who have given a fuller treatment to the problems, but here are some of the highlights.

·        First, the tone of the speech was an unwarranted diatribe against the current Church hierarchy.  Save for a few remnant, he argued that many of the priests and bishops are rubbish and should be ignored.  He offered a vision for the Church, which amounted to an alternative source of magisterial authority, even suggesting that Catholics should search for the clergy that hold his views, those “traditional and timeless teachings that haven't been ambiguously reworded for our times,” a subtle reference to Pope Francis’ Magisterium.

·        What riled most people on social media, especially non-Catholics were his views of the role of women in society.  For me that was the least problematic issue, since he was somewhat expressing the basic understanding of the complementarity of sexes, albeit in an extremely shoddy manner.  Many people heard a different message.  In fact, Pope Francis expresses that same teaching in a more complete way in No. 286 of Amoris Laetitiae.

·        According to me, the most serious theological problems lie elsewhere: his understanding of the priesthood vis-à-vis the laity (compare with Presbyterorum Ordinis 3), his facile dismissal of the Church’s position and indeed Pope Saint John Paul II’s position on Natural Family Planning (compare with Familiaris Consortio 35), his misrepresentation of a bill in Congress against antisemitism as well as the antisemitic dog whistles contained therein, and his dismissal of the current liturgy in favor of the preconciliar liturgy (compare with Traditiones Custodes) – even Pope Benedict XVI who liberally allowed the use of the previous liturgy allowed it only on the condition those its adherents did not cast doubt on the validity of the conciliar reforms, something that Butker seemed to be doing.

In my opinion, the source of the problems in this speech arises largely out of a lack of familiarity or consideration, wilful or not, of the conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterium on these matters.

Theological Paradox: what is within the pale of tolerance?

The question that has bothered me in the last few days has been, why good Catholics are asking me to remain silent on what is I see as being at odds with the faith.  Many did not even give me the courtesy of asking for my reasoning for my theological positions – they just assumed I must be wrong. How could they be so blind to these blatant departures from the teaching of the Church?  What is their rationale? 

Speculating on motives is a dangerous exercise, since when Our Lord enjoins us not to judge (Lk. 6:37), while he does not stop us from judging actions, it is interior motivations that we must not judge – those must be left to the Lord.  I believe I can stay within what the Lord allows, if my speculation does not address the motivations of individuals, but instead provides a philosophical paradigm for their position.  In this way, I am attempting to give a logical explanation for this seeming paradox, without impugning the motives of those who seemingly are faithful Catholics but are also ready to ignore theological error.

Beyond Reason: there are other logical considerations

I learnt something recently at a leadership seminar.  The speaker suggested that people’s communication styles could be grouped into four main categories: the analytical, the driver, the amiable and the expressive.  Each of these groups is primarily motivated to action by a different consideration.  The analytical group prioritizes logical reason, the driver group prioritizes results, the amiable group prioritizes relationships, and the expressive group prioritizes creativity.  The speaker stressed that none of these ways is inherently superior to the other; there are just different ways of operating, with each consideration having a niche in specific situations.  The ideal would be for each person to have a perfect balance of all four considerations, or for an organization to have an appropriate mix of people with the various styles, and so press each consideration into service as needed.

Before the results of the test were out my colleagues had already guessed which was my primary category – the analytical.  It is no secret that I prioritize reason and the evidence of proven data in my decision making. Relationships, results and creativity also play a part, but a secondary one.    And so, that is probably why for me, when a man speaks against Church teaching, it seems only reasonable to point out the errors, especially if they are serious enough and likely to proliferate. 

But as our seminar speaker noted, I need to include the other three considerations, especially that of relationship and results, in my deliberation.  I need to consider how my criticism will be received by those who admire Butker as a person, those who see his speech as contributing to a greater good.  And so, perhaps my response should have used all four tools in my toolbox.  Besides providing Magisterial evidence countering Butker’s position, I should have gone the extra mile to ensure that people’s relationships, hopes and aspirations with him and the good that he stands for were not caught up in the crossfire. Butker presented a conservative vision of Catholicism, that for some, is the only version of Catholicism they know to be the true one.  Any attack on that vision, that ideology, is therefore seen as an attack on their treasured faith, hence the spirited defence and counter attack combined with silence on the problematic areas.

As I take into account those other considerations, my interlocutors also need to consider the premier place reason plays in explaining and understanding the revealed data our faith.  For as St. Peter reminds us, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear. . . .” (1 Pt. 3:15-16).  I believe that is what Butker was attempting to do in his speech, in a particular exercise of the rights possessed by the Christian faithful according to Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law.  Unfortunately, in exercising the faithful’s “duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful” he somewhat failed in doing so in the manner indicated by the same canon, “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons” (CIC 212 §3).

One’s admiration of his vision, or really of any charismatic celebrity or politician, cannot surely trump the obligation to correct error, especially serious error, that the footballer shot across the bow.  True relationships must be built on truth, otherwise they are built on sand; true results draw from the truth otherwise they are temporary; true creativity must start from truth, otherwise it has fake.

Imperfect people growing in perfect charity and faith

The only person who is immune from criticism, because he embodies the full truth is Our Lord Jesus Christ; for he is perfection itself.  The Magisterial teaching of the Church comes a close second, with the various distinctions of its nature and the corresponding types of assent required of Catholics taken into account, since the Lord promised her Church protection from error (Lk. 10:16).  

As individual members of the faithful, we are imperfect, even as we seek to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, seeking to grow in perfect charity and faith.  Thankfully, we have those who have taken the place of Twelve Apostles, to guide us on this journey.  Even as we struggle with this or other aspect of their teaching and decisions, we would do well, to remain in the bosom of their teaching, which by definition is Apostolic, instead of seeking alternative guides who depart in any way, from the Apostolic Tradition and Succession.

OPINION: Church Needs Formidable PR Machine to Counter Media

PS: I wrote this opinion piece in 2009, but unfortunately the article is now behind a pay wall.  So I publish it again here.

While the subject and the papacy were different, the principal points remaim the same.  I believe that the last point, about the need for good PR is still a relevant concern.

CISA News

OPINION: Church Needs Formidable PR Machine to Counter Media Posted: Wed, Apr 01, 2009 By Fr. Deogratias Ekisa Just as I was gathering my thoughts to shoot an article to CISA on the media coverage of Pope Benedict’s visit to Africa, Henry Makori beat me to it by penning an excellent analysis of the relationship between the media and the Vatican. I would like to discuss further some points the CISA editor raises. Experts in interpersonal relationships say that when there is a breakdown in communication, it is best to start the discussion by taking the blame. For example, if someone did not understand something you said it is better to say, “I am sorry, it seems I was not very clear,” rather than, “I am sorry, you did not understand me.” In the recent media blitz against the Pope, however, I will dispense with the political correctness of this principle and lay the blame squarely where it lies. As Makori hinted, much of the Western media is clearly the handmaid of secularism. (Secularism is an ideology which must be distinguished from the ideologically neutral concept of secularisation, the process of separating religion and secular society). Now secularism has an agenda, which is to drive out (not merely separate) religion from the public square. This ideology, which believes in the absolute primacy of reason and utility, considers religion to be an obstacle to its most cherished values. And so, if anybody seriously thinks that the recent media onslaught on the pope was about condoms, then they need to think again. For much of the Western media, this was a chance to put down religion and show how silly and opposed to scientific “progress” religion, especially the Catholic religion is. But leaving aside the media’s secularist and ideological intentions, the modern press is inherently incapable of understanding what the Church teaches, since they operate in a different worldview and paradigm. The media looks for literal, straightforward meanings; the Church for the fundamental meaning of life. In the condom case for example, it is very clear for the media that condoms save physical lives; but that point of view is markedly different from the Pope’s position who is not commenting on the scientific capabilities of condoms, but on their capacity to promote a lifestyle that is inimical to life (both physical and spiritual). It is like the Pope and Western media were speaking different languages, since they were starting from different fundamental premises. Even worse, much of the media is either incapable of understanding the subtleties of profound intellectual thought or merely ignores them. That is why they rightly consign scientific, economic and other specialised disciplines to esoteric specialist magazines and occasionally call in the help of expert scholars to enlighten the public about these complex issues. Religion, however, is considered to be a common man’s possession and is not conceded that luxury. But how can we expect the theologically untrained journalists to understand the theological nuances of Christian thought? Most of them do not even make the effort to inform themselves on the subject. Besides, religious thought does not seem to fit the categories of sound bites, which are the bread and butter of media coverage. But we cannot blame the media alone. As I said earlier, any breakdown in communication could be caused by either the sender or recipient or both. We Catholics are sometimes unwitting supporters of this secularist attack on religion. This happens especially when we dissent loudly and virulently against the Pope and Church teaching. Of course there has always been internal dissent in the Church. One just has to refer to the differences between Paul and Peter on the requirement that non-Jewish converts observe Jewish laws. Various Early Fathers of the Church approached and explained the mystery of Christianity differently, sometimes disagreeing bitterly. Even saints have sometimes disagreed, like the different takes on the sacrament of penance by the Dominican position of St. Thomas Aquinas and by the Franciscan position of St. Bonaventure. These agreeable disagreements, however, have never been about the fundamental message of God’s saving love in Jesus Christ and his Church, which is an instrument of that message. Now of course today’s disagreements by Catholics are on such issues as contraceptives, abortion, war, immigration, excommunications etc. One might argue that these are still those peripheral issues that are only tangentially related to the fundamental message of the Church. And sometimes that is truly the case. Often, however, is a naive interpretation of the situation. As I have said above, if anyone for one moment thinks that the “condom” issue on the recent papal trip to Africa was a debate about condoms, then they have another thing coming. This was a debate about the fundamental role of religion in life, with the media towing the secularist line, and the Pope promoting the Catholic vision of things. And so, when a Catholic who disagrees with the Pope on that or any issue attacks him like the media has done or dissents in a vehement way, he is in effect promoting the more fundamentalist secular agenda and not just that specific issue. I am reminded of an incident a couple of years ago when President Hugo Chavez made a bitter attack on President Bush at the United Nations in New York; he compared him to the devil himself etc. When this happened, even starry-eyed left-wing Democrats who are naturally opposed to Bush and tend towards the liberal mindset of the Venezuelan President abandoned Chavez and ran to the defence of their President, because they realised that the stakes here were higher; it was the presidency itself and their country that were under attack and not Bush’s particular ideological stand. Similarly, it is time for Catholics to discern when they can reasonably disagree with the Pope and Church teaching and when their disagreement constitutes an attack on the very foundations of the Christian faith. This call goes not only to the more progressive members of the faithful whose rebellion tends to be the loudest, thanks to the more liberal media, but also to the right-wing sections of the Church, who have been known to wage silent but equally vituperative attacks on certain members of the hierarchy whom they consider too liberal for their liking. Actually, in the 1960s and 1970s, the attacks from the right were the ones damaging the Church. Now when confronted by a common enemy, secularism, it is time for us to lay aside our ideological differences and confront that enemy. The very survival of God’s Church is at stake. If we let it fall, or in fact, if we assist in pushing it over, then we shall have failed in our mission, which is to establish the Kingdom of God here on earth. It is time to stand up and be counted. The battle lines have been drawn; on which side are we fighting? An effective weapon to include in the Church’s arsenal for this battle is a radically new communication attitude and strategy for dealing with the media. Here I am not talking about the usual spiel about using the mass media for communicating Jesus’ message; we are doing this already through Catholic television, Catholic radio and Catholic print-media. I am instead suggesting a more profound public relations exercise. Let me explain what I mean with two examples. Several years ago when I was a first-time parish priest, I had to preside over the election of the Parish Council officials. Naively, I thought that the best people would be elected, since “good always prevails over evil.” And so, I did not share with anyone my thoughts on the candidates, nor try to “campaign” for any candidate, trusting in the “inherently” just process of democracy. To my surprise, the candidates I thought would have been elected, barely got any votes; I later found out that some members of the Council, for obviously private interests, had done their homework and had ensured they had the votes to push their men into office. I admit that I failed miserably, in putting forward my vision of what kind of Parish Council leadership I thought was best for the parish. I now turn to an example as far removed from the parish situation as possible. I recently learned that in the recent war between Georgia and Russia, the news we were getting about the war (or at least most of it) was being managed or influenced by two Western European public relations agencies based in Brussels. So, both sides hired (at great cost I suppose) two professionals to put their side of the story to the world. This is the kind of strategy we need in the Church today: a full-fledged, professional, well-financed PR team to front the message of Jesus to the world. It is this kind of team that would advise, for example, whether a particular papal document would be more effective if released on a Friday rather than on a Monday. Such a professional PR machine would know who to contact in particular media houses or particular temples of power for the achievement of a specific goal. It is such a PR strategy that would organize a major media blitz to counter certain situations or to explain them. Now some people might find my idea objectionable, on the grounds that God’s everlasting message is being subjected to secular concerns and being managed by methods more suited to the things of this world. Such an objection does not stand up to scrutiny, if one critically looks at how God has dealt with the world throughout the history of salvation. A cursory look at the Old Testament reveals that imperfect men Moses and David, imperfect institutions like sacrifice, imperfect methods like wars were used to achieve God’s plan of salvation. Even more fundamentally, the fact that the Son of God took on human nature (an imperfect condition), to bring about salvation shows that the things of this world can certainly be used for the achievement of God’s glory and the salvation of humankind. Even in post-biblical times, the Fathers and the Scholastics both used pagan philosophy to explain the mysteries of God. The structure of our Church has largely followed secular models of both monarchy and democracy. And so, while the basic message of Christ has not changed, the way it has been expressed and presented to the world has changed over time. Today we need a serious public relations campaign to overcome the media machine that has been kidnapped by secularism or at least that chooses to operate on purely secularist principles. It is quite naive and disingenuous for anybody to think that because God’s Kingdom is the truth, it will just establish itself. I repeat: the survival of the Church is at stake. The predator is attacking. We need to stock the Church’s armoury with the necessary weapons to help us win this battle. I suggest that part of this arsenal has to be not just a prayerful and exemplary life from all Catholics, but a media-savvy approach and all Catholics pulling together to publicly counter what is becoming a death blow to religion, even if it is often clothed in convincingly reasonable sheep’s clothing. It is time to wake up from our slumber! [Fr. Ekisa is a priest of the Archdiocese of Tororo, Uganda, now at Pontificio Ateneo Sant’Anselmo, Rome]

Homily for All Souls Day: The Christian answer to death

 Homily for All Souls – November 2, 2023

Introduction

When my mother died two years ago, she was the closest person I know to die.  Although she had been sick for a while, her unexpected death, just two days before her 75th birthday was very difficult on me and my siblings and continues to be so.  Many people at the funeral told me that "she is now in a better place."  But I wondered, how do they know? Moreover, they didn’t live with her.  Her death has given me ample opportunity to reflect in a very personal way, on death. 

Scripture and Theology

Starting October 31^st, yesterday November 1^st and today, November 2^nd, we celebrate what might be called the Triduum for the dead.  And it is an opportune time to reflect on the question “where is my mother now?”

We started the Triduum on 31^st October with Halloween.  Although it was originally a Christian holiday, “All Hallows Eve” (All Saints Eve), the secular festivity of HALLOWEEN celebrates the departed who are lost; these are the ghosts.  While this secular version is not without entertainment value or even psychological benefit, it really offers me no answer to the question about my mom’s destiny.  In fact, my faith in the promises of Jesus Christ, give me the hope that my mother, through the many ways she tried to be a faithful disciple, is not among the lost spirits emphasised or rather mocked at Halloween.

The second day of this triduum, ALL SAINTS DAY, which we celebrated on NOVEMBER 1^ST is a little more promising.  After all, my mother as we all are, was set on the journey to sainthood at her baptism.  That is what we heard St. Paul tell us in our second reading today: “that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death . . . were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection” (Rm. 6).

And throughout her life as a disciple, as a wife (for a brief period), as a nurturing mother, and a dedicated teacher, she tried to be a saint.  The numerous eulogies from family and friends at her funeral attested to those qualities in her that aspired to saintliness.  And since All Saints Day commemorates not just the canonized saints, but indeed all those who are now “with God” and now “see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2), again my faith gives me the hope that she can be counted among that “great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. . . . [standing] before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands” (Rev. 7:9).

But this is only a hope, and not a certainty.  I would be doing my mother a disservice by ignoring all she taught me about the dangers of presumption, if I were to presume that she is already a saint in heaven and therefore fail to do for her what as a disciple and a son, I must do – pray for her.

And that is the purpose of the third day of the Triduum, today, ALL SOULS DAY, on NOVEMBER 2ND.  This day tells me that given her frail humanity, we must pray for her.  Most boys idolize their mothers and I am no different.  But as I have grown older, I have gradually realized that she was not perfect.  She really tried to live by the Ten Commandments, the Two Great Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy and taught us her children how to do so.  I could never have asked for a better mother, especially the single mother she was for most of her life.  She was basically both a mother and a father to the four of us.  But she was still a fallible human being and so we pray for her on this day, together with all the faithful departed.

I have received one more answer to the question, “where is my mother now.”  Friends have intimated that my mother is now an angel, with expressions like “she has earned her (angel’s) wings.”  Although a well-meaning answer, again, my Catholic faith tells me that it is not correct.  When God created my mother, he did not create her to be an angel, which is a different type of creature.  He created her with a body and soul (angels lack bodies), and through the saving work of Jesus Christ, destined her to share in his very divine life, in body and soul.  Therefore, while my mother might be in the company of the angels, she might even be like them now (having shed the limitations of the mortal body), my mother has never been, nor will ever be an angel, except in a manner of speaking.

Christian Life and Conclusion

That is why for the rest of my life, I am going to look for her among the faithful departed (The Church Suffering).  Besides heaven itself, in what better place could she be, than Purgatory, the anteroom to Heaven, where she is being prepared for eternal life?  That is why I am asking you to join me so that we (The Church Militant – not Church Belligerent) pray for her soul and the souls of the all the faithful departed, that they might be admitted into the Lord’s company for eternity (The Church Triumphant).  Also, pray that both you and I will persevere in faith, hope and charity, and join them in eternal life.

Although I have selfishly used my mother as an example, what I have said applies to all our departed mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers, even our children and siblings, and all our departed relatives and friends.  What I have said should apply also for the forgotten dead, those who have no one to pray for them, those who graves in the cemeteries receive no visitors and no flowers.

May we be inspired by the words we shall say in the Eucharistic prayer as we ask God to give kind admittance to all our departed brothers and sisters.  We shall then go on to say:

There we hope to enjoy forever the fullness of your glory, when you will wipe away every tear from our eyes.  For seeing you, our God, as you are, we shall be like you for all the ages, and praise you without end.

Let this be our prayer, not just today, but always.

Homilia para Todos Los Fieles Difuntos: La respuesta cristiana a la muerte es orar

Homilía para Conmemoración de Todos los Fieles Difuntos – 2 de noviembre de 2023

Introducción

Cuando mi madre murió hace dos años, ella fue la persona más cercana a mí a morir. Aunque había estado enferma por un tiempo, su muerte inesperada, apenas dos días antes de cumplir 75 años, fue muy difícil para mí y para mis hermanos y continúa siéndolo. Muchas personas en el funeral me dijeron que "ahora su mama está en un lugar mejor". Pero me preguntaba, ¿cómo lo saben? Además, no vivían con ella. Su muerte me ha dado una amplia oportunidad para reflexionar de una manera muy personal sobre el tema de la muerte.

Escritura y teología

A partir del 31 de octubre, ayer el primer día de noviembre y hoy 2 de noviembre celebramos lo que podríamos llamar el Triduo de los difuntos. Y es un momento oportuno para reflexionar sobre la pregunta “¿dónde está mi madre ahora?”

Iniciamos el Triduo el 31 de octubre con Halloween. Aunque originalmente era una festividad cristiana, la Víspera de Todos los Santos, la festividad secular de HALLOWEEN celebra a los difuntos que están perdidos; estos son los fantasmas. Si bien esta versión secular no carece de valor de entretenimiento o incluso de beneficios psicológicos, realmente no me ofrece respuesta a la pregunta sobre el destino de mi madre. De hecho, mi fe en las promesas de Jesucristo me da la esperanza de que mi madre, a través de las muchas maneras en que trató de ser una discípula fiel, no esté entre los espíritus perdidos enfatizados o más bien burlados en Halloween.

El segundo día de este triduo, el DÍA DE TODOS LOS SANTOS, que celebramos el 1 DE NOVIEMBRE es un poco más prometedor. Después de todo, mi madre, como todos nosotros, emprendió el camino hacia la santidad en su bautismo. Eso es lo que escuchamos a San Pablo decirnos en nuestra segunda lectura de hoy: “Todos los que hemos sido incorporados a Cristo Jesús por medio del bautismo, hemos sido incorporados a él en su muerte. En efecto, por el bautismo fuimos sepultados con él en su muerte, para que, así como Cristo resucitó de entre los muertos por la gloria del Padre, así también nosotros llevemos una vida nueva.”

Y a lo largo de su vida como discípula, como esposa (por un breve período), como madre protectora y maestra dedicada, trató de ser una santa. Los numerosos elogios de familiares y amigos en su funeral dieron fe de aquellas cualidades en ella que aspiraban a la santidad. Y como el Día de Todos los Santos conmemora no sólo a los santos canonizados, sino a todos aquellos que ahora están “semejantes a él porque lo veremos tal cual es” (1 Jn. 3:2), nuevamente mi fe me da la esperanza de que ella puede ser contado entre esa “muchedumbre tan grande, que nadie podía contarla. Eran individuos de todas las naciones y razas, de todos los pueblos y lenguas. Todos estaban de pie, delante del trono y del Cordero; iban vestidos con una túnica blanca; llevaban palmas en las manos y exclamaban con voz poderosa” alabando a Dios (Apocalipsis 7:9).

Pero esto es sólo una esperanza y no una certeza. Le haría un flaco favor a mi madre si ignorara todo lo que ella me enseñó sobre los peligros de la presunción, si supusiera que ella ya es una santa en el cielo y por lo tanto no hiciera por ella lo que como discípulo e hijo debo hacer – orar por ella.

Y ese es el propósito del tercer día del Triduo, hoy el DÍA DE TODOS LOS FIELES DIFUNTOS, el 2 DE NOVIEMBRE. Este día me dice que, dada su frágil humanidad, debemos orar por ella. La mayoría de los muchachos idolatran a sus madres y yo no soy diferente. Pero a medida que crecí, gradualmente me di cuenta de que ella no era perfecta. Ella realmente trató de vivir los Diez Mandamientos, los Dos Grandes Mandamientos, las Bienaventuranzas, las Obras de Misericordia corporales y espirituales y nos enseñó a sus hijos cómo hacerlo. Nunca podría haber pedido una mejor madre, especialmente la madre soltera que fue durante la mayor parte de su vida. Ella era básicamente madre y padre para nosotros cuatro. Pero ella todavía era un ser humano falible y por eso rezamos por ella en este día, junto con todos los fieles difuntos.

He recibido una respuesta más a la pregunta: "¿Dónde está mi madre ahora?". Los amigos han insinuado que mi madre ahora es un ángel, con expresiones como “se ha ganado sus alas (de ángel)”. Aunque es una respuesta bien intencionada, nuevamente mi fe católica me dice que no es correcta. Cuando Dios creó a mi madre, no la creó para que fuera un ángel, que es un tipo diferente de criatura. La creó con cuerpo y alma (los ángeles carecen de cuerpo), y por la obra salvadora de Jesucristo, la destinó a participar de su divina vida, en cuerpo y alma. Por lo tanto, si bien mi madre podría estar en compañía de los ángeles, incluso podría ser como ellos ahora (habiéndose despojado de las limitaciones del cuerpo mortal), mi madre nunca ha sido ni será un ángel, excepto en una manera de hablar.

Vida cristiana y conclusión

Por eso, por el resto de mi vida, la voy a buscar entre los fieles difuntos (La Iglesia Sufriente). Además del cielo mismo, ¿en qué mejor lugar podría estar ella que el Purgatorio, la antesala del Cielo, donde se prepara para la vida eterna? Por eso les pido que se unan a mí para que nosotros (La Iglesia Militante – no la Iglesia Beligerante) oremos por su alma y las almas de todos los fieles difuntos, para que sean admitidos en la compañía del Señor por la eternidad (La Iglesia Triunfante). Además, oremos para nosotros mismos para que perseveremos en la fe, la esperanza y la caridad, y nos unamos a ellos en la vida eterna.

Aunque egoístamente he usado a mi madre como ejemplo, lo que he dicho se aplica a todas nuestras madres y padres fallecidos, a nuestras abuelas y abuelos, incluso a nuestros hijos y hermanos, y a todos nuestros familiares y amigos fallecidos. Lo que he dicho debería aplicarse también a los muertos olvidados, aquellos que no tienen a nadie que rece por ellos, aquellos cuyas tumbas en los cementerios no reciben visitas ni flores.

Que nos inspiren las palabras que diremos en la oración eucarística mientras le pedimos a Dios que dé amable admisión a todos nuestros hermanos y hermanas difuntos. Luego pasaremos a decir:

[allí] donde esperamos gozar todos juntos de la plenitud eterna de tu gloria;

allí enjugarás las lágrimas de nuestros ojos,

porque, al contemplarte como tú eres, Dios nuestro,

seremos para siempre semejantes a ti

y cantaremos eternamente tus alabanzas.

Que esta sea nuestra oración, no sólo hoy, sino siempre.

Homily Ordinary 30A: We love because God has loved us and others first

Homily for 30^th Sunday of Ordinary Time Year A 2023

Introduction

"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"  That sounds like a good question.  Wouldn’t we all want to know, which among the many laws of God in the Old Testament, those of the New Testament, and then those of the Church, even those of the state, which of them is the most important, so that we can keep that one commandment and thus make our way to heaven?

The scholar of the law who asked Jesus this question, did not have this same noble motivation, but did so to test him.  It is like,we heard last week the Pharisees and Herodians, asking Jesus whether paying taxes to Caesar was right or not.  And just like in last week’s gospel, any answer Jesus gave to this question would land him in trouble.  Which of the 613 laws would he pick without offending somebody?

But you can trust Jesus to find a way out of this pickled, just like in last week’s gospel.  How does he escape the trap set him by the scholar of the law?

Scripture and Theology

First, let us remember that the 613 laws in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were of three types: the ceremonial laws like washing, the liturgical laws like sacrifice, and the moral laws like the Ten Commandments.  From the whole gospel we know that Jesus more or less superseded the ceremonial and liturgical laws; that is why we don’t circumcise anybody or sacrifice animals.  However, the moral law, that we still keep, because it has everlasting value.  And so it is the moral law that he turns to for the greatest commandment.

So which of the myriad moral laws does he pick?  Well he doesn’t.  Instead, goes to what should be at the root and heart of all laws.  Jesus goes back to the Tradition, specifically to Deuteronomy 6:5 and pulls out this injunction of God: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”  And then he says: “This is the greatest and the first commandment.”

For a person of faith, this should make sense.  God must come first, God must be the centre of our lives, since he created us, sent us a saviour and he continues to provide for us.  Any law that does not in some way love God is no law at all.  Underlying every law must be the desire to love God, with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds, that is, love him completely.

But Jesus does not stop there.  Although the lawyer asked for one commandment, Jesus gives him two.  For the other greatest commandment, Jesus draws from another Old Testament book, Leviticus 19:18 to say: “The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Just like with the first one, any law that does not in some way do good for a neighbour is no law at all.

But why does Jesus include this second commandment about love of neighbour at all?  And why does he say it is like the first the commandment?  What does loving our neighbour have to do with God?

Let me illustrate this with a story that I once heard a story about a married couple.  For years they went to the opera.  Several years into their marriage, however, it slipped accidentally from the lips of the husband, that he did not like the opera at all.  When the wife asked him, "honey, why then did you go with me all these years?" he said: “I loved the opera, because you love the opera and I love you.”  That is when the wife also said, “I too only went to the opera, because I thought you loved it and since I loved you, I had to love it.”

Similarly, the second greatest commandment enjoins us to love our neighbour, because we love God, who loves our neighbour.  The spouses in the story I told you, loved the opera, not in itself, but because they loved the person, who loved it or whom they thought loved it.  And so we are enjoined to love not only God whom it is easier to love, and not just the neighbour that is likeable, cute, useful, pretty, and intelligent.  The real reason we must love our neighbour is because this commandment is based on the first one – we love our neighbours because we love God and God loves them.

Christian Life

That is why often God commands us to love neighbours that we would not naturally be inclined to love.  Today’s first reading gives us a few examples of neighbours we must love as we love ourselves because God loves them:

About migrants and refugees God says: "You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.”  This country faces a real immigration problem, something that only the politicians can solve.  But what you and I do?  The one thing I suggest is we do not use demeaning language of our fellow man, simply because of his her immigration status of national origin. That would be falling foul of the second greatest commandment, which the Lord tells us is to love our neighbour, even our foreign neighbour as ourselves.

A Catholic Relief Services worker currently serving the people Gaza was asked why she was working in this Muslim region?  And her response was, we feed the need women and children, the refugees, not because they are Catholic, but because we are Catholic.  We love our neighbour, because God has loved them and frankly us first.

Our first reading also gave another example of loving one’s neighbour saying, “You shall not wrong any widow or orphan.” Today we don’t have too many widows or orphans, but at that time, the widow and the orphan were one of the most vulnerable people in society.  The widow had no husband to care for her, and the orphan had no parents.  That is why the Law of God enjoined the society at large for these most needy people.  Who are widows and orphans today, against whom we must do no wrong, who we must take care of?

One more law from the reading regards the poor who you happen to lend money or other help. God says: “You shall not act like an extortioner toward” them.  While justice demands that they pay pack what they owe, charity demands that you may have to forgive the loan or part of the loan and certainly the interest.  Who are the poor of today, whom we might be tempted to extort due to their poverty and lack of power, political or otherwise?

Jesus concludes his answer to the lawyer by saying: “The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments:” love of God and love of neighbour.  That is because these two summarize the Ten Commandments:

·        When we keep the first three commandments, the commandments of the first tablet of Moses, we in fact love God: by worshipping him alone, by not profaning his name and by keeping the Lord’s Day holy.

·        When we keep the last seven commandments, those on the second tablet of Moses, we in fact love our neighbour: by respecting our parents and elders, protecting life, observing marital fidelity, respecting the property of others, speaking the truth, avoiding envy of others’ property and spouses.

Conclusion

And so, although the scholar of the law had an ill intention in testing Jesus by asking “which commandment in the law is the greatest? he has provided the occasion for Jesus to teach us a fundamental truth.  We are now able to see good law, not as obstacle to our happiness, but rather as the concrete means for me to show my love for God and my love for neighbour.

Moreover, these loves are not separate.  As the First Letter of St. John tell us, “We love because he first loved us.  If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.  This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother” (1 John 4:19-21).

Homilia Ordinaro 30A: Amamos porque Dios nos ha amado a nosotros y a los demás primero

 Homilía para el 30º Domingo del Tiempo Ordinario Año A 2023

Introducción

"Maestro, ¿cuál es el mandamiento más grande de la ley?" Suena como una buena pregunta. ¿No querríamos todos saber cuál, entre las muchas leyes del Antiguo Testamento, las del Nuevo Testamento y luego las de la Iglesia, incluso las del Estado, cuál de ellas es la más importante, para que ¿Podemos guardar ese único mandamiento y así llegar al cielo?

El doctor de la ley que le hizo esta pregunta a Jesús no tenía la misma noble motivación, sino que lo hizo para ponerlo a prueba. Es como escuchamos el evangelio de la semana pasada a los fariseos y herodianos preguntarle a Jesús si pagar impuestos al César era correcto o no. Y al igual que la semana pasada, cualquier respuesta que Jesús diera a esta pregunta le causaría problemas. ¿Cuál de las 613 (seiscientos y trece) leyes elegiría sin ofender a nadie?

¿Cómo puede Jesús escapar de la trampa que le tendió el doctor de la ley?

Escritura y teología

Primero, recordemos que las 613 leyes del Génesis, Éxodo, Levítico, Números y Deuteronomio eran de tres tipos: las leyes ceremoniales como el lavado, las leyes litúrgicas como el sacrificio y las leyes morales como los Diez Mandamientos. Por todo el evangelio sabemos que Jesús reemplazó más o menos las leyes ceremoniales y litúrgicas; por eso no circuncidamos a nadie ni sacrificamos animales. ¿Sin embargo, la ley moral? Esta todavía guardamos, porque tiene un valor eterno. Y por eso es la ley moral a la que Jesús recurre en busca del mandamiento más importante.

Entonces, ¿cuál de las innumerables leyes morales elige? Bueno, no lo hace. En cambio, se dirige a lo que debería estar en la raíz y en el corazón de todas las leyes. Jesús vuelve a la Tradición, específicamente a Deuteronomio 6:5 y saca este mandato de Dios: "Amarás al Señor, tu Dios, con todo tu corazón, con toda tu alma y con toda tu mente". Y luego dice: “Éste es el más grande y el primero de los mandamientos”.

Para una persona de fe, esto debería tener sentido. Dios debe ser lo primero, Dios debe ser el centro de nuestras vidas, ya que él nos creó, nos envió un salvador y continúa proveyéndonos. Cualquier ley que de alguna manera no ame a Dios no es ley buena. Detrás de todas las leyes debe estar el deseo de amar a Dios, con todo nuestro corazón, con toda nuestra alma y con toda nuestra mente, es decir, amarlo completamente.

Pero Jesús no se detiene allí. Aunque el doctor de la ley pidió un mandamiento, Jesús le da dos. Para el otro gran mandamiento, Jesús se basa en otro libro del Antiguo Testamento, Levítico 19:18, para decir: “el segundo es semejante a éste: Amarás a tu prójimo como a ti mismo”. Al igual que la primera, cualquier ley que de alguna manera no beneficie al prójimo no es ley buena.

Pero, ¿por qué Jesús incluye este segundo mandamiento sobre el amor al prójimo? ¿Y por qué dice que es como el primer mandamiento? ¿Qué tiene que ver amar a nuestro prójimo con Dios?

Permítanme ilustrar esto con una historia que una vez escuché sobre una pareja casada. Durante años fueron a la ópera. Sin embargo, varios años después de su matrimonio, se le escapó accidentalmente de los labios al marido que no le gustaba la ópera en absoluto. Cuando la esposa le preguntó: "cariño, ¿por qué entonces fuiste conmigo todos estos años?" Él respondió: “Me encantó la ópera, porque tú amas la ópera y yo te amo”. Fue entonces cuando la esposa también dijo: “Yo también fui a la ópera sólo porque pensé que te encantaba y como yo te amaba, tenía que amarla”.

De manera similar, el segundo gran mandamiento nos ordena amar a nuestro prójimo, porque amamos a Dios, quien ama a nuestro prójimo. Los esposos de la historia que les conté amaban la ópera, no en sí misma, sino porque amaban a la persona, a quien la amaba o a quien creían que la amaba. Por eso estamos obligados a amar no sólo a Dios, a quien es más fácil amar, y no sólo al prójimo simpático, lindo, útil, bello e inteligente. La verdadera razón por la que debemos amar a nuestro prójimo es porque este mandamiento se basa en el primero: amamos a nuestro prójimo porque amamos a Dios y Dios los ama.

Vida Cristiana

Es por eso que a menudo Dios nos ordena amar al prójimo que naturalmente no estaríamos inclinados a amar. La primera lectura de hoy nos da algunos ejemplos de prójimos que debemos amar como nos amamos a nosotros mismos porque Dios los ama:

Acerca de los migrantes y refugiados Dios dice: "No hagas sufrir ni oprimas al extranjero, porque ustedes fueron extranjeros en Egipto". Este país enfrenta un verdadero problema de inmigración, algo que sólo los políticos pueden resolver. ¿Pero qué hacemos tú y yo? Lo único que sugiero es que no usemos un lenguaje degradante hacia nuestro prójimo, simplemente por su estatus migratorio de origen nacional. Eso sería incumplir el segundo gran mandamiento, que el Señor nos dice que es amar a nuestro prójimo, incluso a nuestro prójimo extranjero como a nosotros mismos.

A una trabajadora de Catholic Relief Services que actualmente sirve a la gente de Gaza se le preguntó por qué estaba trabajando en esta región musulmana. Y su respuesta fue: alimentamos las necesidades de las mujeres y los niños, los refugiados, no porque sean católicos, sino porque nosotros somos católicos. Amamos a nuestro prójimo, porque Dios los ha amado y francamente a nosotros primero.

Nuestra primera lectura también dio otro ejemplo de amar al prójimo diciendo: "No explotes a las viudas ni a los huérfanos". Hoy no tenemos demasiadas viudas ni huérfanos, pero en aquella época, la viuda y el huérfano eran las personas más vulnerables de la sociedad. La viuda no tenía marido que la cuidara, y el huérfano no tenía padres. Por eso la Ley de Dios ordenó a la sociedad en general cuidar de estas personas más necesitadas. ¿Quiénes son hoy las viudas y los huérfanos, a quienes no debemos hacer ningún mal, a quienes debemos cuidar?

Una ley más de la lectura se refiere a los pobres a quienes se les presta dinero u otra ayuda. Dios dice: “no te portes con él como usurero” con ellos. Mientras que la justicia exige que paguen lo que deben, la caridad exige que se tenga que perdonar el préstamo o parte del préstamo y ciertamente los intereses. ¿Quiénes son los pobres de hoy, a quienes podríamos sentirnos tentados a extorsionar debido a su pobreza y falta de poder, político o de otro tipo?

Jesús concluye su respuesta al intérprete de la ley diciendo: “En estos dos mandamientos se fundan toda la ley y los profetas:” el amor a Dios y el amor al prójimo. Esto se debe a que estos resumen los Diez Mandamientos:

•      Cuando guardamos los tres primeros mandamientos, los mandamientos de la primera tabla de Moisés, de hecho, amamos a Dios: adorándolo sólo a él, no profanando su nombre y santificando el Día del Señor.

•      Cuando guardamos los últimos siete mandamientos, los de la segunda tabla de Moisés, amamos de hecho a nuestro prójimo: respetando a nuestros padres y a nuestros mayores, protegiendo la vida, observando la fidelidad conyugal, respetando la propiedad de los demás, hablando la verdad, evitando la envidia, de los bienes ajenos y de los cónyuges.

Conclusión

Y así, aunque el doctor de la ley tuvo mala intención al poner a prueba a Jesús preguntándole “¿cuál es el mandamiento más grande de la ley?" ha brindado la ocasión para que Jesús nos enseñe una verdad fundamental. Ahora podemos ver las leyes buenas, no como un obstáculo para nuestra felicidad, sino más bien como el medio concreto para mostrar nuestro amor a Dios y al prójimo.

Además, estos amores no están separados. Permítanme dar la última palabra a la Primera Carta de San Juan, que dice:

Amemos, pues, ya que él nos amó primero. Si uno dice «Yo amo a Dios» y odia a su hermano, es un mentiroso. Si no ama a su hermano, a quien ve, no puede amar a Dios, a quien no ve. Pues este es el mandamiento que recibimos de él: el que ama a Dios, ame también a su hermano (1 Juan 4:19-21).

Homily Day of Prayer and Fasting for the Holy Land: For the Peace of Jerusalem Prayer

 Homily for Mass for the Preservation of Peace and Justice

Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans LA

October 17, 2023

READINGS: Rd 1 - 888-3 - Jas 3:13-18, Ps - 889-3 - Ps 122:1-2, 3-4a, 4b-5, 6-7, 8-9, Ac - 890-1 - Matt 5:9, Gs - 891-2 - Matt 5:38-48

Introduction

“Prayer is the meek and holy force to oppose the diabolical force of hatred, terrorism and war.”  With these words at last Sunday’s Angelus, Pope Francis invited all believers to pray and fast today for the people of the Holy Land.

Inviting the faithful to pray is something that the Pope has consistently done, starting the very day he was elected pope.  He has invited the whole world to pray during the COVID crisis; he invited us to pray when the war in Ukraine broke out.  The terrorist attacks by the Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens is clearly another occasion for worldwide prayer.  For although the conflicts in Palestine have been going on for many decades, the ferociousness of these recent events has raised the stakes for violence and terror to new levels.  And as Catholics, one of our responses, is prayer.

Scripture and Theology

But what will prayer do, one might ask?  Is this not just another case of “thoughts and prayers” often glibly doled out by politicians and celebrities after a tragedy?

For us Catholics, prayer is how we deal with everything, the good, the bad and especially the ugly.  We turn to God. Our prayer today continues in the Old Testament tradition of prayer by lamentation.  A large portion of the psalms and the Book of Lamentations are exactly the kind of prayer we offer now. We cry out to God in agony, naming our terrible sufferings and asking God, as only he can, to save us.  Even when with Jesus we ask: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” we are not doubting him, but instead trusting him.  Because our relationship with him is that of a humble child talking to a loving father, we trust that he knows and will answer our prayers according to his will and in his time.  Our prayer of lament is not a sign of despair, but the antidote to it; it is not a sign of hopelessness, but a sign of hope.

Such prayer of lament also helps us be real and not live in the clouds.  We avoid the extremes of either sweeping our of pain under the rug or reacting in the kind of vengeful ways Jesus teaches against in the Sermon on the Mount.  We respond constructively by telling God, “This is what we are feeling.  Can you do something about it?” And then we leave it to him.

Besides lament, our prayer today is also a prayer of intercession.  We are praying primarily not for our own suffering, but for the suffering of others, even our enemies, real or perceived.  With Pope Francis, we are praying that “children, the sick, the elderly, women, and all civilians not be made victims of the conflict.”  We are praying for bereaved mothers who have seen their children die brutally, from both the attacks of Hamas and the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza by the Israeli military.  We are praying for the release of the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas, whose place Cardinal Pierbattista, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, has offered to take.  We are heeding the instruction of St. Paul to Timothy, “that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority” (1 Tim. 2:1).

Christian Life

But our prayer for the Holy Land must not leave us unaffected.  This day should inspire us to be better informed the complex situation of the Holy Land.

1.    Do we know enough about the Holy Land conflict to speak about it through the lens of faith and reason, and not that of ideology?  Do we know about the unspeakable living conditions of 2.5 million Gazan including 150 Catholic families?

2.    Do we know something about the on-going efforts at mediation, even by the Church?  Do we know about the two-state solution long supported by the Church, "which would allow Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side in peace and security", for peace can only come from justice?

3.    Do we know what the Church teaches about legitimate and proportional self-defence as opposed to vengeance?

Conclusion

Psalm 122, which we prayed for Vespers 1 this past Sunday says, “For the Peace of Jerusalem pray”.  And so, as we celebrate this Mass, this sacrament of unity, “Let us pray for the Israelis; let us pray for the Palestinians; let us pray for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.”  Let us pray for ourselves, that we may always work for peace and justice always.