March | 2018 | Blogger Priest

[35] Fifth Sunday of Lent

Posted on March 18, 2018 by Father Joe

152158488016964075

Readings: Jeremiah 31:31-34 / Psalm 51 / Hebrews 5:7-9 / John 12:20-33

Our first reading selection today is taken from what is called the Oracles of the Restoration of Israel and Judah. Jeremiah’s writings would be an inspiration for the prophet(s) Isaiah; indeed, they proved more beneficial after his death in that they gave hope to a vanquished people. He promoted religious reform and fought the idolatry that plagued Judah. With the apostasy and fall of the nation, he suffered arrest, imprisonment, public disgrace and exile.

The prophet speaks of an impending new covenant, different from before, in that faithfulness will replace their current infidelity. God’s law will not be upon tablets of clay or rock that might be lost or broken, but rather placed within them and written “upon their hearts.” The words once spoken to Abraham will be made everlasting: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” While arguably ambiguous, it sounds like the language of grace. It deeply resonates with Christ’s words about his new and everlasting covenant. Just as the admonition of the Gospel was “repent and believe,” i.e. “obey,” the prophet writes in the persona of the Almighty, “I will forgive their evildoing and remember their sin no more.” Our Lord came into the world for the forgiveness of sins. He heals the breach between God and man. The new Israel and the New Judah is the Church.

The responsorial similarly speaks of God’s law imprinted upon human hearts: “Create a clean heart in me, O God.” The two-fold commandment of Christ emphasizes the love of God and of neighbor. We are to have the Lord’s heart in the priorities we set for ourselves, in regard to that which we love and in how we demonstrate or witness compassion, generosity and forgiveness. Jeremiah was of the priestly class— priests offered sacrifice— they sought to make atonement for sin. The prophet lamented how hard-hearted were both the rulers and the people that followed them. They invited their doom by forfeiting divine favor and protection. No doubt our Lord had Jeremiah in mind when he spoke about how the leaders and crowd even rejected him. We read in Matthew 23:37-39:

“‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

God is faithful. Both God and man will be faithful in Christ.

What is a clean heart? It is pure for sure, but it is also undivided. It is a heart with a single purpose. Do we want this heart? If so then I would recommend the prayer that the apostle Paul gave the Ephesians:

“For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he may grant you in accord with the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner self, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the holy ones what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Ephesians 3:14-21).

The second reading presents Christ as the one High Priest of Christianity. Our Lord did “offer prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears” to the Father on our behalf. Jesus is faithful to his mission given him by the Father unto the Cross. He does what no other priest had ever accomplished, he offered perfect atonement and “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” When our Lord beseeches us to take up our crosses and follow him, he is appealing to us as his priestly people in baptism. It is within the oblation of Christ that our sacrifices and self-offering can be made to the Father. This merits for us a share in the Lord’s reward or victory. Every disciple is to believe, love and serve with a priestly heart. The measure of all love is in terms of surrender or sacrifice. We belong to the Lord. He is a jealous God. He will not share us. He abides in us by grace so that we might live in him forever.

There are several times (both explicitly and in veiled symbolic language) that Jesus prophesies about his coming betrayal, passion and death. He asserts in today’s Gospel, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” After making a reference to his coming death, his attention turns to his followers. “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be. The Father will honor whoever serves me.” How would you advertise for such an ordeal? Imagine you were reading the HELP WANTED ads and your eyes ran across the following:

“WANTED… men and women willing to give up family, position, wealth and power… yes, absolutely everything so as to follow a prophet who claims to be God. Note that you must be willing to follow him in being betrayed, mocked, tortured and murdered. He promises to give you eternal life.”

Sounds crazy, does it not? Who would answer such a thing? And yet, that is precisely the call of the Gospel.

What does it mean to have a sacrificial “priestly” heart?
What must we do to show that we belong to the Lord and his kingdom?
How might we be prophetic instruments in bringing reform to our society?
Have you ever prayed for someone or something to the point of tears?

Filed under: Homily, Priests, Prophets, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

[32] Fourth Sunday of Lent

Posted on March 11, 2018 by Father Joe

152103467553321428

Reading: 2 Chronicles 36:14-16, 19-23 / Psalm 137 / Ephesians 2:4-10 / John 3:14-21

The first sentence of our reading from 2 Chronicles gives us the setting: “In those days, all the princes of Judah, the priests, and the people added infidelity to infidelity, practicing all the abominations of the nations and polluting the LORD’s temple which he had consecrated in Jerusalem.” God’s people had broken their covenant with the Almighty and thus had forfeited divine favor and protection. Israel had fallen and now the same fate would come to Judah. The demise of the remaining Jewish kingdom of Judah extends through the apostasy of their last four kings, culminating in the Babylonian invasion and the exile of God’s people in the Jewish diaspora. They had lost everything and were no longer a nation of their own. Many years later the Persian king Cyrus the Great would conquer the Neo-Babylonian Empire and authorize the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem. Many of the exiles would then return to their homeland. The history of salvation had seen God’s people start out as a family and then become a tribe and still later a nation. Now there is a transitioning into a religion. They would have limited rule of their own, but only as supervised or oppressed by others— a situation which would last through the Roman acquisition of their territories and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

It was in light of the diminished power of the tetrarch Herod (who imagined himself a king) and the Sanhedrin, many who were fearful stooges for the occupying power that the Jewish people longed for a Davidic Messiah who would vanquish their foes by force of the sword. When Jesus entered the stage of world events, the religious leadership saw him as a threat to their position. Many of the people were drawn to him and yet they quickly became despondent when he emphasized a heavenly kingdom over an earthly one. He was not the kind of Messiah they wanted. His message of loving and even forgiving their enemies infuriated the zealots. When it came to the legal requirement of carrying a soldier’s armament, he urged them to do so for two miles (while the law said no more than one). They wanted someone who burned with hate like themselves. It seemed that instead of a military liberator, Jesus was a friend of Romans. Indeed, the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate wanted to set him free, but though bribery, disappointment, and fear, Jesus would be condemned to death. The cry of the crowd, “We have no king but Caesar!” would ironically signal how the fall of Israel and Judah were now complete. A new people would come forward, made up of not only the Jews, but from all the nations— all who would believe in Christ and in his kingdom.

The second reading emphasizes how this new kingdom comes in the person of Christ. “God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ.” The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is also one with the kingdom— the New Israel or New Zion or New Jerusalem.

The psalm echoes the longing of God’s people in Babylonian exile. They struggled to maintain their identity while surrounded by pagan believers and their stories about false deities. The Babylonians worshiped several gods, the chief one being Marduk. Much to the chagrin of the Hebrews, the Babylonians were true idolaters, positing the presence of their deities in their statues and temples. As they became increasing enculturated, many were tempted to abandon the faith of Abraham. The prophets urged them not to forget and to stay faithful to the true God that had called them. The exile would last some seventy years. “Let my tongue be silenced, if I ever forget you! How could we sing a song of the LORD in a foreign land? If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand be forgotten!”

Turning to the new dispensation, while much of the Jewish leadership would renounce Christ, there were a few that did not. Among them were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Jesus told Nicodemus that “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” This was and is the essential Christian kerygma. When God’s people were sick and dying from snake bites, Moses had crafted a serpent on a staff or pole. Those who looked upon it were healed. The serpent was a sign of death; but this sacramental changed it into a means for hope and life. Jesus would be lifted up upon a cross, also a sign of despair and death. Nevertheless, the redemptive work of Christ and his subsequent resurrection changed it for us into a sign of hope and eternal life.

Salvation is based upon an acceptance of Christ. He is the source of grace. There is no other way to the Father. We are saved, not because we are good or faithful but first because Jesus is goodness and is faithful to the mission given him by his Father onto the Cross. He is the LIGHT in the darkness.

The darkness is Satan and yet he masquerades as light. Indeed, one of his names is Lucifer, meaning light. He is the false light that would lead us astray. He is the dark force that numbs consciences to the truth. Jesus gave sight to the blind, healed cripples, gave hearing to the deaf, restored lepers, raised the dead and yet the hearts and minds of the religious leadership were closed to him and they rejected him. Indeed, they wanted him dead and gone. How blind could they be? How deaf to his message? Is it any different today? The Church speaks out for the sanctity of human life and for the dignity of persons— and yet the leaders of this world are still quick to hate and so selfish that even babies are disposable. Many people say they believe or are enlightened but they remain in the grips of bigotry and violence. Many say they care and yet they promote pornography and an industry that reduces people, especially women, to the level of meat or flesh. Separated from God, we do not know how to be good. The devil exploits this darkness. He distracts us from Christ. He breathes his cold breath over hearts that should be warmed by sacrifice and grace. There are all sorts of attacks against the Church and believers who witness with conviction. Why? “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.”

We must shine with the LIGHT of Christ, even if it should illumine that which in ourselves still needs repentance and conversion.

Have we ever blamed God for problems and faults of our own making?
Do we really believe that God is always faithful and ready to forgive us?
Do we place greater confidence in the world than in the values of the Gospel?
Are you stumbling in darkness? What is the true light of our lives?
What forces around us desire to extinguish the light of Christ in our souls?
How have we helped others to find their way as believers or are we stumbling blocks?

Filed under: Homily, Religion | Leave a comment »

Still Struggling with Accompaniment

Posted on March 9, 2018 by Father Joe

152056519364959384

Catholics in irregular unions have been encouraged to receive spiritual communion at Mass despite their marital status. How is this even possible should they be absolutely ill-disposed to grace? Cardinal Kasper argues if they should be urged to receive the one then why not the other— the actual reception of Holy Communion. Should they be excluded from the Eucharist? He acknowledges that the reception of the Eucharist does not mean that they can contract a new “sacramental” marriage while the prior spouse is alive. This has not changed.

Regarding charges of a doctrinal shift, Cardinal Donald Wuerl stated in a letter, “No, the Church’s teaching has not changed; objective truth remains unaffected.” Similarly, Cardinal Müller has said in regard to the permanency of marriage that “This is a matter of a consolidated magisterial teaching, supported by scripture and founded on a doctrinal reason.” This embattled issue is the praxis by which we might seek to assist couples in irregular unions at moving toward a “new integration” into the Church that would respect both the dignity of marriage and make possible a restoration to the sacramental life. I would concur with Cardinal Gerhard Müller that efforts by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn and Cardinal Walter Kasper to reconcile a changed pastoral practice with traditional dogma in Amoris Laetitia (chapter 8) are not convincing. Cardinal Müller states, “Thus, a paradigm shift, by which the Church takes on the criteria of modern society to be assimilated by it, constitutes not a development, but a corruption.”

Cardinal Kasper cites five criteria for the proper disposition to receive Holy Communion:

Genuine sorrow or contrition over the failed bond;
Views the restoration of the prior bond as utterly impossible;
Appreciates that abandoning the second bond would incur new guilt;
Attempts to live the second marriage in the “context of faith”; and
Yearns for the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist.

These are not wholly the traditional requirements, which are: (1) being in the state of grace, 2) having fasted for one hour, and 3) appropriate devotion and/or attention. Pastorally I can sympathize with what he is trying to do; however, I cannot give my support to what must still be regarded as an adulterous union. Indeed, while there is tremendous sympathy for those who have entered into an irregular union, nothing is said about the abandoned and proper spouse. Where is the concern that the spousal support and affection that should come to him or her is instead given to an another, an interloper? Despite the context of feelings or emotions, there is an objective order that is not changed by sentiment or even by expressed sorrow. True contrition should lead to an amendment of life. It seems to me that this revisionist stance is a denial of personal heroism and a betrayal of the Church’s support, either for the abandoned spouse or should they both be culpable, for the valid marital union that is wounded.

Certain proponents contend that secular divorce should be weighed in the equation, a determination that is often required before annulment proceedings. The Church seems to give certain deference to secular authority over marriage and divorce even though that same authority does not acknowledge the Church’s jurisdiction. For instance, the courts have no reservation at rendering divorces, not merely for those married before civil magistrates, but for those whose marriages were witnessed before priests and deacons, as well. If there were mutual respect, then the state would abide by the Church’s rules and withhold divorces to Catholic couples until or if annulments were granted by ecclesial authority. But it is not going to happen. Indeed, the secular and religious definition of marriage daily becomes more divergent; we see this most clearly in the emergence of same-sex unions given the same legal gravity as bonds between men and women. Cardinal Kasper wants to give something of the importance rendered to valid unions to feigned marriages. His criteria are sufficiently vague; so much so that unqualified they would equally attempt to justify homosexual as well as heerosexual bonds. Applying the Cardinal’s categories: the gay person might be sorry about prior failed attempts at heterosexual union; view as impossible either celibacy or “living the lie” of a conventional bond; understand that abandoning the same-sex union would be painful and usher forth unbearable guilt and betrayal; seek to live the new bond with fidelity as they worship regularly as Catholics; and long to receive the sacraments and find acceptance. Would the Cardinal want his arguments stretched this far? The orthodox believer would argue that sex outside of a valid marriage is a sin. Further, our Lord tells us that marriage lasts until the death of a spouse. The Church defines marriage as an exclusive bond of unity and fidelity between a man and woman that is open to the generation of new human life.

Apologists for a change in discipline insist that we should redefine what is meant by adultery. I am doubtful that this is possible. The fact that those in irregular unions share tenderness for each other and display responsibility for children is indeed often quite true. But sin does not have to be utterly malicious. It can be subtle or even gentle. No one questions their capacity for love and compassion. However, does the good that one does for one eradicate the bad or the damage done to another?

As a bit of an aside, the movie and book SILENCE has a priest betray his faith so that the children and parishioners he loves might be spared torture and death. We understand as weak human beings what he does. However, we are also called to be saints. While we try to make a positive difference in this world, we set our sights on the coming kingdom. We are not promised perfect happiness in this world. There is no road to holiness that sidesteps the Cross. The priest in the story saved a few lives and his own, but did he cost them the faith and himself, his immortal soul? The Church would tell us that God sets the terms for salvation. Might the Church be on the precipice of betraying marriage just as a reputed change in Vatican policy to the Communists in China might betray the underground church? Do we really want this pontificate and time in the Church’s history to go down as the age when we surrendered to secular modernity? Returning to the subject of marriage and broken vows, are we not proposing that weakness and cowardice should be rewarded where we should be supporting courage and even martyrdom? I cannot mentally escape the story of Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher. We allowed an entire empire and earthly kingdom to separate from the Church over the matter of a divorce. As one Anglican critic recently said, if this discipline should change, then the Church of England finally wins.

Seeking to be a good priest, I would never do anything to deliberately hurt parishioners or to precipitate scandal. Pastors of souls must keep professional secrecy and the seal of confession. We might urge people in private to refrain from Holy Communion because of unresolved sins, but we would not seek to publicly embarrass and/or to berate them should they reject our guidance. Behind the scenes, many priests quietly work with couples in irregular unions so that they might apply for annulments and hopefully have their unions con-validated by the Church. There are also couples, often older, who live as brother and sister. They need to be together but they also respect the teaching of Christ and the demands of the Church. All this is wholly different from the attitude that couples in irregular unions might be publicly invited by their pastors to full participation in the sacramental life while remaining in a second or third civil marriage. Does the need for penance and the Eucharist trump the sacrament of matrimony? How can this be when the sacrament of marriage is intimately associated with the covenant of Christ and his relationship with the Church, his bride?

I have struggled to appreciate Cardinal Kasper’s reasoning. Nevertheless, it still befuddles me. He asserts that nothing has changed because even if we allow those in irregular unions to receive absolution in confession and to take Holy Communion, they still cannot contract a new “sacramental” marriage while the prior spouse is alive. It perplexes me to no end as to why he does not see the inner contradiction. The logic he employs utterly escapes me. He seems to be making a distinction between a one-time sacrament and those sacraments which are regularly received again and again. But marriage is a sacred covenant with one’s spouse in Christ that is renewed regularly with the marital act whereby the two become one flesh. Sexual intercourse with anyone other than the spouse signifies not the renewal or consummation of the covenant bond, but rather, its betrayal. How can one betray the covenant of Christ in bed and then receive the Eucharist which is the new covenant in Christ’s flesh and blood? How can one be absolved from sins when the mortal sin of adultery remains undisturbed at the very center of life?

It should also be added that while the focus is often necessarily upon the sexual dynamic of marriage and fidelity; sexual or genital expression does not exhaust all the intimacies and duties that come along with marriage. Divorce and remarriage (or cohabitation) signifies a violation of the whole package of the bond. They are called to share a common life, to give daily comfort and companionship, and to be helpmates in finding their salvation in the Lord. Married couples are called to be best friends. No matter what comes, they are supposed to stand together. All these elements are violated with infidelity and divorce. As the Church struggles to delineate the boundaries of accompaniment; I plead that we do not forget the true spouse. In many cases, he or she might have been innocent and desiring to fight to make the marriage work. But it takes two and what is one to do when the other walks away. Often they suffer alone in silence, praying and loving a spouse that seems to have forgotten them— who now takes comfort and pleasure in another’s arms. As a priest I have counseled many such people. Faithful to the Church and to their conscience that the bond was true (meaning forever) they one-sidedly keep their shredded promises and do not date. Offspring are also part of the larger picture. Children from an abandoned family are made aware that their father has started a new family. They wonder within their sorrow and tears, why does he love them more than us?

My pressing personal concern is beyond the temporal or pastoral and admittedly, is somewhat selfish. If I should invite those in irregular unions to take the Eucharist and/or to be absolved in the confessional; would I be compromising my own soul by enabling or condoning mortal sin? I can appreciate “accompaniment” but like the men on the road to Emmaus, I would like to see them turn around. I do not want to walk unashamedly with adulterers, even very cordial and pious ones, into the flames of perdition. Of course, it is possible that they might be saved by their ignorance of the truth; just as I might be condemned for my certainty about it. Wouldn’t that take the cake!

Filed under: Adultery, Confession, Eucharist, Marriage, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

[29] Third Sunday of Lent

Posted on March 3, 2018 by Father Joe

152017828213757097 (3)

Readings: Exodus 20:1-17 / Psalm 19 / 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 / John 2:13-25

Our first reading from Exodus has the presentation of the Decalogue, and so I would like to present some of my reflections on the Ten Commandments that I usually share with those taking formal religious instructions. I will also speak to the catechetical over the Scriptural listing, as the incarnation of Christ has abrogated the prohibition against graven images. Christ is the human face of God. He is the revelation of our heavenly Father.

The first commandment reminds us that ours is a jealous God; there is no other before him. He is the one and only! He does not want us wasting our lives on false gods or empty superstitions. Even though there may not be many traditional worshipers of idols cast in stone or bronze, or of figures from nature like the sun or animals, this prohibition is still violated. We see this in dangerous occult toys, like tarot cards and Ouija boards. These things are hazardous to our souls because they sidestep God’s dominion over us and his will for us. They might even invite spiritual evil to penetrate our lives. This commandment also condemns sacrilege whereby persons, places, or things sacred to God are defiled. Even interest in the popular horoscopes can sometimes escalate beyond simple curiosity and become habitual false guides. God wants us to follow him alone.

The second commandment urges us to treat God’s name respectfully. This necessarily prohibits blasphemy, making false oaths in God’s name, and cursing.

The third commandment tells us to make the Sabbath day holy. For Christians, this obligation is transferred to Sunday. (It is interesting that most Protestant religions accept at least this one precept or legislation of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, along with our Jewish brethren, they would respect it on Saturday.) We sanctify this day by prayer, worship, avoiding unnecessary work, rest, and joy. Therefore, something like failing to participate at Mass on Sunday is not merely a violation of the laws of the Church, but in a very direct manner, an infringement upon this commandment to give God his due.

The fourth commandment exhorts us to respect our parents by loving and helping them, especially when they are in need. While young and under their immediate authority, children must obey their parents. Reciprocally, parents must give a Catholic education to the children entrusted to them. Their spiritual and material welfare is essentially in their hands. The parents may extend or endow school teachers and others with something of their own authority. This commandment speaks to us in a less direct way about authority in general. All just authority comes from God. We are called to obey spiritual and civil authorities when they make legitimate demands. However, if there is a conflict between the laws of human beings and those of God, God comes first.

The fifth commandment prohibits us from either harming our own bodies or those of others. This commandment expands beyond murder or suicide to the various partial degradations: including such things as mutilation, striking another, harmful drugs, drunkenness, and carelessly taking risks with our lives. Abortion is a direct violation of this commandment. Our right to choose should never be deemed a higher priority than another person’s right to life.

The sixth commandment, taken alone, forbids all external sins against chastity. Once sexual activity is condoned outside marriage, as in fornication, it is logically difficult to confine afterwards, as in adultery. The premise is already adopted. Some fifty percent of the couples who live together prior to marriage eventually get divorced. The seed for failure is already planted. Sin is a mighty poor preparation for the nuptial sacrament. Considered with the ninth commandment, all interior sins against chastity are likewise condemned. The human sexual powers are given for the propagation of children and for the fidelity of a man and woman in marriage. Outside of marriage, it is a great evil to exercise these powers, which are not simply expressions of our flesh, but of our very persons— who we are! Inside marriage, these powers must not be distorted in their purpose or in the motivation of two people in love drawn to union. Lust, even in marriage, is a sin and degradation to what it means to be truly human. It re-categorizes the beloved from a personal subject to an impersonal object. Instead of self-sacrifice and surrender— thinking of the other’s needs and happiness— we selfishly treat the other as a disposable thing with which we can seek our own gratification. If the beloved is no more than an object, then the stage is set for adultery because objects are interchangeable. This is the antithesis of the Gospel. Marriage is called to be a permanent union. Adultery is a gross violation of that permanent union which is to reflect the fidelity between Christ and his bride, the Church. The adulterer plays the role of Satan who would lure us away from our divine groom and from the wedding banquet of heaven.

The seventh commandment rejects stealing and dealing unjustly with another. Even if we accept stolen goods, we have broken this commandment. All sorts of things fall under this heading: idling, charging unfair interest, not paying debts, not giving a just salary, and stealing someone’s good name. Restitution is demanded in cases where we have stolen or damaged the goods of others. This last matter draws this commandment to the eighth.

The eighth commandment would have us be a people of truth and good will. We are not to lie or to slander others. If we stumble into this sin, then we need to repair the damage caused by our falsehoods.

The ninth commandment, as mentioned under the sixth, requires us to be mindful of our thoughts. To occupy ourselves with sexual fantasies regarding others, not only breaks down our will in reference to actions, but degrades the one whom we are imagining. This is destructive to the dignity of the person who is reduced to an impersonal object in obscene films and other pornography.

The tenth commandment, like the ninth, reminds us that God wants our conversion, both in external action and in our internal disposition. To be open to the grace of his presence, we must free ourselves from within, of those persons or things which we might covet before God. In actuality, we might not commit a sin against justice, but we might “want” to do it. Even this needs to be weaned away. We need to reach a point in our spiritual life where we do not WANT to steal from or to hurt another.

God establishes his law with his people. Fidelity to the commandments realizes the covenant with God. Disobedience is more than breaking rules; it severs a saving relationship with the Lord. The full revelation of God and the expansion of his covenant relationship, as the apostle Paul says in the second reading, are in Christ Crucified. The Gospel gives us the shocking scene where Jesus whips the money-changers out of the temple and upsets their tables. He complains that the temple which is a place for worship and sacrifice has been made into a marketplace or even worse, a den of thieves. When asked by what authority he casts them out, he in return challenges them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” They mistakenly think he is referencing the building around them when he really means his body. Long before, the actual tablets of the law and the ark had been lost. Jesus is the new covenant but he is not made at home in the Jewish temple. Within seventy years the temple will be demolished by the Romans. Two thousand years later it is still gone, all but the retaining or wailing wall. Jesus was crucified but the temple of his body rose from the tomb. As mentioned last week, Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. We are all called as believers to be obedient to Jesus and to enter into his temple, the Mystical Body.

Are there certain commandments that we routinely violate?
Do we give God his due in daily prayer, Mass participation and witness?
Do we follow the commandments mechanically or within Christ’s command to love?
While expressed negatively, how might you make the commandments into positive statements?
Do we respect the new temples of the Lord: Christ present in us by grace, in our homes by holiness, in our tabernacles as sacrament, in the Scriptures as the living Word, and in the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ?

Filed under: Commandments, Homily | 1 Comment »