Category: Deep Church Thoughts

Posted on

What Does a Do King Anyway?

     The feast of Christ the King is always a bit puzzling for us Americans. Since we do not have any practical experience of a king, our notions of royalty are principally governed by our observations of the British royal family, (a most puzzling institution), or from fairy tales. Thus, our perception (rightly and wrongly) is that it is either irrelevant or the stuff of fantasy. Either way, we are left wondering what this “king” thing is all about.

It helps to remember what kings and sovereignty are really all about. In the best sense, as sovereign, the king was a messiah, an anointed of God, ordained as steward over the land as well as everything and everyone on it. If he understood his vocation well, he understood that he was not an owner, but a steward. Thus, at the end of his life, he would be judged by whether the land and the people thrived or not. To carry out this duty, he was given authority. But just as in the Church, that authority only made sense if it was used in the context of service to those in his realm. To act in his own interest was to become a despot. It was an abuse of the gift of authority from God.

So when we speak of Christ, the King of the Universe, first we are saying that he has been given authority by God over all of creation. That means everything and everybody; and by his life, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father, where he makes intercession for us, he continues to be the ultimate steward and servant. Truly, he is the greatest among us because he is the servant of all. 

It’s a good reminder for us on many levels. Our Lord has our best interests in mind and will do all that he can for our salvation in this life and into the next. Should we allow him to reign in our hearts and lives, there is no limit to how much we can love him and others in return. May we have the grace and humility to make it so.  

Posted on

The End is Near! So what?!

I was amused to read that a study done by an independent think tank had determined that because of the culture of gun ownership, geographic isolation and a number of other factors, Alaska is considered to be most likely to survive a zombie apocalypse. Good to know.

I’ve never understood the popularity of the whole zombie phenom. Or rather, I understand it, I just think it is a sad and tragic commentary on the secular humanism that is so prevalent in our country.

Simply put, modern secular humanism has trouble dealing with the mystery of death. Still, because human beings are comprised of a body and a soul, every fiber of our being cries out for some sort of reality beyond this present one.  Rejecting any concept of life after death, and thus, the resurrection of the dead, inevitably leaves one bereft of hope. If all one can hope for in this life is what is before us, then the future is bleak indeed. As a result, any depiction of life after death becomes a caricature of the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting…reanimated tissue…the undead…zombies…ewwww!

Christ reveals a better destiny for humanity. For the Christian, while powerful in its unfolding, the end of the age is not a scary thing. Rather it is the fulfillment of all our hopes and deepest desires. To be a human being is a marvelous thing. We are body and soul. In the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come, we become what God has created us to be — perfectly human, body and soul. In this light, St. Ambrose actually speaks of death as a remedy rather than a curse, for it is through dying that we are born to eternal life. Sin separated us from God, but for the righteous, death unites us with God forever. The resurrection of the body is the completion of this reality and the fulfillment of our ultimate destiny of perfect communion, body and soul, with God. 

The temptation is to see the resurrection as some distant future reality.  But in truth, it is a reality unfolding in the present moment of the life of every Christian. Even now we are growing in communion with Christ and one another; and so even now we are becoming what God has created us to be. Thus, the Kingdom of God is very much in our midst.

May we have the grace to be people of the resurrection now, so that others may come to know the grace of God in their lives and enter into that same communion of Grace.

Posted on

Softball Questions

    I can’t wait for the election to be over. That being said, I once again remind you of your civic and moral obligation to vote an informed conscience.  That means becoming familiar with the seven pillars of Catholic Social Teaching, you inform yourself about where the candidates and ballot issues fall within that context and vote a well-informed conscience.

Watching candidate interviews can be helpful sometimes. Still I am amazed at the softball questions candidates will get from certain journalists.

Jesus never ran for office, but he did get some softball questions. In his exchange with the scribe in today’s gospel reading, he gets what appears to be a high, hanging curveball that any rabbi could knock out of the park: “Which is the first of all the commandments?” Any seven year old Jewish kid would have gotten this right. It’s like asking a Catholic kid, “What is the first line of the Our Father?”

Is the scribe just being easy on Jesus? Not really. It helps to understand the method of scholarship that was used in those  days. It was a simple process designed to help those involved delve more deeply into the meaning of the sacred texts. There were typically at least three stages. First, someone would ask a question that everyone knew so that they could locate themselves in the text. Next, the one who responded would take that text and provide an insight or connection to something else in the scriptures.  Then the one who initially asked would respond in a like manner.  The process continued until they felt they had exhausted the possibilities. 

This is exactly what the scribe and Jesus are doing. The unique thing is that Jesus connects the concept of the first text, love of God (Deut. 6), with the command to love one’s neighbor as yourself found in Leviticus 19:18. The latter is a pretty obscure text. By linking the two, Jesus shows that he knows the law better than just about anybody in the room. (Which, I suspect is why no one had the courage to ask more questions!)  He also gives us the Great Commandment for all time where love of God and love of neighbor as oneself can never be separated.  The scribe sees the wisdom of his answer. May we have the same grace and wisdom in our lives.

Hey, 60 trips around the sun! What fun. In Alaska, that means we get a permanent hunting/fishing license! Life is good.

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Christians in the Military? Why only Pilate in the Creed?

Dear Fr. Leo,

     Can a Christian be in the military?  What about the fifth commandment?  – G

Dear G,

     The quick answer is, “Yes, but only for the right reasons.”  Christian soldiers do not wage war indiscriminately. Rather, they are the agents of peace in the maintenance of legitimate self-defense. 

     The question is one of the oldest moral conundrums in the Church. It came to the fore in the early 4th century soon after the emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. By the beginning of the 5th century, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. Things came to a head after the pagan armies sacked Rome in 410. Many had written on the subject before, but it was St. Augustine, in his classic work on religion and civil society, The City of God, who gave us the definitive articulation. Augustine said that Christians actually make the best soldiers because they only fight in just wars. Augustine’s articulation of what constitutes a just war still sets the context for public policy today. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2302-2317, Safeguarding Peace.) The taking up of arms for legitimate self-defense is only justified if all of the following conditions are met:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (CCC, par. 2309).  

The catechism goes on to say that only those with legitimate authority, namely, national governments have the responsibility of determining if these conditions are met. By the same token, governments may impose upon their citizens the obligations of defense. In times of national crisis, they can draft people into military service. In doing so, “Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” (CCC, par. 2310) 

     At the same time the Church is very clear that governments must also make allowances for those who in conscience cannot take up arms. However, “these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” (CCC, par. 2311)

     In sum, Christians can and do serve honorably in the armed services, but they do so, not as “hawks” or aggressors, but under certain conditions and according to a strict moral code. Nations have a legitimate right to self-defense, but war is always the last resort when all other peaceful means of resolution of conflict have been exhausted. In the meantime, we all have an obligation to work actively to build up a more peaceful world, in our homes, in our parishes, our schools, and our communities so that armed conflict becomes not only unnecessary, but truly unthinkable. 

Dear Fr. Leo:

     Why is only Pontius Pilate named for his role in Christ’s crucifixion in our creed?  Why are the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes who persecuted, plotted, and paid blood money for Christ’s crucifixion not named?  – T

Dear T,

     That’s a good question. In fact, we could even take it even a step further. Why not name all of us other sinners as well? If you think about, we all had a role to play in the sufferings of Christ. That being said, I like the distinction you make that it was the religious authorities at that time, and not the whole Jewish people, who had a central role in the Passion of Christ.

     But in point of fact, the wording of the Nicene Creed has less to do with what went on at the time of Jesus than what was going on at the time the Creed was written. When the bishops met at Nicaea in 325 A.D, they were faced with the first major dogmatic crisis in the Church. The priest, Arius, a good Greek well-versed in the Greek philosophers, could not get his head around the notion that Jesus was truly human and truly divine. As a result, he rejected the divinity of Christ. He gained quite a following and caused much confusion and conflict in the Church. To resolve the matter, the emperor called a Council. Long story short, with the help of St. Leo the Great, the council fathers affirmed that while truly human, Christ was at the same time “of the same substance” as the Father. Furthermore, it was the whole Christ, not just half of him, who redeemed us by his suffering on the Cross, and who glorified us by his resurrection. I suspect that since Pilate was the legitimate Roman authority who gave the order, he was named in the Creed as a way of including all those involved. And, if you think about it, all of us are included a little earlier in the Creed with the phrase “For us…and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.” Thanks for the question!

Posted on

To Serve

Here in Alaska, we are blessed every year by over 2.7M people who visit us every year.  The average stay is about eight and a half nights. Every one of us either has or knows somebody who has waited tables or tended bar, or worked in some aspect of the hospitality industry.  I think everybody should at some point. You learn a lot of good, subtle skills.

I’m reminded of the man from Wisconsin who walked into a bar. While he’s sitting there, he hears a little voice say, “Hey, I like your hair that way.” He looks around and sees no one. As the bartender brings him his drink, he hears the voice again, “Hey, that color looks really good on you.”  Puzzled, he asked bartender, “Are you speaking to me?”  The bartender says, “Oh no, that’s the peanuts.  Their complimentary.” 

Chris and the peanuts understand what Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, meant when in  1825 he said: To welcome a guest is to be answerable for his or her happiness so long as he is beneath your roof.

In short, it is a very profound, indeed a sacred thing to be at the service of another person.

And as we learn in the readings given us today, it is an essential part of being a follower of Jesus.  You cannot be a follower of Jesus without being a servant to others. 

We get a hint of this in the first reading where Joshua confronts the people at the end of their journey to the promised land.  There, with the people who have joined them, he essentially exhorts them, “Choose now! Whom will you serve?” 

This sense of service emphasizes the transcendence of God. The servant subordinates him- or herself  to the one being served.  In the context of Joshua and the people, it is a statement of faith, an acknowledgement that God is greater that we are and that our lives only make sense in service to him.  In short, it is an embrace of primary tenant of true religion:

       God is God…and you are not. 

Paul emphasizes this idea of subordination in his Letter to the Ephesians that we hear today. The first thing we hear him say is:  Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

       Do you see the subtle shift here? 

       Q: Jesus Christ is Lord.  But how are we to serve the Lord?

       A: By being of service to one another. 

Paul then gives some examples of what that might look like in the culture of his day.

       For Paul, and for us, to be a Christian is to be one who serves others. 

Q: Where does Paul get this idea? 

       A: From Christ himself. 

Today we come to the conclusion of the Bread of Life Discourse.  It is a moment of decision, not unlike the one with Joshua and the people we heard earlier. 

Up to this point, having seen the miracles, having been fed by the loaves and the fishes, those in the crowd are great fans of Jesus, but they are not yet his followers. The teaching that Jesus has just given is hard. They don’t know what to make of it. But what an interesting question Jesus asks them: “ What if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

When we realize who Jesus is and when we understand what he has done, the implication here is inescapable and utterly stupefying.  Put simply, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the Eternal Logos, he who is truly divine made himself subordinate to us. He came to serve, not to be served, so that we might have life and have it abundantly. 

It is fitting that the conclusion of the Bread of Life Discourse ends by reminding us that to be a follower of Christ means to be a man or woman who serves. 

Even today, Jesus has many fans but few followers. One can be a believer without being very believable. 

So many in our increasingly secular society see Jesus as a cosmic therapist who is there simply to make them feel better. 

Nothing could be further than the truth. 

To be a follower of Jesus is to serve the Lord by serving one another. In our Eucharist, which he left us as an everlasting memorial of his passion death and resurrection, we do four things. 

       We gather

       We share our stories

       We break and share the Bread of Life

       And we are sent into the world to be of service to the world

              And if not the whole world, then at least that little part of the world with which we will come into contact.

Let me conclude with the story of the Ten-Foot Chopsticks.

There was a man who died and went to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter greets him and says, “Hey, good to have you here! You are in. Would you like a look around?”

The man replies, “Sure, what is there to see?”

“Anything you want,” St. Peter replies.

“Well,” says the man, “I’m in right?”

“Sure,” says Pete.

“Uh…this may seem a bit strange, but do you mind if we see hell first? I’m just really curious.”

“No problem,” St. Peter replies, and off they go.

When they arrive in hell, the man is stunned to see a huge banquet table with every imaginable kind of food and delicacy heaped upon it in abundance. Yet around the table are thousands and thousands of damned souls. Everyone is emaciated and starving.

“This is awful!” the man says, “Why are they all starving?”

“Well,” explains St. Peter, “There is only one rule in the afterlife. You have to eat with ten-foot chopsticks.”

“I can’t take this anymore,” the man says, “Let’s get out of here.” And off they go.

When they arrive in heaven, the man is shocked to see that it is exactly the same setup. Again, there is a huge banquet table with every imaginable food and delicacy in abundance. But in heaven, everyone gathered around the table is well-fed and happy. People are chatting and laughing and generally having a great time.

“Oh, thank God!” the man says, “I’m sure glad that ten-foot chopstick thing doesn’t apply here.”

“No,” says St. Peter, “Actually it does. Same rule. Everyone in the afterlife has to eat with ten-foot chopsticks.”

“I don’t get it,” the man says.

St. Peter replies, “The difference is that here in heaven, we feed each other.”

May our thoughts, our words, our deeds show that we are not just fans of Jesus, but followers as we serve the Lord by serving one another.

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – What does is mean to say the Jesus “rose again.” / What if a pope becomes incapacitated?

Dear Fr. Leo:
In the Apostle’s Creed there is a phrase “rose again from the dead” and I was wondering about the word “again” in the phrase. Could you shed some light on that for me? – K

Dear K,

This is a puzzling question. As you know, in the Roman Rite, the official text is in Latin and what we are saying in English is a translation. The official translation of the Apostles Creed that you cite which reads, “rose again from the dead” is a traditional one that has been around for quite some time. It’s also the official one used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Paragraph 638.) and in the Roman Missal. The same is true for the official translation of the Nicene Creed.


The puzzling thing is that when we go to the Latin, we see that it simply says: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, “on the third day he rose from the dead.” The word for “again” (iterum) is simply not there.

What about looking at the Apostles Creed in Greek? Does that shed any light on the matter? Unfortunately, no. When we look at it: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, we see that the verb ἀναστάντα is the present participle. Thus, the phrase translates, “the third day rising from the dead.” No help there.

So, we are left with a conundrum. Neither the Latin, nor the Greek texts have the word, “again” in them and yet, there it is in the official translation. How did it end up in official the English translation? Quite frankly, I haven’t a clue.

Translation is as much an art as a science. Every language is different and often what is readily apparent with a single word in one language will take several words in another to get the richness of the original meaning across. For example, Greek has different words for different kinds of love. Each one of those takes two or three words in English to get the meaning across. Philadelphos is translated “brotherly love.” Eros, can be translated as “erotic love” or “romantic love.” The context in which a particular word is used is also critical to accurate translation.

My best guess is that when our present translation was rendered, those who did so were attempting to convey the fullest meaning of the words in the Latin (and Greek) original. It makes sense in a way. The presence of “again” raises a subtle nuance. It brings to mind that Christ has passed from death to life. He was dead but has come to life again. He is “the Lamb once slain who lives forever.” (Preface III for Easter)

Dear Fr. Leo:
The pope is getting old. How long can he serve as pope? What happens if he is no longer able to perform his duties? On a side note, is there a mandatory retirement age for bishops? – H

Dear H,
To be precise, Pope Francis is 87 years old, and still going strong. We are truly blessed in this regard.

Canonically, the pope holds supreme executive, legislative and judicial authority in the Church. He can serve as long as he wants.

The venerable tradition has been for a pontiff to serve until death. In recent times we saw a beautiful example of this in Pope St. John Paul II who showed us the great dignity of one who serves even in the midst of great infirmity. However, a pope can also resign if he wants. Pope Benedict XVI gave us a great example of humility when, realizing that the Church would be better served by another in that office, graciously resigned in 2013. Although a pope can resign, it is quite rare. The last pope before Benedict to resign was Gregory XII, who stepped down in 1415.

But what if a pope becomes incapacitated? While there are canons that speak to succession of a bishop who has become incapacitated because of illness, captivity or exile, it is unclear if or how these can be applied to the Supreme Pontiff. Perhaps the best answer is to remember that the Holy Father is surrounded by the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia who assist him in his ministry. This assistance takes on different forms at different times throughout his pontificate. As we saw with John Paul II, when his own physical faculties were diminishing the College of Cardinals and the Curia stepped up their game so that his ministry could continue to be grace-filled and fruitful right up to the moment of his death.

As for your final question, according to Canon 401. §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly. In short, while a bishop is asked to offer his resignation at age 75, that resignation must still be accepted by the Roman Pontiff. More often that not these days, a bishop will serve well beyond his 75th birthday. At present in the United States, there are 22 bishops, including 9 archbishops, who are serving over the age of 75.

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Christians in the Military?

Dear Fr. Leo,

     Can a Christian be in the military?  What about the fifth commandment?  – G

Dear G,

     The quick answer is, “Yes, but only for the right reasons.”  Christian soldiers do not wage war indiscriminately. Rather, they are the agents of peace in the maintenance of legitimate self-defense. 

     The question is one of the oldest moral conundrums in the Church. It came to the fore in the early 4th century soon after the emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. By the beginning of the 5th century, Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. Things came to a head after the pagan armies sacked Rome in 410. Many had written on the subject before, but it was St. Augustine, in his classic work on religion and civil society, The City of God, who gave us the definitive articulation. Augustine said that Christians actually make the best soldiers because they only fight in just wars. Augustine’s articulation of what constitutes a just war still sets the context for public policy today. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2302-2317, Safeguarding Peace.) The taking up of arms for legitimate self-defense is only justified if all of the following conditions are met:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (CCC, par. 2309).  

The catechism goes on to say that only those with legitimate authority, namely, national governments have the responsibility of determining if these conditions are met. By the same token, governments may impose upon their citizens the obligations of defense. In times of national crisis, they can draft people into military service. In doing so, “Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” (CCC, par. 2310) 

     At the same time the Church is very clear that governments must also make allowances for those who in conscience cannot take up arms. However, “these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” (CCC, par. 2311)

     In sum, Christians can and do serve honorably in the armed services, but they do so, not as “hawks” or aggressors, but under certain conditions and according to a strict moral code. Nations have a legitimate right to self-defense, but war is always the last resort when all other peaceful means of resolution of conflict have been exhausted. In the meantime, we all have an obligation to work actively to build up a more peaceful world, in our homes, in our parishes, our schools, and our communities so that armed conflict becomes not only unnecessary, but truly unthinkable. 

Dear Fr. Leo:

     Why is only Pontius Pilate named for his role in Christ’s crucifixion in our creed?  Why are the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes who persecuted, plotted, and paid blood money for Christ’s crucifixion not named?  – T

Dear T,

     That’s a good question. In fact, we could even take it even a step further. Why not name all of us other sinners as well? If you think about, we all had a role to play in the sufferings of Christ. That being said, I like the distinction you make that it was the religious authorities at that time, and not the whole Jewish people, who had a central role in the Passion of Christ.

     But in point of fact, the wording of the Nicene Creed has less to do with what went on at the time of Jesus than what was going on at the time the Creed was written. When the bishops met at Nicaea in 325 A.D, they were faced with the first major dogmatic crisis in the Church. The priest, Arius, a good Greek well-versed in the Greek philosophers, could not get his head around the notion that Jesus was truly human and truly divine. As a result, he rejected the divinity of Christ. He gained quite a following and caused much confusion and conflict in the Church. To resolve the matter, the emperor called a Council. Long story short, with the help of St. Leo the Great, the council fathers affirmed that while truly human, Christ was at the same time “of the same substance” as the Father. Furthermore, it was the whole Christ, not just half of him, who redeemed us by his suffering on the Cross, and who glorified us by his resurrection. I suspect that since Pilate was the legitimate Roman authority who gave the order, he was named in the Creed as a way of including all those involved. And, if you think about it, all of are included a little earlier in the Creed with the phrase “For us…and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.” Thanks for the question!

Posted on

Who Touched Me?

One of the common topics in Christology is how much did Jesus know and when did he know it? Christ was truly divine and truly human.  How much divine wisdom and knowledge could fit in his little human brain or be articulated by our feeble human vocabulary?

We won’t know on this side of the veil, of course, but the question does come up when we read gospels like our passage from Mark 5:21ff about the woman with the hemorrhage. Did Jesus really not know who touched him or was he just saying that to get the woman to reveal herself so the miracle could be acknowledged? It could be a little of both.

But the question that is asked is a good one.  “Who touched me?” 

Anybody who has ever been involved in any kind of ministry in the Church, whether ordained ministry or as a catechist or as a lector, usher, eucharistic minister to the homebound, etc., can tell you. Sometimes reflecting on a visit to a home or washing someone’s feet at Brother Francis Shelter, one sometimes asks the question, “Just who was ministering to whom?” I can’t tell you how various people have touched my heart in a special way or inspired me or gave me hope or an amazing example of faith in my 30 years of priesthood. 

“Who touched me?” is a question worth asking often. It makes a great spiritual exercise at the end of the day. As you are kneeling or sitting or lying down at the end of the day reflecting on the day’s events, thanking God for the blessings of the day and learning from its mistakes, ask yourself, “Whom did I encounter that touched me in a particular way?”  As you do so, thank God for that person and say an Our Father, a Hail Mary and a Glory Be in thanksgiving. God sends certain people into our lives at certain times because we need them. Giving thanks for such a gift is a great way to end the day.

– Fr. Leo

Posted on

Ask Fr. Leo – Who Gets a Catholic Funeral?

Dear Fr. Leo

My brother’s wife recently died. She was not Catholic, but she sent the kids to Catholic schools and made sure they had all their sacraments. She would even accompany the family to Mass every Sunday.  I’m not sure why, but she never joined the Church. In many ways, she was more Catholic than a lot of Catholics I know. Will she be able to have a funeral Mass in a Catholic church?  – G

Dear G,

I am so very sorry for your loss.  The question does come up from time to time.  Namely, can someone who is not Catholic have a funeral liturgy in a Catholic church? A lot depends on the situation, but it the answer is usually yes. 

There are many ways of being Catholic. Those in the OCIA (Order of Christian Initiation of Adults, formerly the RCIA) are usually given a funeral Mass, even though they had not yet been baptized or made an act of full communion.  They are very much a part of the Church, even though they have not yet received full initiation. 

Similar to that, there are those I like to call, “Catholics by association.” Although not formally Catholic, they are very much a part of the life of the parish. By your description, it sounds like your sister-in-law was an active part of the parish community, coming to Mass, instructing the children, coming to parish events.  In such circumstances, it can be possible for her to have a Catholic funeral and be buried in a Catholic cemetery in the family plot. 

If it does not seem prudent or practical to have a full funeral Mass, the Funeral Liturgy Without a Mass is a very good option. I did one of these once for a parishioner of mine who had joined the Church, but whose family were all very devout Lutherans. They were not comfortable with a funeral Mass for a variety of good reasons.  So, the Funeral Liturgy Without a Mass made sense in that situation. These usually happen at the parish church but can also take place at a funeral home.

Sometimes, it does not make sense to have a funeral in the Church. For example, there was a parishioner whose family of origin was Muslim. Not only did they not like the fact he had become a Catholic, but they were very uncomfortable coming into the church building itself.  In that case, simple graveside service made sense.  Later, we had a memorial Mass for him with just his widow, their children, and a few close friends and parishioners.

In sum, there are times when a funeral Mass is allowed for someone who is not Catholic.  There also some circumstances where that does not make sense. In those cases, there are many pastorally sensitive options to bring comfort the grieving family, and to commend our departed brothers or sisters into the arms of their Lord.

Dear Fr. Leo:

What is this “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” that Jesus talks about in Matthew 12:31? – J

Dear J,

Good question. It seems simple enough, but it takes a little bit of thought to get to the heart of the matter. First, we must acknowledge the reality of sin. Next, we must contemplate the even more powerful reality of God’s love. When we understand that the Holy Spirit is this very love of God working powerfully in the world, then we can understand what Jesus means when he says that the only sin that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Sin is an unfortunate, tragic, and a potentially deadly reality of the human condition. Even though the stain of original sin and all particular sins are washed away in baptism, we humans are still have a tendency to sin. We try our best, but sometimes we get selfish and fall into sin. The alternative is moral relativism which is simply hiding one’s head in the sand by denying the reality of the human condition.

The joy of the gospel lies in knowing that “nothing can separate us from the love of God.” (Rm 8:38).  The Catechism of the Catholic Church confirms this when it says: “There are no limits to the mercy of God…” (CCC, 1864.) The good news is that although none of us is without sin, neither are any of us beyond the love of God.

The Church understands that the Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and the Son. It is the power of this love that created the world and then redeemed it. There is no sin that is more powerful than this love. 

Nevertheless, we humans have a little thing called free will. If we have even the smallest iota of faith that God can forgive our sins, that can be enough. However, as the Catechism goes on to say, “but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.” (CCC, 1864). 

Such a deliberate refusal to believe in the power of God’s love to forgive one’s sins constitutes a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. God condemns no one to hell. The sad reality is that everyone in hell has freely chosen to be there.

Posted on

Holy Spirit 101

A truck loaded with thousands of copies of Roget’s Thesaurus crashed yesterday, losing its entire load.  Witnesses were stunned, startled, aghast, taken aback, stupefied, confused, shocked, rattled, paralyzed, dazed, bewildered, mixed up, surprised, awed, dumbfounded, nonplussed, flabbergasted, astounded, amazed, confounded, astonished, overwhelmed, horrified, numbed, speechless, and perplexed.

     Each year the Church commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Mary and the Apostles in the Upper Room. Pentecost is celebrated as the “birthday of the Church. We dress in red vestments to call to mind the tongues as of fire that rested on the heads of the disciples. We chant, “Come, Holy Spirit!” But who is the Holy Spirit and what’s it all about?

       The first thing we see from the sacred text is that the Holy Spirit is POWER, specifically the power of the love of God active in the life of the Church and in every Christian. Theologically, we understand the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. By its very nature, love is procreating animating, and recreating. It is procreative in the act of creation itself. God does not need the universe and everyone in it, but God is love and love creates. So here we are, created in love for love.

       The Holy Spirit is also animating, that is it gives the “anima” or soul that enables the universe, the Church, each one of us to become what we are created to be in the first place. It was the power of the Spirit that breathed over the waters and gave life to all things. It was the power of the Spirit by which the Word took flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was the power of the Spirit that breathed life and courage into the disciples in the Upper Room so that they ceased to be frightened and went forth boldly proclaiming the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins.

       The Holy Spirit is also recreating. Most profoundly, this happens in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Again, love by its nature leads to ever-deepening communion (unity at the very level of being).  However, because the world and everyone in it has limits, those limits will manifest themselves, sometimes in very hurtful and divisive ways.  It is here that the power of the Spirit enables us to seek forgiveness from those whom we have sinned against and to forgive those who have sinned against us. Forgiveness is the power of the Spirit overcoming our limitations and allowing us to transcend the offense and open the way for reconciliation. There is no sin greater than the power of God’s love to forgive. By the same token, because the same spirit dwells in us, there is no sin greater than our power to forgive.

       In sum, the Holy Spirit is the power of God’s love active in the world and the life of the Church. This love is at one procreating, animating and recreating. It is the power of the God’s love that enables us to love as God loves and so help the world become what he has created it to be.