Hear, O Israel!
The Lord our God is Lord alone!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul,
with all your mind,
and with all your strength.
Before we even think about Jesus' dual command of love for God and love of neighbor, we should rejoice that God has spoken to us. This is wonderful news.
Glancing at it, we might be elated that God has not talked down at us. He has not patronized us by giving us an easy command, something any schmuck can do without even trying. These laws any schmuck can do! But it will take every thing said schmuck has to give.
With these commands God invites us to be worthy of infinite grace.
Nor are these laws idealistic in the usual sense of the word. Idealistic, as I understand the word, means a useful guiding star -- as in, "To dream the impossible dream...." -- but unattainable by definition. That idealism fits well with the romanticism of the last several centuries but doesn't jive with our spirituality.
We cannot simply excuse ourselves from Jesus' teaching by saying, "It's idealistic!" or "It's too idealistic."
We have on record innumerable stories of human beings who have attained these realistic goals. Jesus, first of all! And his Mother Mary. And the martyrs who welcomed the opportunity to prove their love of God. And many saints who were not martyred but lived exemplary lives.
I write these words as the cardinals prepare to enter the conclave and select one of their own as pope. I am sure none of these men expects to find a canonizable saint among them. He will not be selected on that basis.
Part of their discussion, however, will be, "How does the Church maintain its ethical teachings in a world that deals in compromise?" They will recall Pope Benedict's teaching while visiting Africa, that the marital act is the exclusive privilege of married couples and they should not use condoms -- and the media reaction. They will recall the Church's traditional censure of homosexual acts -- and the media reaction.
They will discuss how the Church can maintain its ethical teachings, which it regards as both revealed and befitting the "natural law," when millions of Catholics and Christians openly disagree with these traditions.
At one time, "when I was a boy," very few Catholics received Eucharist on any given Sunday. If some were remarried "outside the Church," or eating meat on Friday, or dons of organized crime, they didn't stand out in the congregation. The congregation was not divided into those who received the Eucharist and those who did not. But everyone received ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday and the blessing of throats on Saint Blaise Day. They could kiss the holy relics of saints without moral scruples despite their whatever went on in their private moral lives. It was a church for everyone. In those days, when people asked "Who are Catholics?" the answer was, "HCE -- Here Comes Everybody."
But the Second Vatican Council decided to announce the Call to Holiness to everyone. Theologically and biblically, this new policy made sense. The Protestant Reformation pioneered the notion and had challenged the Roman Church upon its teaching.
But, I fear, not everyone wants to be holy. Many people are content to call themselves Christian or Catholic and attend church occasionally. They live by the laws of their respective nations and rely on civil laws to assure them of their worthiness.
So does the Church with its new Pope try to purify the pews with strict teachings, and discourage certain people from attending? Or does it invite everyone with a wink and a nod to human imperfection?
It has been said that Protestants try to convert people and bring them to church, while Catholics try to bring people to church and then convert them. Should we broadcast the seeds of the gospel every which way, on the good soil and the bad; and wait for the angels to separate the good from the bad on Judgement Day? Or do we prudently refuse to "give what is holy to dogs?" (Matthew 7:6)
Practically speaking, I often make that kind of decision in the VA hospital. I offer to anoint a lot of Catholics but not all of them. Some, I think, might be moved to return to the Church after receiving the Sacrament. Others signal in various subtle ways that the blessing will be wasted on them. Fortunately for my peace of mind, many devout Catholics respond, "And with your spirit" when I greet them. They might not be worthy but at least they know the right words.
The question is an ancient one. You'll recall Jesus' tempered advice to the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more," He probably knew she had little choice in the matter but he would not throw the first stone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.
Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.
I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.
You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.