An Advent Reflection

“Advent” is a word formed of two Latin words “ad” and “venio”.  Literally translated, it means, “to come to”.  According to Church teachings, Advent is a time to prepare for the annual commemoration of Jesus’ coming to Earth as well as his second coming. 

This year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website offered a calendar suggesting one Advent activity per day for such preparations.  The bishops’ specific suggestions are listed at the end of this article but can be summarized as follows:

• 12 personal piety activities (43% of suggested activities)
• 12 activities for personal and/or spiritual development (43%)
• 2 activities to indoctrinate yourself in the bishops’ political lobbying efforts (7%)
• 1 activity to pray for someone else (3.5%)
• 1 activity for the church’s benefit (3.5%)
• 0 activities to help other people (0%)

This list of activities confuses me…greatly.

Jesus came into the world to live and preach the two great Commandments: Love God, and love people.  He instructed the disciples to follow and actively imitate him – not follow and passively watch in awe and hushed reverence like spectators hiking a golf course adoring their favorite master.  He never told them to get down on their knees and worship him.  Actually, at the Transfiguration when some of the disciples wanted to initiate pious rituals, God redirected their enthusiasm, saying “This is my beloved son, listen to him (MT 17:5, MK 9:7).”  Note: God did not say, “Stand here in paralysis and worship him.” 

If you listen, you hear him teach that the Kingdom of God is at hand (MT 10:7) because God dwells among us (John 1:14).  God is not some distant, detached, unreachable concept but a reality in our midst, very integrated in our very selves and daily lives. 

The Kingdom of God is realized when the poor, whether or not you think they are “deserving”, receive needed food, clothing, shelter or simple human compassion.  It is when the sick receive care and compassion without judgment or qualifications.  It is when the lonely or imprisoned receive companionship and compassion.  It is when the marginalized are included and treated with compassion even if you don’t like them.  It is when erring people receive compassionate, unconditional loving forgiveness rather than judgment or dismissal, and they receive this not because we believe we are better people than them, but because we realize we are no better people than them (MT 9:1-7, MT 9:18-26, MT 9:35-36, MT 15:21-28, MT 15:29-31, MT 18:1-5,MT 20:29-34, MT 25:31-46, MK 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17, Luke 18:35-43, John 8:1-10 plus many, many more references). 

Jesus taught that when he comes again, our judgment will not be a written or oral examination on dogma as though we are defending a master degree thesis or a doctoral dissertation.  It won’t be an evaluation of our performance of piety rituals, as though scoring a gymnast, diver or figure skater on execution and technical difficulty.  It will quite simply be this: Did you compassionately feed the hungry, welcome strangers, clothe people, care for the sick, accompany the lonely, and include the marginalized (MT 25:31-46)?  And did you do this especially for those whom you disliked, who hated you, and with whom you disagreed (LK 6:27-32)? 

Jesus prayed, not in pious paralysis or as an end in itself; he prayed unceasingly to know what to do.  Then he did it.  And the things he did were focused on caring for others, not on himself.  He calls us to do likewise.  Why don’t the bishops?

As I look at the bishops’ recommended activities, I see a lot of inwardly focused activities.  I see a lot of personal piety.  I see activities that exploit Advent, trying subtly to manipulate people to join the bishops in their secular political lobbying activities.  I see only one activity that focuses outside of self or church.  I see no recommended actions to help people other than retired religious, which is an inward assistance to the church.  Why is this? 

Amongst the orthodox and conservative crowds, including the pope and many clergy, there is renewed focus on various piety rituals venerating Jesus.  Eucharistic adorations, perpetual adoration chapels, and other pious devotions are being re-emphasized.  For example, yesterday I saw a YouTube video of a California parish that took the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance to a shopping mall and waved it around while people dropped to their knees in adoration.  However, they did not feed the crowds by distributing communion.   They worshiped Jesus, but did they follow him?

It is good and fitting if staring at the Eucharist inspires people to “Go, sell what you have and give to the poor (MT 19:21, MK 10:21, Luke 18:22)”, “Cure the sick (MT 10:8), “Judge not lest ye be judged (MT 7:1)”, “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (LK 6:27)”, or forgive others “seven times seventy times (MT 18:21-22)”, etc…  However, I’m afraid more and more often it is becoming an end in itself as many Catholics and most Catholic leaders increase piety efforts while decreasing efforts that truly care for fellow humans.  They seem to increase judgment and decrease unconditional forgiveness.  They make excuses to cleave to their personal wealth and possessions rather than “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (MK 12:17)”, or relinquishing their wealth to care for others - outside of token gestures that assuage consciences.  They vilify their enemies rather than love or help them.  Sometimes they even seem to invent enemies to vilify.   

The priest, Aaron, fashioned a golden calf (Ex 32:1-8) that the people worshiped.  Moses, who was not a priest, smashed it.  Are today’s priests imitating Aaron their priestly predecessor or Moses?  When we stare at a monstrance or tabernacle fashioned of gold, are we listening to God’s instruction so as to actively imitate Jesus?  Or are we repeating the error of the early Israelites by piously worshiping these tools as golden calves? 

I appreciate that we believe these tools hold the real presence of Christ.  But, when Christ comes again, will he find us worshiping our own golden calves, worshiping his deceased corpse entombed and imprisoned in gold, or will he find us following him, alive freely working amongst all people?  Keep in mind Jesus warned, “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather (MT 24:28).” 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Recommended Advent Activities

Personal Piety Activities (I categorized them)

Use an advent wreath

Pray the Rosary (2 times)

Fast

Pray the Immaculate Conception prayer

Pray the Juan Diego prayer

Bless your Christmas tree

Pray the Our Lady of Guadalupe Prayer

Pray the St. John of Cross Prayer

Set up your Nativity set and bless it

Pray the O Antiphons

Receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation

Personal and/or Spiritual Development

Read the Bible (2)

Learn about a saint (2)

Read Benedict XVI reflections (3)

Learn about Human Rights Violations

Learn about Catholic Social Justice and how you might include it in your daily life

Learn about Catholic teaching on criminal justice

Learn about Fair Trade shopping and consider adopting these practices

Read and reflect upon the Christmas Readings

Promoting the bishops’ political lobbyist agenda

Learn about “Faithful Citizenship”

Learn about “Catholics and Religious Liberty”

Pray for someone else

Pray for those with HIV/AIDS

Do something for the church

Donate to the religious retirement fund

Do something for someone else

No activities listed

What should be held bound?

Last week the Detroit Archdiocese announced recommendations to close 9 parishes and merge 39 of 60 other parishes into 21 parishes.  The Detroit Archdiocese undertook a similar effort about 20 years ago, closing and merging dozens of parishes.  Detroit is not unique.  Many dioceses and archdioceses, including mine, have undertaken similar efforts.  The result has been larger, more centralized parishes – many in suburbs - and a reduced percentage of inner-city parishes. 

Every time I hear of such undertakings, I am confused.  Here’s why.  Jesus commissioned the eleven disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (MT 28:19).”  He also said that a good shepherd will leave the flock to go after even a single sheep, and rejoice over that one (MT 18:12-14).    

Since my childhood, those passages conjure mental images of shepherds relentlessly dispersing outwardly so as to expand the flock.  I envision shepherds doing whatever it takes to ensure inclusivity and completeness, retaining all sheep. 

Those passages would seem to suggest that Jesus called shepherds to movement, not the sheep.  Expect sheep to be sheep; go find them and make it easy for them.  Don’t expect them to find you.  And when you find them, care for them.

In direct contrast, parish closings and mergers conjure a mental picture with reversed directional flow and, somewhat, role swapping between shepherds and sheep.  If shepherds believe the flock is too small, they move away from their sheep – a far cry from leaving the ninety-nine sheep majority to rejoice over reaching the one outlier.   Then, the shepherds’ actions cause the sheep to go looking for their shepherds as though the shepherds are the lost ones.  Instead of shepherds moving outwardly, sheep must move inwardly.  Should we then be surprised shepherds, behaving the opposite of Jesus’ directives, tend a shrinking flock? 

I have heard multiple conservative, orthodox priests and laypeople say that the Church is purifying its ranks with an objective to shrink the flock.  They want a flock with only “highest quality” sheep.  Thus, perhaps such people rejoice at the smaller flock, expecting that only the “right kind” of sheep will exert the effort to find shepherds.  However, does God rejoice in the smaller flock?  Does God rejoice in excluding rather than including?

The Detroit Archdiocese’s recommendations were made by a panel that examined parish membership and finances.  If the Church were a corporation making decisions to maximize financial profits, this might make sense.  But, the Church is supposed to use a very different set of decision-making criteria.  Therefore, this confuses me too.  Flocks that struggle financially often have economically challenged sheep – sheep least financially positioned to afford the expense of tracking down a shepherd.  Often their financial circumstances introduce other life challenges that would make easy access to a shepherd very comforting. 

Furthermore, shepherds are supposed to feed their sheep.  In the Catholic Church the Eucharist is a key part of this nourishment.  But sheep in financially challenged flocks often are the working poor with less job schedule flexibility.  Thus, in addition to the personal financial impact these sheep endure by traveling to find their shepherds, reduced Mass schedules also impact their ability to be fed.  Conversely the sheep of economic means can afford to travel to find shepherds and often have flexible job situations.  Yet it seems that shepherds move their flocks catering more to feed the economically blessed sheep rather than the impoverished sheep.  Jesus’ teachings in the gospel cause me to assume good shepherds would do the opposite.

But, even if shepherds left parishes open with abundant Mass options, they still seem to make the sheep jump through hoops before they will feed them.  They lock the Blessed Sacrament (Jesus) in the tabernacle, hiding him from the sheep.  They introduce awkward stilted language in the Mass.  They declare some sheep unworthy of being fed.   

Eventually those shepherds and their groupies who desire a shrunken flock succeed in both driving off wounded sheep, and in inflicting wounds upon other sheep, subsequently driving them away as well.  Does God rejoice in paring the flock based upon humans’ judgment? 

I imagine the ultra-orthodox crowd might counter that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom and instructed, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (MT 16:19).”  Perhaps they feel this statement by Jesus gives shepherds free reign to judge and dismiss people.  Only sheep on their “A” list should get into heaven. 

But the prophet Ezekiel gives us some indication of what God wants “bound”.  “I myself will pasture my sheep; I myself will give them rest.  The lost I will search out, the strays I will bring back, the injured I will bind up, and the sick I will heal (Ez 34:15-16).”  It would seem that Jesus, one in being with God (“consubstantial” for those who only speak the New English Translation), expected Peter to bind the wounds of the broken, not judge and dismiss them. 

If shepherds bind the broken on Earth, they will deliver to God all the sheep, even the broken ones.  However, if shepherds judge and dismiss “inferior” sheep, binding them to manufactured laws, they will deliver God a ragged fraction of the flock entrusted to them.

Do parish closings, excommunications, censures, and inaccessibility to the Sacrament bind the broken so as to ensure they will be bound in heaven?   

Are church leaders behaving more as shepherds or corporate executives?

Christ the King

Today is the Feast of “Christ the King”.  Jesus’ only kingly crown was woven of thorns. 

Today, Pope Benedict XVI, many clergy and lay Catholics consider the pope to be Christ’s best representative on Earth.  Therefore, let us pause today and reflect upon the images of these two men and their respective crowns.

Does one image readily recall the other?  If not, why not, and what should we do about it? 

       

The Chair of Peter

Church leaders promote the notion of Peter being the first pope.  Laying aside historical and scriptural evidence that conflicts with that idea, let’s reflect upon the concept. 

Church leaders call Peter the first pope to justify the primacy of the bishop of Rome over other bishops.  They then say there is an unbroken chain starting from Jesus appointing Peter until today’s Pope Benedict who occupies the “chair of Peter”.  This is used to increase the weight and credibility of papal utterances and writings.  Papal writings are actually seen as foundational to directing theology and ecclesiology.

The curious thing is that Peter didn’t write anything.  According to biblical scholars, including the ones who wrote the introductory notes contained on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ online Bible, Peter did not write even the New Testament books carrying his name, 1 Peter and 2 Peter.  Yet, at the same time that Peter lived and didn’t write about theology,spirituality or ecclesiology, Paul was writing up a storm.  Paul’s writings influenced Christian theology and ecclesiology, not Peter’s. 

Paul wasn’t pope and wasn’t even a bishop.  He actually declared himself an apostle in a most unconventional way.   He wandered from community to community, traveling long distances.  He didn’t stay within arbitrarily defined geographic boundaries.  And despite all this, the church was and is greatly influenced by him.  Why is it that people associate Peter with the concept of a pope but popes actually emulate Paul’s ministry? 

If we performed time travel and had Peter and Paul in today’s world and put Peter in the Chair of Peter and Paul as a priest (apostle) who became an apostle through self-proclamation and received laying on of hands from a disciple, rather than an apostle, what do we think would happen?  Forget about suffering Peter the time travel.  Let’s just subject Paul to time travel.  If Paul did what he did centuries ago under today’s Pope Benedict XVI, what do we think would happen? 

How would Benedict deal with a lay person “ordaining” Paul as an apostle because he felt the Lord directed him to do so?  That is how today’s intentional ecclesial communities operate.  It is how many Christian denominations operate. 

How would Benedict respond to Paul saying the Lord told him directly that he is to be ordained rather than having apostles approve his apostleship?  I think today’s ordained women priests could offer some insight on Benedict’s receptiveness to these practices.

How would Benedict react to a non-bishop’s prolific writings directing the theology and ecclesiology of the faithful worldwide, more so than his?  Perhaps the 90+ theologians Benedict has censured would have a good guess.

How would Benedict react to someone preaching wherever the Spirit beckoned, without regard for canine-like territorial demarcations of dioceses?  Bishop Gumbleton forced into retirement for speaking truth on behalf of clergy abuse victims outside of his diocese’s boundaries likely would have an opinion. 

Why do popes of today behave more like the unconventional apostle Paul than they do Peter, who let this unconventional apostle operate with impunity and his blessings?