Tag Archives: God

Capital Punishment and Pope Leo

1 Reply

Dear Folks,

Recently, Pope Leo mentioned that those who favor capital punishment are not pro-life. This has confused many people, and I would like to offer some reflections.

First, remember that the term “pro-life” is not rigorously defined. In math, science, and philosophy they taught us to define our terms clearly so we know what they really meant so that everyone using them could understand them the same way. When we use terms that carry much emotional weight but are not rigorously defined, let us remember what is and what is not being accomplished.

Now let us consider capital punishment and respect for human life.

In the Old Testament, God mandated capital punishment, beginning with the covenant of Noah: “Whoever spills human blood, that person’s blood will be shed; for in the image of God has God made man (Gen 9:6).” This taught that all human life was sacred, whether an aristocrat or a peasant, man or woman, little baby, vigorous adult, or infirm senior citizen, their lives had a value that could not be compared with any other value. There was no amount of money, nothing on earth that could compare to the value of human life.

Remember, though, that was not the response to Cain when he killed his brother Abel (Gen 4). More on that later.

As we go through the Bible, we see that God teaches some things gradually, not because He is learning as He goes, but because people can only be brought along so fast. Our kindergarteners are bright and enthusiastic, but they are not learning calculus. They are not ready.

When some Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce and He said they should not be separated they were surprised. “They said to him, ‘Why did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ He replied, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning (Matthew 19:7-8).’” This suggests that God led His people along gradually, and some things they were not yet ready to receive, but that God wanted from the beginning. This may explain His treatment of Cain.

Around the time of the exile, there was more reflection on the individual, personal rights, and personal responsibilities. In Ezekiel 18 we see God reveals what He really wants.

“Do I derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? Asks the Lord God. Would. I not rather rejoice to see them turn away from their wickedness and live (Ezekiel 18:23).”I would encourage reading the whole chapter. A very nasty Saul of Tarsus was responsible for the deaths of many Christians, but God did not strike him down but called him to repentance and sainthood. God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

We remember the one time when Jesus was presented with a question about capital crime, He didn’t want her killed; He wanted her to “go and sin no more (John 8:1-11).” This does not by itself resolve the issue, but it is worth considering in the discussion.

For many centuries, the Catholic Church held that capital punishment was a proper way to enforce the law and deter crime. Things started to shift starting with Pope Saint John Paul. As I remember it, he started by appealing to authorities not to execute particular criminals. He taught extensively about the culture of death, (which considered killing a way to solve problems) and how that contrasted with a culture of life. Toward the end of his papacy, after laying the groundwork, he taught that we can do better than capital punishment in most cases. Pope Francis pushed it farther. Now it appears that Pope Leo is

moving in that direction.

There are some arguments against capital punishment that I find unpersuasive to the point of being irritating. I saw a t-shirt that said, “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”. I believe it is common to imprison kidnappers,

but I never saw a t-shirt that said, “Why do we lock up people who lock up people to show that locking up people is wrong?” When people claim it is inconsistent to be antiabortion and pro-capital punishment, that tells me that they have not taken the effort to understand the other point of view, and that is irritating. I’m reminded of the 5th amendment that says that no one can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Punishing convicted criminals calls for some things that we shouldn’t do to innocent people.

Do some people deserve to be put to death? I think so. In fact, one could make a case that there are some awful people who might deserve to die slowly and tortuously. Imagine, though, what it would do to our souls to inflict such a thing? What would it do to our society? Imagine having that job. I would be concerned about someone who is not repulsed at the thought.

Someone said, “if he took someone’s life should he be able to keep enjoying his life?” I say, “Who said he’ll get to enjoy it?” I’m not arguing this out of niceness. If I had my way a vicious murderer would be put in twenty-three hour a day lockdown, with Mother Angelica, Bishop Robert Barron, Trent Horn, and other such videos pumped into his room. I also have a recipe for brown rice and tofu. Let’s see how he does with fifty years of that. He might beg for a lethal injection. I recognize this idea would have to be adjusted by others who know more about this stuff, but you get the idea. If a few of those souls could be redeemed, that would be a good thing.

If we treat every human life from conception to natural death as sacred in a way that is deeper than human choice, deeper than our personal merits, and transcending all other categories, I suggest that we will be a better society and better people, and will put us in a better position to fight abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and other manifestations of the culture of death.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Peace or Division?

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

It is the work of Satan to tear people apart. It is the work of Jesus to reconcile, and we have been entrusted with that work. “All this has been done by God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and entrusted us with the ministry of reconciliation. In other words, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and not holding people’s transgressions against them, and he committed us to the message of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-19”).

Here’s a twist: Jesus said, “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three… (Luke 12:52-53).” But what about “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9)” and “Peace I leave you, my peace I give you (John 14:27).” What are we to make of this?

What about this? In this world torn by sin and division, the only road to peace and unity begins by uncovering the division. Where Jesus went, there was division between those who accepted His teaching and those rejected it, often fiercely. I suggest that Jesus did not create the division, but He revealed the division that was already in their hearts.

There are many dysfunctional families in which problems are not addressed, they are not talked about, and people pretend they don’t exist. Then they get worse. This is not peace.

Avoiding conflict does not make it go away, and when it festers, sometimes there is ablowup.

When surgeons heal, they must first cut. To be sure, they cut very carefully and precisely; they don’t just slice haphazardly. It is all directed toward healing, and they know how to do it. Furthermore, they try to cut as little as possible, while doing the most healing. Incisions for the same kind of surgery gotten smaller as medical science has advanced.

I’ve seen a lot of conversation in social media that seems like just slicing haphazardly: lots of insults, name calling, and attacking.

If I criticize someone in a way that makes them think, “this person hasn’t tried to understand my position, and what he says misses the point” then it’s guaranteed that I will not be able to persuade him. In fact, I’ve reinforced his belief by my unpersuasive argument.

Imagine someone out there who disagrees with me but is open to reason. What in my words has a chance of getting him to think a new thought, ask a new question, or see things from a different angle? How would my words sound to that person?

Recognize there is a disparity between how I hear myself and how others hear me. Being attentive to people’s reactions can give us a hint of what they heard, and how it might differ from what we intended to say. We will make mistakes. It is hard. It can be painful.

Of course, reading the Gospels makes it clear there is no way to be a disciple of Jesus without some pain. It’s easy to complain, to insult people, to call names, but seriously engaging is hard work. Consider, if you could reduce the friction in your car’s motor so

that it went twice as far on a gallon of gas and the parts took twice as long to wear out, what would that be worth? How much more valuable with the members of society.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Missing the Big Picture

2 Replies

Dear Folks,

When we try to have productive dialog, there are some principles that might be useful.

Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow” he says there are two kinds of thinking. One is faster and easier, but “knows nothing of logic or statistics” and has a tendency to believe that what we see is the whole picture. The other kind of thinking is slower and more work, so very often people don’t do it. It takes effort to think things through, to examine and question ideas critically. When I’m talking to someone, what kind of thinking am I using? What kind of thinking is the other person using? Both kinds of thinking are useful in their place, but it is useful to be aware.

Recognize that God sees everything (the whole picture) with direct apprehension. We do not. We, through our senses, collect bits of experience and weave them into a narrative. There is absolute truth, but our grip on it is limited. Two people can have very different narratives about the same situation and both be acting in good faith.

There are many people working very hard to feed us their narratives about how things are, and some people will hear the narrative, find it compelling, then accept it uncritically and never look back.

If you read “Unlocking Leadership Mindtraps” by Jennifer Garvey Berger (I’m currently listening to her “Simple Habits for Complex Times” and it is interesting), she describes one mindtrap as “The Simple Story.” We hear a simple narrative that seems compelling and decide that it explains everything, and we can miss complexity. Another mindtrap is “Agreement”. If everyone in our group agrees with an idea we tend decide that it’s enough and not to seek further perspective. There is an opposite in which whatever a certain person or group believes, we automatically believe the opposite. I saw someone talking about a politician (whose opponents really hated him) and this person suggested, “He should issue a statement in favor of air and watch his enemies suffocate themselves.” Nobody is always right (except God) and nobody is always wrong.

There is a dark triad: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, people who don’t care how they hurt you as they seek to get what they want. You can imagine the temptation to be quick to decide that anyone we disagree with is one of those, but that is lazy and unproductive. We need some really solid reason to write someone off like that. We also need to recog-

nize that having fruitful dialogue with people of other perspectives is more work than we are used to thinking.

In Matthew 10:14 (also Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5) Jesus teaches that sometimes people will not

hear us, and we must “shake the dust” from our feet and move on. Jesus couldn’t reach everyone, and we are not going to do better than Jesus. Once again, it is important to beware of the

temptation to put people in that basket too quickly. This work is hard, harder than we tend to think, and if we give up too soon, we will make no progress but become more and more alienated.

All of this means that having good dialogue with other people is going to be hard work, patient work, frustrating work. The question is: are we willing to do that for the sake of a better world?

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Harder Than We Think

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

I once saw a bumper sticker that said, “No Farms No Food.” My first thought was that this person wants to abolish all the farms so we will all starve to death. What a mean person! Then

I thought this person wants us to appreciate farms because without them we wouldn’t have food. That was a much better thought.

Did you hear about the man who stared intently at the can of orange juice because it said, “Concentrate.” One man said, “My hair needs cutting really badly,” and I said, “I can cut it really badly.” Just because we understand the words doesn’t mean we really understand what the person is saying. In the seminary, one Bible scholar told us that to understand what is being said we must “listen with our hearts.” He said that if you go into a shop to buy blades for your razor and the woman behind the counter says, “Can I help you, honey?” The word “honey” really doesn’t mean anything. However, if a man is speaking to the love of his life, he might be pouring his whole soul into the word “honey.” If our hearts are filled with anger and hostility, we will naturally hear things in the worst possible way. Let’s be honest; when we really dislike someone, we want to hear bad things about him, just as when we really like someone, we like to hear good things about him. How can that not shade the way we listen?

When people put out some snippets of what someone supposedly said, and then claim they are terrible people, I don’t think that will be as persuasive as they think. In fact, a lot of what

people say is expressed in such a way that it guarantees no one is going to be persuaded unless they already agree.

People have talked about toning down the rhetoric. I don’t think that’s enough. I think we need to learn how to have more effective rhetoric. My ability to have dialog has improved a

great deal over the course of years, and though it doesn’t always produce good results (Jesus had the same problem, and I’m not going to do better than Jesus), I have had many more good

outcomes than I used to. Whatever else you believe about Charlie Kirk, he was very good at that kind of dialog, which is what made him so successful. What if we all learned more about

how to do that?

More effective rhetoric is an art. We must be aware of how we sound to others. The words we say sound more benign to us than similar words said back to us, so two people, speaking in

the same way, can each believe that the other person is being cruel while we are innocent. I suggest that listening well is harder than we think, and we have to get better at it. James 1:19

teaches us to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” What If we, as a society, decided that if we thought some people were headed in the wrong direction, we trusted more in the

power of dialog than in name calling, shouting someone down, and violence?

What if we put more energy and effort into trying to understand and not being too quick to believe we understand enough? What if we focused less on who was a good person and who

was a bad person and focused more on how we can all be better people? Every day is a chance to learn something new, and every day is a chance to become a better person. Jesus said we must strive for perfection and cannot be content with less (Matthew 5:48).

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Peace I Give You

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

If we want a more peaceful world, first and foremost, get to know Jesus better. Building a better world always starts with falling more deeply in love with Jesus. Knowing His teaching is, of course, wonderful, and we can all benefit from studying those more. However, getting to know Him personally, spending time with Him, and, in the words of Pope Benedict, “Let Him be your best friend” will make all the difference. Some will object and point to the evils done by church people. I would suggest that this happens when the church people imitate the world rather than trust the teaching of Jesus. When we trust worldly power over the power of the cross, bad things happen. In the words of William Bennet (in his book “America: the Last Best Hope”) “the problem was too little Catholicism, not too much.” Also, it is church people who often developed the ideas that would oppose evils that had not been questioned before. It has been said that Christians did not invent slavery but invented the notion that slavery was wrong. I’m not a historian, but I think a case could be made that is true of many of our best moral principles. I think the best bet is to trust Jesus. Jesus has turned many villains into saints.

This will lead to a different kind of combat. We have a natural desire to make a mark on the wo rld and when we feel helpless, it is like pressure building up in us that needs to get out. It is very tempting then to use violence because it seems like a quick way to get results. I had a rage-filled, adversarial relationship with the universe for many years, and I understand this deeply. If it is not channeled properly, it explodes, and we see the results.

Christians have different weapons for combating evil (Ephesians 6:10-17). I focus on telling the Gospel story, working together as community, worshipping God, and helping people in need. With these weapons, we can transform the world, not as quickly, but much more profoundly, and with longer lasting effects (eternal!!!). The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power greater than any imagined superpower (take that, Iron Man). If that is where we should channel our frustration and our energy, we will have a more peaceful world. Of course, we Christians know that we cannot become good people just by studying goodness and trying hard (though that is essential). The power of sin is too strong in our hearts. It is in our relationship with Jesus that by His power we are transformed, gradually made into what we were always meant to be. Many Christians throughout the centuries have demonstrated that they can receive mistreatment, persecution, and suffering of many kinds and respond with love. Only if we can respond to evil with love can the world ever become a better place.

And the better job we do of that, the more other people can see that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is worth exploring.

One thing that I think should be obvious: what we have been doing hasn’t been getting us there. What if each one of us considered seriously how we could up our game in this area. If we want a better world and more people loving Jesus, are we willing to try something new to make it happen?

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Peacemaking

Leave a reply

Dear folks,

Here are some continuing thoughts about how to make the world a more peaceful place.

Intellectual humility: Don’t be too quick to be too certain that we see the whole picture. What if there is more to the story? I learned this the hard way: experiences of feeling very certain and finding out I was very wrong. Things can seem obvious and still be wrong. This will make me more reluctant to go too far to get my agenda.

Humility of Agency: Not be so certain that we are the solution, such that we decide we can violate boundaries rather than fail. If we try honorably and fail, someone might launch a successful attempt from the ashes our failure. Remember that actions done with good intentions may have bad consequences. Sometimes we even cause the opposite of what we intend. This goes with Moral Humility: Not being so certain that we will always do the right thing, lest we trust ourselves with too much power (Think of why Gandalf refused to take the one ring: “I would intend to

use it for good…”). When boundaries, accountability, checks and balances on us get in the way of what we want to do it is frustrating, but not necessarily bad.

People like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Robespierre all apparently thought they were fixing things and would make a paradise on earth, and so they thought they could take some serious moral shortcuts to do so. They made hell on earth and brought

untold suffering. We must fight monsters without becoming monsters. (I found if you search for images of “Peacemaker” you get a comic book villain who seeks to bring peace by using extreme violence.) As Jesus said, we must be “clever as serpents and innocent as doves (Matt 10:16).” We must work toward a better world but always remember that we are not the savior (We have a Savior).

Seeing the big picture. I can be okay with losing today so that I could win tomorrow. If I think in terms of years, decades, or even centuries, I can be content to work bit by bit for a better world, and a temporary loss is not a catastrophe. This would give me less temptation to drastic, violent action.

Support Law enforcement. Of course, hold bad actors accountable, but when one is accused, that officer should get the same due process and presumption of innocence that we would want for ourselves if we were accused of a terrible crime.

Those who do their jobs deserve our support and gratitude for the tremendous sacrifices they make for our sake. Let us send clear, consistent messages that we value and admire obeying the law and respecting law enforcement officers, and believe in holding criminals accountable.

Fill ourselves with stories of people who solved problems and accomplished great things without resorting to violence. Sometimes physical force is necessary, especially in war, law enforcement, or self-defense, but let us emphasize our admiration for those who do great things through other means and let us aspire to imitate them.

Tim Scott just released the book “One Nation Always Under God” and it is full of such stories. If there were more people like those depicted in the book, and if we as a society aspired to be like them, perhaps that would help people focus their energies more peacefully (reading the lives of the saints doesn’t hurt either).

Next, the most important part.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

What Do People See?

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

As we continue to celebrate the Easter season, we read a good deal from Acts of the Apostles, Revelation, and the Gospel resurrection accounts. In this week’s reading from John, there are two key concepts: the forgiveness of sins and believing without seeing.

The reading from Acts shows people not seeing the risen Jesus but seeing the Church.

When we look at people, we don’t see their personhood, their personalities, their character, their souls. We see the surfaces of their bodies and their clothes, and our brains put together a sense of who they are. We are the Body of Christ, and many people will encounter Christ in us.

Acts describes a healing Church. There were lots of miraculous healings, and that was good for making an opening to evangelize. I thought that it was unfair that we didn’t have them as often, so we were working at a disadvantage. I realized that we can be a healing

Church in a different way. The world is torn by hatred and division. If we could work on healing the divides, reconciling opponents, and building forgiveness we can be a mighty force for healing.

I won’t suggest that I’m an expert on this, but I will tell you I have grown enormously from where I used to be. If enough people do that, it could make the world a significantly better place. If enough people in the Church do it, it can help people see Jesus in us and

come to faith.

My journey started with “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. It was eye opening. It taught me to focus on what was important to other people, a concept new to me. Now there are many good resources. I would suggest; “No Future Without Forgiveness” by Desmond Tutu, “The Book of Forgiving” by Desmond and Mpho Tutu, “Don’t Forgive Too Soon” by Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn and Matthew Linn, “God Help Me! These People are Driving me Nuts! By Gregory Popcak, and “I Never

Thought of it That Way” by Monica Guzman (specifically about bridging the political divide in our country). If you read only one, I recommend it be “Redeeming Conflict” by Ann Garrido. It has twelve habits for transforming conflict into a spiritual journey. If

enough people read and understand it, we can have a common set of principles and a common vocabulary for working together.

“Remembering God’s Mercy” by Dawn Eden is about healing wounds in our own hearts. John Gottman’s “Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work” talks about building relationships that can endure conflict, and it occurred to me that many of these ideas could apply to any human relationship, not just marriages. “How to Know a Person” talks about some general ideas for building better relationships, something not well taught in our society. “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt is about how phone based childhoods are seriously hampering (if not destroying) the next generation’s ability to connect in a human way.

Much work to do. I challenge everyone: what are we willing to do it make the Church more effective in witnessing to Jesus, sharing this most wonderful gift of the Gospel?

Might this help? I would ask everyone to pray on this.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

Life Where There Was Only Death

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,
Today, the fifth Sunday of Lent, where there was once only death, there is now life.
Those reading the cycle C readings will hear the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 

😎

, and those reading the cycle A readings will hear the raising of Lazarus (John 11). Both are about bringing life where there is only death. Sin brings death, and Jesus brings eternal life. The woman caught in adultery was facing certain death as a result of her own sin. Jesus saves her and challenges her to “go and sin no more.” Jesus tells Martha He is the resurrection, and it is not just in the future.
We see in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” And in John 17:3 “Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
When we talk about knowing Jesus, we remember that in the Bible knowing is a more powerful thing than having a tidbit of knowledge. It is a matter of having a lifegiving relationship. Consider these texts:
Genesis 4:1 “Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived and bore a son Cain…”
Psalm 1:6 “For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Psalm 95:10 “For forty years I abhorred that generation, and I said, ‘Their heart goes astray; this people does not know my ways.’” Matthew 25:12 “But the master will say, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’”
To understand “know” as “have a life-giving relationship with” these texts make sense.
To have a life-giving relationship with Jesus is to give ourselves in love as He gave Himself in love. John 15:13 “No one has greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
To love is to live for someone beyond ourselves, that puts the focus outside of ourselves. The word “ecstasy” literally means “to stand outside.” The more focused we are on good beyond ourselves, the more we are living the love of God. Our lives are no longer about
us, but about Him. Whatever else happens, that is abundant life (John 10:10).
To live for our own desires is to close in on ourselves, to be dying. Our desires will not satisfy us permanently, and the fight against mortality is always lost if we live according to the wisdom of the world.
When we have a life-giving relationship with God and are living for eternity, we are already living eternal life. The joy that comes with our relationship with Jesus and being about something greater than the world is just the tiniest taste of the reality of heaven.
Blessings,
Fr. Jim

Weaving Together Our Picture of Reality

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

We all take in bits of information and weave them into a story that makes sense to us. Sometimes we can take the same set of information and come up with different narratives, and that

can make all the difference. I notice Democrats and Republicans can look at the same event and come up with wildly different narratives about what happened. It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

At some of the Masses this Sunday, we are doing the cycle C readings, including the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15). Where we are doing scrutinies, we are using the cycle A readings with

the story of the man born blind (John 9). I suggest it would be a good exercise to look at those stories and ask, at each point what narrative is each character believing about what is happening?

Stepping back, there are different narratives about fundamental reality.

One is the atheist materialist view. The universe is self-existing, though it seems to be made entirely of contingent beings. The ultimate reality is impersonal, and personhood and consciousness are blips in the interplay of matter and energy. Love, in this view, is just a byproduct of the drive for chromosomes to replicate themselves. Moral right and wrong do not exist, and the only value is making me feel good. When I die, I will cease to exist, and it will not matter what I believed or what I did.

The Christian view is that the ultimate reality is love in the deepest sense. The Father is eternally giving Himself in love to the Son, who is eternally receiving and returning that love to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the love that passes between them. God is not one contingent being among many, but Being Himself, the source of all being. Love is by nature fruitful, and so God, though not needing anyone or anything, created the universe out of pure love. We were made to receive and give ourselves in love, and hence are made in the image and likeness of God. There is goodness, which is what serves giving ourselves in love, and there is evil, which is counterfeiting giving ourselves in love or refusing the invite all together. The things of the world pass away, but that which is love lasts forever.

One might object that that many atheists do much good and many Christians are less than moral. This, I suggest, is because we do not always act consistently with our professed beliefs.

There is one more narrative that I find interesting, and that is the Boltzmann brain theory. Ludwig Boltzmann was a physicist, who proposed that if a universe produced a self-aware brain, it

was more likely to produce one brain that hallucinated experiences than produce many brains that have real experiences. That means I am the only one who really exists, and you are all a figment of my imagination. There was once a Dilbert comic strip about this. I reject this theory, fun though it is, because it makes life trivial, and goes against my deep sense that life, the universe and everything have deep meaning. I reject the atheist, materialist view for similar reasons. We have a deep sense that personhood, consciousness, and love mean more than blips in the motion of matter and energy as the mindless universe unfolds. That’s my story and I’m

sticking to it.

Blessings,

Fr. Jim

To Comfort and Afflict

Leave a reply

Dear Folks,

For the next three weeks we have a particular challenge: One Mass with scrutinies will have the cycle A readings (which this week includes the story of the woman at the well in John 4), and the other Masses will have the cycle C readings (which this week includes Luke 13:1-9). It is worth comparing the two. The woman at the well was a Samaritan, and Jesus broke barriers just talking to her. He does not shy away from how her life is a mess, but He doesn’t berate her for it. He gives her respect and concern that she wasn’t used to getting, and that gave her space to change, and she would reconnect with the community that had previously shunned her. By contrast, the text in Luke shows Jesus warning some

fellow Israelites that if they don’t repent, they face destruction.

It has been said that a prophet has two tasks: to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. This is summed up in Luke with the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). The two men were a study in contrast. The Pharisee was presented as having objectively better behavior, but he was convinced he was good enough. Other people needed to improve, but he was convinced he didn’t. The tax collector, by contrast, was not

so virtuous, but knew he needed work. That made all the difference. Until we see pearly gate posts passing our shoulders, we are a work in progress.

It’s okay to be where we are at; it’s not okay to stay where we are at.

During this Lent, what if we asked:

What does God want me to learn?

If God could get every response He wants from me, what would that look like?

What if being a member of the Church means more than I thought?

What if praying the Mass means more than I thought?

When someone talks about a crisis in the Church, how quick am I to say what someone else should be doing differently and how quick am I to ask what I should be doing differently?

If Lent is not working out the way I planned, might God have some different plans?

What might they be?

If God is calling me to change my life in some way, small or large, how ready am I to say “yes” to Him?

Can I accept that how I and people like me respond during Lent can make a difference in the kind of future that our Church will have?

For what it’s worth, I recently came to understand something that had been obvious, but I didn’t see it. Now I see things differently (don’t bother to ask; I won’t tell). I suggest that God is always working on teaching us something and leading us somewhere.

Blessed Lent,

Fr. Jim