Jesus entered the temple area and proceeded to drive out those who were selling things, saying to them,
“It is written, My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.”
Jesus’ outraged cry, because it is the Word of God, cuts like a two-edged sword. It is a surgeon’s scalpel lancing a boil in the individual conscience, the parish, diocese and universal church.
An anonymous preacher of the second century complained:
It didn’t take. Despite all the effort of the Church, some of it costly, they didn’t catch the spirit. A few were traumatized by sexual abuse; many drifted off into alcoholism and drug abuse.
The reason one chooses faith and another does not is essentially mysterious and every story is particular. There is no general rule; but we know the blame often falls upon church-going Christians, the so-called righteous. Despite our loyal enthusiasm we are not “members of the church of life.”
I take comfort in noticing when that scathing homily was written: the second century. The scandal of our failure to be a church of life is not new. Although our sin is not necessary, it is typical of us.
My name is constantly blasphemed by unbelievers, says the Lord. Woe to the man who causes my name to be blasphemed. Why is the Lord’s name blasphemed? Because we say one thing and do another. When they hear the words of God on our lips, unbelievers are amazed at their beauty and power, but when they see that those words have no effect in our lives, their admiration turns to scorn, and they dismiss such words as myths and fairy tales.
They listen, for example, when we tell them that God has said: It is no credit to you if you love those who love you, but only if you love your enemies, and those who hate you. They are full of admiration at such extraordinary virtue, but when they observe that we not only fail to love people who hate us, but even those who love us, they laugh us to scorn, and the Name is blasphemed.
 |
| An old foundation, now crumbling under the forces of vegetation |
Therefore, brothers, if we do the will of God the Father, we shall be members of the first spiritual Church that was created before the sun and the moon; but if we fail to do the will of the Lord, we shall be among those to whom it is said in Scripture: My house has been made into a robbers’ den. We must choose then, if we want to be saved, to be members of the Church of life. (Office of Readings, Thursday of the 32nd week of ordinary time.)I meet scandalized “unbelievers” frequently in my ministry to Catholics in the VA hospital. They are men and women who were raised Catholic. Many attended Catholic school and most of the men were altar servers. They tell me their mothers (usually) prayed the rosary every day. Some attended the finest Catholic high schools in Louisville. Occasionally I hear they were “forced” against their will to go to church.
It didn’t take. Despite all the effort of the Church, some of it costly, they didn’t catch the spirit. A few were traumatized by sexual abuse; many drifted off into alcoholism and drug abuse.
The reason one chooses faith and another does not is essentially mysterious and every story is particular. There is no general rule; but we know the blame often falls upon church-going Christians, the so-called righteous. Despite our loyal enthusiasm we are not “members of the church of life.”
I take comfort in noticing when that scathing homily was written: the second century. The scandal of our failure to be a church of life is not new. Although our sin is not necessary, it is typical of us.
 |
| One song sparrow sings |
The Spirit of Jesus remains. It always draws people to Himself and (necessarily) to us. It still seduces us into deeper love of Him.
Praise Him!
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.