"gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring"

[Another "take what you can" homily. . .can't finish it.]

25th Sunday OT
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Holy Rosary Priory, Houston, TX

Along the way to Capernaum through Galilee, the disciples were arguing among themselves. In their ignorance and fear, they were wrangling with one another, jockeying for position and prestige within the troupe. What were they arguing about? What could disrupt their peace? Jesus started the trip by telling them what was going to happen to him once they got to Jerusalem: “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.” We might imagine that this revelation would provoke astonished questions, some howls of dismay or at least a few protests. But the disciples did not understand what Jesus had revealed to them. They were fearful of asking him what he meant. Rather than risk showing their ignorance and fear, they choose instead to argue about who was first among the twelve of them, who was the greatest of Jesus' disciples. When Jesus asks them what they were discussing, they remain silent. Given the absurd nature of their conversation, this was likely their best response. No answer at all. Confronted with the prospect of a bleak future as Christ's disciples—certain persecution and death—the Twelve turn inward and wrestle over insignificant questions of precedence and power. Unwilling to relieve their ignorance by asking questions or assuage their fears by faith, they choose to distract themselves with internal political games. Simeon Weil* once wisely observed, “Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring.” Faced with the barren boredom of real evil, how often do we open our hearts and minds to the romance of imaginary evil, hoping for something more enticing, more entertaining than what we have been promised as Christ's faithful disciples?

It might seem a bit much to accuse the Twelve of opening themselves to the games of imaginary evil. Don't we usually reserve the adjective “evil” for the most heinous, most obscene acts of desecration? When asked to think of Evil, don't we usually conjure images of Adolf Hitler, Nazi concentration camps, whole cities laid waste by carpet bombing? Or perhaps the medical rituals of abortion, the horrors perpetrated by serial murderers? We do think of these and rightly so. But this is Weil's point. “Real evil,” she writes, “is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring.” Concentration camps were models of modernist efficiency. Carpet bombing was made possible by technology and precision-mapping. Abortions are done in sterile, clinical settings by professionally trained physicians. Serial killers are psychotically methodical, obsessively exacting. True evil is sterile, precise, methodical, and efficient. True evil is also irrational, primitive, and wholly devoted to destruction. The disciples are not toying with real evil; in their ignorance and fear, they are gaming with the romance of political intrigue, the kinds of wars we fight on chess boards. Though they are not playing with the Real Deal, they are tempting it by allowing humility to weaken and fade. James warns: “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.”

Seeing jealous ambition among his disciples, and knowing that they do not understand his fate or theirs, and knowing what selfishness and ignorance can breed, Jesus smacks them with this sobering truth: “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” If you will be the greatest, you must be the least. If you will be first, you must be last. If you will be the master, you must serve. This truth is of no use to an ambitious soul. No truly political animal can hunt successfully with this truth as a weapon. Jesus not only smacks their jealous ambition with an order to serve, he tosses all their pettiness, all their planning, all their machinations and plotting right into the fire of humility. Jesus knows that no true spiritual adventure can begin in ignorance or fear. It is wisdom and faith that kick us into gear! And only humility can be a wise and trusting guide.

Simeon Weil says that real evil is boring and barren. She adds, “Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating.” So, real evil and imaginary good are both tedious and sterile. If we understand the spiritual and emotional dangers of real evil, can we say that we understand the traps laid for us by the imaginary good? If truly good things are “new, marvelous, intoxicating,” then the imaginary good must be familiar, dull, and sobering. If the truly good offers fresh, miraculous, and uplifting insight and possibility, then working with the imaginary good must leave us numb with sedate routine, sluggish habit. The trap of the imaginary good is insidious, perhaps more so than the perils of real evil. Take the disciples as an example. Confronted by the possibilities of Jesus' revelation, they fall back into a familiar pattern of squabbling over precedence. Hearing what lies ahead, as promised, they revert to what they know: infighting over insignificant questions of authority and power. Rather than end the maneuvering by appointing a lieutenant, Jesus shows them the power of a real good—a new, marvelous, and intoxicating possibility: leadership as humble service.

Rather than paint an improbable vista of wealth and prestige for those charged to lead, Jesus takes a child on his lap and says, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the One who sent me.” Receiving Christ is not about building monuments or temples or palaces; it is not about filling charitable trust funds or establishing new religious orders. Tossing all worldly expectations and priorities into the furnace of humble service, Christ says that we receive him and the One Who sent him when we receive one child in his name. Just one. Not a whole orphanage. Not even a pair of siblings. Just one child. A tiny act of compassion, a small mercy shown to someone who cannot repay your kindness, cannot owe you a favor, someone who will not boast of your generosity or brag about knowing you. In the eyes of the world, an act of love that wastes an opportunity to move ahead. Exactly. Just so.

In their idle arguments about priority, the disciples play at a game that matters a great deal in the world, that part of creation ruled by unrestrained passion and power. They play a game called “The Wisdom of Men.” To be better, then the best in the world, a man's heart and mind must be impure, conflicted, abrasive, controlling, ruthless, negotiable, and insincere. Nothing like the heart and mind of a child. But James reminds us that “the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.” A heart and mind that welcomes divine wisdom exudes quiet confidence, serenity of purpose, eagerness to serve, and a depth of sincerity. Having reached the child-like heights of Christ's peace, anything and everything imagined and done by such a soul is new, marvelous, and intoxicating—truly Good and Beautiful.

Earlier I raised the question: Faced with the barren boredom of real evil, how often do we open our hearts and minds to the romance of imaginary evil, hoping for something more enticing, more entertaining than what we have been promised as Christ's faithful disciples? Very few of us will embrace real evil as a way of life. Some of us will toy with imaginary evil as a naughty diversion from what we imagine to be our rutted, routine lives. Most of us believe ourselves to be practitioners of the real good. But are we really just playing with the imaginary good, the lukewarm forms of goodness? Are we just good enough to be comfortable with the spiritual boredom that slowly wets the Spirit's fire within us? Do the wicked say of us: “Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the law. . .”? If the practitioners of real evil do not see us as a threat to their ambitions, then how are we helping them? What are we doing or thinking or saying that gives that world—the world where real evil thrives—more power, more prestige, more wealth?

* Gravity and Grace

Coffee Cup Browsing

Atheists going the way of the doo-doo bird? Yes. And so are the prog dissenters in the Church. Not only are they not reproducing biologically, they aren't reproducing intellectually either.

Avant-garde, revolutionary, oppositional, "Speaking Truth to Power": National Endowment for the Arts under a GOP administration. . .under B.O and the Dems: not so much.

Apparently, he can't do math or read.

Got LOTS of email yesterday about this liturgical oddity: priest's dog attends Mass. Is this abuse? Maybe. Hard to tell from the vid. If the dog wandered in on its own and this is not something that happens regularly--well, no foul. Things happen at Mass all the time that no one plans or expects. However, if this is a regular, intended feature at Mass. Big problem.

Over the last five years, I have posted many times on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Not withstanding their good work: the bishops need to cut ties. The CCHD has given millions to ACORN and other lefty anti-Catholic groups. Time to close them down.

Excellent article on baptism by the Freakish Grandpoopah of Lucy the Cuteness (i.e. Mark Shea).

Another post by my Arch-nemesis. The title and pic alone are worth a sustained snicker. Check out the linked article as well for more info on contemporary paganism.

The Curt Jester reviews a new book on happened to Catholic education at Notre Dame.

Dinosaur dissenter spews more dessication from his Jurassic theological wind-bags.

Go to confession! For your eco-sins. Who says that the Church of Global Warming isn't a religion?

Crying "wolf" over racism. . .nobody's running to help anymore.

The internet, coffee, nicotine, gambling. . .Now. . .abortion. Yes, abortion addiction.

God is dead. Re-visiting the historic article from TIME.

We must always be charitable. But does charity require civility?

Tough Love: "Like most parents, I don't want anything to thwart my children's happiness. . .Before I became a mom, I rolled my eyes at doting, smothering parents and resolved to be more of a no-pain-no-gain hardliner when I had kids. . .What doesn't kill kids makes them stronger. My how things change."

Great new website: American Issues Project

Geologians dissenting from infallible dogma of the Church of Global Warming

Making the Left look ridiculous by letting them talk freely and openly.

Dominican sisters arrive in Austin, TX

I received the following request from my novitiate classmate, Fr. Gerald Mendoza, OP, concerning the much anticipated arrival in Austin, TX of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist:

Dear Fr. Philip Neri:

They’re here in Austin! Please see if you can give them some press on your blog and at your vast network and please ask people to pray for their community, mission and ministry and to support them financially. I have been in contact with them and they need all the support they can get. Their website is here. They are booming vocations and are faithful sisters in fidelity to the Church. I hope to visit their community soon and have extended an invitation to ours.

Pax e Bene, Fr. Gerald

Please visit the sisters' site and offer any help--material, spiritual, financial--that you can! I can testify that having OP Sisters praying for you is mighty powerful stuff. . .

Detailed news article about the sisters' arrival here.

Radio interview Monday morning

Brian Patrick, the host of the SonRise Morning Show out of Cincinnati, will be interviewing me about Treasures Old and New live this morning at 7.20 EST (6.20 CST).

From the SonRise website: "Fans of the Son Rise Morning Show say they’ve gotten “hooked” on our fast-paced, faithful, and friendly approach to mornings, and many comment on their surprise at how much they’ve learned about their faith. To share their enthusiasm, we invite you to tune in to the Son Rise Morning Show, weekday mornings from 6-9am on 740AM Sacred Heart Radio in Cincinnati, and 7am Eastern on the EWTN Global Catholic Radio Network.”

Check it out!

Comments on Treasures Old & New?

I've received a deadline from my editor at Liguori for additions and revisions to Treasures Holy and Mystical. So, now I really have to get to work. . .but I need your help.

If you have purchased a copy of Treasures Old and New, please let me know what you think!

What works?

What doesn't?

What would you like to see in the second volume?

The whole point of these books is to be useful to Catholics who want to improve their prayer lives. I can't promise to make any suggested changes, but I can sure try!

Let me hear from you. . .

(P.S. Today's homily is coming. . .I'm stuck on the last page. Grrrrrr.)

Cultivate some peace!

In the post directly below this one, I ask why the Church in the U.S. is so divided right now. My answer is too esoteric, too. . .vague, I guess.

In today's Mass readings, James gives us an inspired answer:

Where do the wars and where do the conflicts among you come from? Is it not from your passions that make war within your members? You covet but do not possess. You kill and envy but you cannot obtain; you fight and wage war. You do not possess because you do not ask. You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

When James says that we do not possess because we do not ask, I take him to mean that we do not have what we need to have peace among us because we do not pray ("ask") to possess peace among us. If we manage to pray for peace, we do not receive it as the gift it is. And if we manage to receive it as the gift that it is, we spend it fruitlessly in passionate excess.

The solution to this difficult problem? James writes, ". . .the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace."

Why are we so divided?

Meandering thoughts on Catholic polarization. . .

Russell Shaw of Inside Catholic has posted an article titled, "Polarization and the Church."

After pointing to the presidential candidacy of B.O. and his subsequent election as President as the principal suspect in the growing rift between factions in the Church, Shaw makes this important point:

But let's be realistic. On the whole, the polarization of American Catholics isn't a split among practicing members of the Church.

According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, only 23 percent of Catholic adults in the United States now attend Mass every Sunday -- which is to say 77 percent do not. Moreover, reports CARA, 75 percent receive the Sacrament of Penance -- confess their sins, that is -- less than once a year or never.

Former Master of the Order, Dominican friar, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe has argued that the polarization in the Church is a split between what he calls "kingdom Catholics" and "communion Catholics." The essential difference here being that Kingdom Catholics embrace Christ's admonitions to pursue justice and peace in the world, while Communion Catholics tend to focus on his call to foster a strong sense of identity over and against the world. Given these divergent and necessarily imperfect visions of the Church, Catholics (broadly speaking) tend to shake out politically as liberals and conservatives. Fr. Radcliffe argues that a true Catholic identity will is best perfected by transcending these limited categories.

If Fr. Radcliffe is right, then Shaw is arguing that Communion Catholics are the one most opposed to the political agenda of B.O. And Kingdom Catholics are more inclined to give B.O. the benefit of the doubt. This seems right to me--as far as it goes.

Assuming that your view of the Church's relationship with secular power shapes your notions of how we ought to go about evangelizing the culture, it is very simple to step back a bit and see how your secular politics can influence your view of the Church itself. Fr. Radcliffe seems to be arguing that Catholics begin with a view of the Church and then move out to the culture. It seems to me that it is often the case that Catholics on the extreme ends of the ecclesial spectrum begin with their secular political views and then move in toward the Church, defining the faith as just one plank in a party platform. In other words, what counts as "being a good Catholic" gets defined in terms of what counts as "being a good liberal/conservative." It is no accident that our ecclesial polarization (at its extremes) seems to mimic our political polarization.

To the degree that American Catholics are polarized along secular political lines, I would say that we differ philosophically in three major areas:

1). Truth: is truth revealed, rational, or constructed? Or some combination of the three? Is it knowable in any form? Is it useful, if knowable? If useful, how should it be used and for whom? For example, some argue that religious belief necessarily opposes scientific fact and vice-versa. Religious belief is understood to be assent to revealed and rational truth, while scientific fact is a rational construct based on observation and experiment, i.e. devoid of any divine revelation. What you think about the nature of truth goes a long way toward shaping your politics.

2). Goodness: is goodness a transcendent goal to be achieved, or a cultural/rational construct built to serve as a measure of social conformity, or merely an emotive expression of preference enforced by convention and law? For example, some would argue that Goodness is an objective end to be achieved as a matter of religious practice. Others would say that Goodness is just a way for us to talk about what appears to be useful for social harmony. In debates about health care, we may differ over ends and means, but it seems that we might differ most over the questions: does Goodness measure us? Or do we measure Goodness?

3). Beauty: like Truth and Goodness the differences here fall within the more fundamental debate over the whether or not our measures are transcendent/revealed or immanent/constructed. Beauty is about harmony, order, and proportion in all things. Those who see beauty as an essential characteristic of the created order will naturally look for it as a sign of God's presence, an indicator that creation participates in the divine. Those who understand beauty as a constructed measure, a way of talking about how we see ourselves as creators within the material world, will call something "beautiful" based on criteria that do not appeal to the divine.

Are we measured by God, or do we measure Him? It seems to me that at the extremes of our polarization, each extreme inconsistently applies a favorite measure. Kingdom Catholics measure the divine by cultural standards on some issues but not others. Communion Catholics measure cultural norms by divine standards on some issues but not others. Which standards are applied to what issue seems to be determined by a desired political outcome. The trick, of course, is to surrender always to the standards of God. But what counts as "God's standards" is itself part of the debate. . .

What do you think is the source of our polarization?

3 Things a Pastor Can Never Say (Updated)

Recently, I received a request to repeat my "Three Things a Pastor Can Never Say to His Parish."

Here they are:

1). What Father says, "Please, be mindful of your children during Mass. We have a cry room." What parents hear: "Your kids are disruptive brats and you cannot control them. They have no place at Mass, so why do you insist on ruining our prayer with these public displays of your failed parenting? Go somewhere else!"

2). What Father says, "Mass is a solemn celebration for the Church. Please keep this in mind when you are choosing your Sunday morning attire." What is heard: "Do not come to Church if you can't afford decent clothes. And by 'decent clothes' we mean expensive clothes, preferably designer labels with good shoes. Also, nobody wants to see you poured into jeans three sizes too small, or watch you slouch around in what you think of as your 'comfortable outfit.' We are an exclusive club here, so dress like you belong! Or go somewhere else!"

3). What Father says, "Just a reminder. . .Mass begins with the opening hymn and closes with the closing hymn. Please join us at the beginning of Mass and stay with us until the end." What is heard: "I'm sick and tired of you people coming in late and leaving early. What? You can't manage to roll outta bed before noon? You can't wait to get back to your ballgame and pot roast? Geez, people! Jesus died for your sins and all you can think about is getting out of the parking lot before traffic gets heavy. Get here on time. Stay to the end. . .or, go somewhere else!"

Though I have never been a pastor, I know from talking to many pastors that these exaggerated responses to gentle prods for decorum are not all that exaggerated. I also know that not all pastors have been as gentle as I have made them here. There's a story in the OP world of an American friar who actually stopped preaching during his homily every time a baby cried. He would stop. Wait for the crying to quiet down. And then continue. Ouch.

Examples, anyone?

[Update: I had to share this. . .I once con-celebrated a "first Mass" of a newly ordained priest. It was a typical 11am Sunday N.O. Mass. He had four altar servers--all girls. When we gathered at the back of the Church to process in, I noticed that all four servers were wearing identical hot pink shower shoes. . .yes, hot pink flip-flops!]

First review of Treasures: Old and New

Jonathan Sullivan wins the prize for posting the first review of my prayer book.

The prize: a beer next time I am in St. Louis!

Thanks, Jonathan. . .

Graphic pics hurt the pro-life cause

California Catholic Daily has re-posted a newsletter article by Father Thomas Eutenerer, president of Human Life International, sent out on September 14. Part of the article quotes vicious comments left by viewers of a local Michigan NBC TV station's report on the recent murder of pro-life activist, Jim Pouillon.

One comment prompts some reflection: "I've never seen this man before, but I've seen others like him. The signs are so offensive that the issue becomes about the sign instead of being about abortion. He hurts the pro-life cause and I'm glad that he's gone."

I have argued in the past that the use of graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at pro-life protests hurts the cause for life. This commenter mentions the presence of such signs as a good reason for Pouillon's murder. Of course, this is baloney. The direct killing of innocent life is an intrinsically morally evil act in all cases, under all circumstances, without regard to intent. There is no reason or excuse that renders such killing "a good thing." Period. Full stop.

But the commenter does raise a good question in my mind: what, exactly, do these signs tell others about the pro-life movement? What do they say about those of us who hate abortion and would see it stopped?

During my time as a pro-choice/abortion advocate, I was always appalled by these signs. I was less offended by the rhetoric of "abortion is murder" because, strictly speaking, I reasoned, abortion is not murder. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Abortion is legal, therefore, it cannot be murder. That bit of legal sophistry went a long way in soothing my seared conscience at the time. However, the graphic pics did something else. They kept me away from the pro-life cause for years.

How so? Seeing these pics I immediately associated them with what I thought was fundamentalist Christian extremism: women are the property of her male family members; non-Christians are damned to hell; theocracy is the only way to govern America, etc. Being an enlightened left-liberal academic, these were horrific political positions to support. If "pro-life" meant theocracy, then I could never be "pro-life." The right to abortion was essential to American democracy.

Keep in mind: these were nearly subconscious associations not well-reasoned conclusions. The pics struck me at a visceral level, and I reacted at that level. How many other pro-choice/abortion folks out there resist the pro-life cause because of these pics? How many other otherwise decent citizens refuse to join us because, at some level, they associate the pro-life cause with unrelated extremist political positions? There's no way to know.

While serving as a campus minister at U.D., I was the faculty sponsor of the school's pro-life group. My one condition for serving in this capacity: no pics of aborted fetuses at clinic gatherings. There was a little grumbling, but the students took this restriction as a challenge to deepen the prayerful element of their presence outside the clinic. They focused on reciting the rosary and sidewalk counseling. No signs. No harsh rhetoric. Just prayer and a peaceful presence. They were prayerful rather than political.

We have no way of knowing how passers-by viewed their presence. But I do know that had I seen faithful Christians simply praying outside Planned Parenthood rather than holding pics of aborted fetuses, I would have come to the pro-life cause long before I did; or, at the very least, I would have thought better of those who opposed my pro-choice/abortion stance. Instead, the pics were an excuse for me to continue my support for abortion "rights." Anyone who would use tactics like these wasn't someone I wanted on my side of the argument.

Pouillon murder cannot be justified. But we have to wonder if his presence as a pro-life advocate would have been more effective as a faithful witness if he had chosen not to use them. I can only say that twenty-years ago I would have dismissed him as an extremist kook because of the pics. Nothing he said or did would have touched my conscience.

The Devil loves strife. He thrives on anger and violence. There is nothing for him to use against us when we bring nothing but love and hope to the fight. Pics of aborted fetuses hurt the pro-life cause. We should stop using them and focus our efforts on being a compassionate, prayerful presence.

B.O. rewrote school speech after the fuss

This article from the Washington Post confirms my earlier suspicion that B.O.'s speech to school children was re-written after a furor erupted over the auxiliary teaching material for the speech was made public.

When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording.

This is the reason his perfectly boring and harmless "Stay in School" speech had no connection with the teaching material released prior to the speech. Of course, the original speech could have been perfectly harmless and boring too, but the teaching material did not suggest that.

I find it interesting that the 7-12th grade materials called for teachers to hang banners in their classrooms with B.O. quotes written in block letters. I've seen this sort of thing before. . .in communist China when I taught English there in 1990.

Seriously, can you even begin to imagine the hell the Bush White House would have caught had it suggested such a thing?!

Tony Blair: pro-life?

Former British Prime Minister and recent Catholic convert, Tony Blair gave an interview to Zenit. He was asked about his reasons for converting to the Church. . .

Blair praised Benedict XVI's encyclical Caritas in Veritate, saying it should be "read and re-read."

He particularly highlighted the Pope's affirmation that "the Christian religion and other religions can make their contribution to development only if God finds a place in the public sphere, with specific reference to the cultural, social, economic and especially the political dimension."

"Personally, I share completely what the Pope writes in the encyclical," Blair added.

I wonder if Blair has actually read Caritas in veritate. Does he agree with the following paragraph from the encyclical?

In vitro fertilization, embryo research, the possibility of manufacturing clones and human hybrids: all this is now emerging and being promoted in today's highly disillusioned culture, which believes it has mastered every mystery, because the origin of life is now within our grasp. Here we see the clearest expression of technology's supremacy. In this type of culture, the conscience is simply invited to take note of technological possibilities. Yet we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the “culture of death” has at its disposal. To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future — indeed it is already surreptiously present — the systematic eugenic programming of births (75).

Does the former PM now believe that abortion is a "tragic and widespread scourge" foisted on the British people by the "culture of death" he helped to create?

I certainly hope so. Otherwise, his claim to agree with the Holy Father's teaching in CV is somewhat suspect.

On celibacy and being a good Catholic

During my recent vacation in Mississippi, visiting family and dodging those @#$% beer-swilling squirrels, my mom asked me to come by the bank where she works to autograph copies of my prayer book purchased by her co-workers. I donned Ye Ole Habit and dutifully took up the task.

The citizens of Byhalia, MS have never seen a Dominican in habit. Most of these good folks are Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, etc. I've heard rumors that there are a few Catholics holding up somewhere on the other side of the railroad tracks, but I've never seen them. Needless to say, my appearance at the bank in habit gave rise to lots of questions. . .not to mention quite a few incredulous stares.

The question I get most often from non-Catholic Christians is: why can't you get married? True to form, this question popped up while I sat chatting with some of my mom's co-workers in the break room. Marriage is such a normal part of everyday life for most people that its absence causes quite a vacuum in their worldview. Why would anyone not get married if they could? Adding to this confusion is the unbending requirement that Catholic clergy and religious remain unmarried! It's not that we can't find someone to marry. . .we are actually forbidden to marry. This is beyond bizarre. . .so bizarre, in fact, that it must be both explained and defended.

Rather than give these women a history lesson or a theological lecture, I told them about my life as a celibate man. How celibacy frees me. How celibacy helps me grow in holiness. How I am pushed to a broader intimacy by not having to focus my love and attention on one person. And how all of these allow me to serve the Church better. Oddly enough, this all made perfect sense to them.

Here's what I didn't tell them: being a priest is the only way I can be a good Catholic. My best friend is a philosopher of astonishing intellect and insight. He knows exactly the right question to ask when I need clarity. Before I entered the Order in 1999, he asked me: "Would you be a Catholic if you couldn't be a priest?" Without a moment's hesitation, I answered, "No." That response stunned me. No? What does that mean? At first I thought it meant that I wanted to be a priest more than I wanted to be a Catholic. If priesthood were not an option, then I would simply try something else. Maybe Zen Buddhism or Unitarianism. This disturbed me b/c it seemed like my interest in Catholicism was defined by my desire to be a priest. That can't be right. Surely, being Catholic is more fundamental to me than being a priest.

Though still a "baby priest," I have come to understand that the only way I can be a good Catholic is to be a priest, and more specifically, a Dominican friar. If I am called by God to the Catholic Church, then everything I am is called. The vocation to priesthood is part and parcel of who I am as a person. Being a priest is the means through which I cooperate with God's grace and perfect my nature by participating in the Divine Life. The only way for me to grow in holiness is to grow as a Dominican priest and friar. In a very real sense, leaving the Order and/or the priesthood would be a sin for me--an act of disobedience.

For me, celibacy is the least onerous of the evangelical counsels. Not having ready access to money for what I want is frustrating, but my needs are met with generosity. However, sometimes I long for a place of my own and a normal job. Obedience is very difficult b/c I am grossly stubborn. Mama Becky says I am "bull-headed." Exactly. Just ask any of the friars! By comparison, celibacy has been easy. As a gregarious introvert, spending time in solitude is refreshing for me. I can be outgoing and animated--what preacher/teacher doesn't get energy from a responsive congregation or class full of students? But time spent with others can be exhausting. The focus required to stay in the conversation is tremendous. I often think of Captain Kirk yelling at Scotty: "Dammit man, we need more power to break free of the gravity well!" Can you see how this attitude would be disastrous for a marriage? OY!

Just as the rules of formal verse free the poet to write what he would never write without them, the vows free a religious to be the person he would never otherwise be. I think it was Chesterton who noted that the rules and regulations of the Catholic faith do not give us a prison yard but a garden. The walls of the Church do not fence in what matters; they fence out what doesn't.

Petulant clamoring for glamor (repost)

[NB. This is a repost of a homily from Advent 2006. The gospel in this homily is Matthew's rendering of Luke's gospel reading for today. Minor edits made.]

2nd Week Advent (F): Isaiah 48.17-19 and Matthew 11.16-19
Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP
Church of the Incarnation, U.D.

We demand that the Pope change the rules on the use of artificial birth control. He does and then we shout for changes in gender exclusion in marriage. The Pope allows gay marriages and we shout for women priests. The Pope allows women priests and we start protesting for gender equity in the College of Cardinals. The Pope gives us 50/50 male to female in the College and we shout for his resignation b/c he is so unresponsive to the voice of the people! Or maybe b/c he’s turned soft…

This is the reward of those who play to the crowd, hoping, in vain, that the crowd can be persuaded or lead or bought off to give its allegiance to the truth. Not likely. Jesus makes this very point this morning: “Your generation is like a bunch of kids playing in the street. You whine when we don’t dance to your favorite music and you whine when we don’t cry along with your funeral dirges. You call John the Baptist demon possessed b/c he doesn’t eat or drink. And I come among you, eating and drinking and you call me a glutton and drunkard.” Jesus is frustrated b/c he’s having to confront again and again the invincible ignorance of the crowds who clamor for glamor, that is, crowds who are following him and gathering about him who want to be see the miraculous done for their amusement. Some will believe, some will remain unbelieving, and most will tag along to see the show, perhaps hoping that something of Jesus’ healing power will pour over and travel to visit their ailments. They were there and we are here.

To what shall we compare this generation? Hyperactive rabbits? A computer with hundreds of lines running in and out? A cyborg with technology stuck in every hole? Needy children on too much sugar? We seem to climb about, swinging away, growing and eating, but left deeply hungry and thirsty in the absence of the Divine. I mean to say that God is always here with us, of course, but that his presence to us is spiritually fruitful only when we invoke His name, go get His gifts to us, and use them honorably in service to others. This generation—yours, mine, or the ones to come—best honor Christ by following his Way; forget the manipulation and craft; we can best use his grace by putting it in front of us to clear our path to Him, to open the Way, to allow His wisdom to be vindicated in us by wisdom’s good works.

The children in the market are petulant, proud, and probably a bit bored. They play their music for reaction, for reflection, or maybe just plain ole for fun. And so too the crowds. They gathered around Jesus for all sorts of reasons. Some pure. Some private. And some for simple delectation. Why do we gather around Jesus in 2006? What draws us to him? Surely he radiates power and we are always ready to vibrate at that hum. Is it his life-philosophy: personal sacrifice for public good? How about his teachings on peace or marriage or eternal life? Do we gather to be seen? To be in control, in charge? To be attention-seeking servants? How ready are you to serve w/o recognition?

Perhaps we do well to keep the words of Isaiah firmly in mind: “I, the Lord, your God, teach you what is for your good, and lead you on the way you should go.” Ministry is God’s work. You and I are the subcontractors; we’re the hired help. Apparently, we work for a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Not company we can boast about. But this is the company that will see our souls before the Throne of the Most High.

If divine wisdom is vindicated by her works, then rank foolishness is celebrated by our pretensions: “if you would hearken to my commandments, your prosperity would be like a river…”

US Condemned for attack on Pakistan

NB. This is a parody from The Onion, i.e. it's funny.


U.S. Condemned For Pre-Emptive Use Of Hillary Clinton Against Pakistan