The word on the street is that the Archdiocese of Chicago is about to announce a number of new monsignors among the priests of Chicago.  The term monsignor is an honorary title that traditionally was given to priests because of some accomplishment in the Church or as a reward in the hierarchical system of the priesthood.  Traditionally, there were two kinds of monsignors: Right Reverend Monsignors and Very Reverend Monsignors.  I never quite understood the distinction, but it was apparent that the Very Reverend perhaps were not as reverend as the Right Reverend.  Right Reverend wore red trim on their cassocks and were monsignors for a lifetime.  Very Reverend wore purple trim on their cassocks and the title could be taken away at the end of a pontificate.  Right Reverend Monsignors had roles like that of rectors of seminaries.  The Very Reverend were involved in Archdiocesan offices or were pastors of cathedrals or basilicas.  The custom of naming some priests monsignors fell to the wayside after the Second Vatican Council, but now it is making a comeback.  The meaning of the word monsignor is “my lord”. 

In my first assignment as a deacon, I lived with two monsignors, the retired pastor and the pastor at the time. Sometimes the two monsignors would have too much to drink before dinner. The dinner could be an anxiety producing event for a twenty-five year old learning the ropes.  The pastor of that parish liked being called monsignor.  I, for one, called him monsignor; he was the boss.  But there was an associate pastor there, a middle-aged priest, who one day said to the pastor, “Look, the title monsignor means ‘my lord’.  You are not my Lord.  Jesus is my Lord; you are Don; and I will continue to call you Don.”  The priest calling monsignor “Don” made for some more nervous moments at dinner.

          The Catholic hierarchical system is a curious entity.  When Jesus preached the Reign of God, he called people to gentleness, mercy, service, self-sacrifice, justice, but early on in the church (especially when Constantine not only liberated the Christians from persecution, but made Christianity the state religion) the Church began to take on more and more trappings of Roman hierarchical power.  The papacy, the role of bishops, monsignors, and in some cases priests, began to take on monarchical imagery.  In fact, in terms of cardinals and archbishops, we actually began to speak of princes of the church.  At liturgy, fine expensive vestments were worn that resembled the clothes of monarchs.  “Shepherds”, as bishops should be, walked around with staffs made of gold or which were gold-plated.  They began to wear headgear that resembled crowns.  The leaders of the Church began to dress and act in ways diametrically opposed to the lifestyle Jesus calls us to. 

          I know one of the monsignors that has been appointed in Chicago.  He is a great man and has been a great pastor, but I also know his best friend, who is a great man and has been a great pastor.  Why does one deserve an honorary title more than the other?  Rather than honorary titles, maybe it would have been better for the Church to show appreciation, recognition, and encouragement to priests during their lifetimes.  Perhaps it would have been better for priests’ well-being if they were part of a priesthood that made optional the possibility of marital commitment and intimacy and family life.   Compared to what priests need, the title of “my lord” does not cut it.  Before his death, Cardinal Bernardin lamented about the state of the priesthood in Chicago.  He said sometimes he thought priests could see a brother priest about to fall off a cliff, and instead of rushing to save his life, they would let the priest fall.

          I do not mean to focus too much on the priesthood and the Church around the issues of power and prestige.  These are problems that have infected and do infect almost every organization and institution there is.  Whenever the “self” becomes more important than the common good and the well-being of others, there are problems. 

In the first reading from Sirach and in the gospel, we are called to humility.  What is humility?  I think humility is being yourself.  Humility is not finding self worth in power, position, role, or resources.  Humility is a radical honesty about oneself.  Humility is an acceptance of oneself.  Humility is the realization that true happiness is found in investing the self in other people and in causes greater than the self.

Humble people know themselves.  Humble people grow in an awareness of their giftedness.  Humble people also know their limits.  Humble people know that they are sinners in need of forgiveness from others and from God.  Humble people are, on a regular basis, engaged in self-scrutiny and inventory regarding conscience and also one’s thoughts, feelings, and convictions.  To use the language of positive psychology, humble people are “mindful” people.

I have struggled with the issue of humility in my own life.  At times I had a tendency to confuse humility with poor self-esteem, not liking or appreciating myself, based on my twisted spirituality that that is what God wanted for me.  I now know that God wants me whole and healthy and wants me to care for and love and accept myself as God cares for and accepts me and all people. 

Humility involves self-sacrifice in love for the well-being of others, and issues and causes greater than ourselves.  I see humble self-sacrifice in many of you who are married and have children. 

I find it interesting that Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, isolates what he calls level 5 leadership as one of the factors contributing to great organizations.  He describes level 5 leaders as people who have professional will.  They are determined people, but he also says that level 5 leadership involves people who live out of personal humility.  In that professional will and personal humility, they have no great need to be the center of attention.  Often they are modest and self-effacing, but when it comes to the organization, they have spines of steel.  They are more interested in the success of the organization than their personal success.  As the organization becomes great, level 5 leaders point to the investment and involvement of other people, rather than their own accomplishments. On the other hand, Collins says, often organizations that fail are led by people with huge ego needs who need to be in control of situations and the organization and place themselves in the center of things to gratify needs for attention, position, resources, and power.   

There are some people who operate out of a theology and spirituality that says ordained priests are ontologically different from the non-ordained.  Ontological refers to on the very level of being.  On the very level of being, the ordained are different from the laity.  Someone asked me recently how I would characterize my priesthood.  I said this, “I have always experienced myself as a  person, a human being first, who happens to be a priest.”  I am not much different from many people.  I deal with both the joys and the pains of being human as you do.  As a priest, I try to reflect on and interpret humanity through the lens of faith and spirituality, through the lens of Jesus Christ and the Reign of God.  There are some who misinterpret my intentions and say that I am ashamed of being a priest or that I am destroying the priesthood.  No, I do not think I could have done anything with my life that would have brought me more meaning than being a priest, but I do not like to see myself as ontologically different from you.  That is why, more often than not, I sign my name Pat Brennan and if I am asked what I like to be called, Father or Pat, I respond, “I prefer Pat”.  I am reminded this week that priests, and all of us, need to practice honesty, self-sacrifice, and connection with our fellow human beings, all of which is involved in humility.

In Jesus,

Pat Brennan

……If Salt Loses Its Taste….

.

            I drive out to the Diocese of Joliet to help with masses on the weekend.  That trip takes me down Route 80, where I frequently pass Family Harvest Church, an evangelical church.  I know the pastor of Family Harvest Church.  His name is Robb Thompson.  He and his wife started their church in a restaurant on LaGrange Road in Orland Park.  The congregation became so large that they erected a building for worship and ministries on Wolf Road.  When the congregations grew too large for that building, they constructed a huge campus, the one they are now at off Route 80 in Tinley Park.  The campus is quite impressive.  The parking lot looks like the parking lot of a mall and the building for worship and education is huge.  They obviously have given a family focus to what they do at this church.  What is further interesting is that Robb and his wife are both former Catholics, products of parochial schools, elementary and high school.  During my years at St. Michael’s in Orland Park, Robb was always very kind and hospitable to me, open to ecumenical dialog and activities.

During the time I was living at St. Michael’s in Orland Park, I was the Director of the Office for Chicago Catholic Evangelization.  I was in that position from 1979 – 1992, when I left to assume a role on the faculty at Loyola Institute of Pastoral Studies in the areas of Evangelization and Religious Education.  During my years at the office, I also started two national organizations for evangelization.  As I began the office, I asked a college freshman with whom I had worked at St. Hubert’s in Hoffman Estates in Youth Ministry, if she wanted to work with me, part time.  That young woman was Dawn Mayer who went on to become the co-director of the office.  During those years of working in evangelization, there were not many parishes in the Archdiocese of Chicago that I was not in, resourcing in evangelization in some way.  I also traveled to different parts of the country and the world as a consultant in evangelization.

We built our vision and strategies for evangelization from the document Evangelii Nuntiandi, the encyclical on evangelization written by Paul VI in 1975.  Pope Paul VI said that the essence of evangelization can be found in Luke 4:43, “Let us go to the other towns, so that I may proclaim the Reign of God there also; for that is why I came.”  Jesus explains the reason for his coming to the earth as the mission of proclaiming, revealing the Reign of God to people.   In a parallel passage in Mark 1:15, Jesus says, “I’ve got good news for you: the Reign of God is here. Change your lives.”  Those two passages have what evangelization is about in a nutshell.  Evangelization is inviting people to a change of life and heart, that is conversion, and a new way of seeing life and living life – the Reign of God.

Dawn and I developed strategies for evangelization around Paul VI’s target areas for this work: the re-evangelization of active Catholics, reach out to alienated or inactive Catholics, RCIA-like work with the unchurched, more holistic youth evangelization and ministry, the use of media and technology to evangelize, and the need to connect evangelization with the works of mercy and justice.  We also emphasized the convergence model of evangelization, namely that no matter what a faith community’s governance structure might look like, all the ministries of a faith community converge on this one central mission of inviting people to the Reign of God and conversion.  In our vision and strategies, we tried to avoid the compartmentalization of efforts that sometimes take place in a faith community. 

We had an annual evangelization convention called “Jesus Day”.  In its heyday, it attracted close to 3000 people on a Saturday.  With the Office for Black Catholics, we developed a yearly African American Catholic revival that filled Holy Name Cathedral, as well as an African American Catholic Evangelization training program.  We also developed a Hispanic revival with the Office of Hispanic Catholics and a training program for evangelization entitled Para Servile.  We had institutes on improving preaching and improving pastoral counseling and spiritual direction.  We began parish based missions which had been on sabbatical for years.  We trained parishioners around the Archdiocese on how to do home visits, how to do small Christian communities, and how to create neighborhood ministries, all in an attempt to do what Dr. Paul Cho of Seoul, South Korea and the late Dr. John Hurston and his daughter Karen, called “Creating a Relational Net” for the parish, which results in not necessarily 100% attendance, but 100% reach out. 

Several times, we brought Dr. John Savage to Chicago to speak on his work, The Alienated and Bored Church Member.  In this doctoral dissertation, Dr. Savage said that through his research, he found many people fall away from churches, no matter the denomination, because of a cluster of pain in their lives that connects with a negative event with their local parish or church.  Savage found that when these two things come together, personal pain and a negative event with the church, people stop coming to church. Many typical parishes or congregations screen such people out which makes them become further alienated.  Those who are screened out tend to reinvest their church going energy in something else.  They become bored with religion, bored with the faith communities that they once were a part of. 

One of the things that I have tried to do with Catholic parishes is to break out of a maintenance mindset and praxis, to energize them and train them for mission, a mission that focuses on life in the Reign of God and conversion. 

Dawn Mayer and I have done an evangelistic radio program for close to thirty years. 

I emphasize evangelization this week because the theme running through the first reading and the gospel seems to be that of universalism or God wanting to invite all peoples into His Kingdom.  In the first reading from Trito-Isaiah, the third section of Isaiah, God says he is going to send Jewish people from Jerusalem as missionaries to foreign lands to invite them to become part of His Reign.  He even says that he will transform some of these foreign people into priests and Levites. 

In the gospel, Jesus warns that life in the Kingdom of God is a difficult experience that involves passing through a narrow gate.  Jesus goes on to say that people from the east and the west and from the north and south will recline at table in the Kingdom of God.  Having stated this theme of universalism, Jesus goes on to warn that some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.  Jesus’s emphasis on reversals at the end of the gospel seems to warn against complacency when it comes to the mission of the Reign of God. 

The letter to the Hebrews certainly is a warning against complacency.  It is addressed to Christians who have already suffered for their faith.  The author encourages his readers and encourages us to have discipline, discipline for the mission of the Reign of God, and to not allow ourselves to become lukewarm in our faith. 

I left the Office of Evangelization in 1992 to go to Loyola.  I then went on to become pastor of Holy Family in Inverness where I tried to put into practice, with Dawn Mayer and others, the vision and strategies of convergence evangelization, which I taught for so many years. 

After I left the Evangelization Office, I was not replaced for years.  Eventually a new Archdiocesan director was brought on to help with the articulation of a vision of evangelization for the Archdiocese of Chicago. 

I fear that some of the lukewarmness and complacency that the letter to the Hebrews warns about have taken hold in many Catholic communities.  The excitement about evangelization of the 1980’s and the 1990’s has waned. Pastors are appointed to parishes without the proper discernment of their gifts.  Gifted people who have given their lives to the church are mindlessly cut from staffs and volunteer ministries, and are thrown under the bus.  Each year, church attendance drops.  Experiences of genuine community in many parishes are minimal.  Empowerment of parishioners and ownership by laity of their faith communities are minimal.  Rather than re-imagining the church or re-imagining the parish, or “refounding” as Fr. Gerald Arbuckle wrote on some years ago, we in a restorationist, nostalgic mode of undoing some of the vision and strategies of Vatican II.  Twenty-five years ago pollster George Gallup, working for the Catholic Church in evangelization, called the church a “sleeping giant”.  I think even back then he was being kind; and if he were to be honest now, he might speak of the Church and evangelization in terms of coma, rather than sleep.

In Jesus,

Pat Brennan

Listen to HORIZONS, a radio program hosted by Fr. Pat Brennan and Dawn Mayer, every Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m. on 560 AM and at 11:00 a.m. on 1160 AM.

Mary, Women, and the Church

          “Would someone in Rome formally excommunicate me, please?  I want to be excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, because walking away will break my heart.  My grandparents left Ireland with nothing but their vibrant faith.  They and my parents brought my siblings and me to a baptismal font and promised to guide us to Christ, and they did that by word and deed…… The headlines continue – more pedophilia, more stonewalling, and ‘norms’ from Rome protecting perpetrators.  Now it is a ‘crime’ to attempt to ordain people like Mother Teresa or St. Teresa of Avila – women.   As silly as it sounds, formal excommunication from the hierarchy would be a welcome relief.  If they would just make the decision for me and give me a piece of paper that says ‘you’re out’, it would free my conscience of all of this.” 

Those words appeared in an article on August 4^th in the Chicago Tribune, entitled “Excommunicate me, please” by Sheila O’Brien, a justice of the Illinois Appellate Court.  She was reacting, as many people have, to the equating of the ordination of women to pedophilia, both being called in the July 15 statement by the Vatican, “grave crimes”. I personally have spoken to innumerable people who were shocked by the placing of those two issues together in that recent statement. In a publication that I produce weekly, I apologized to women; for I am part of the Roman Catholic male system that too often fails to appreciate the gifts that women bring to the church. 

It is paradoxical for me how, in salvation history, God has been so pro-women, while the male leadership of the Church fails to give women the roles, respect, and justice they deserve.  Take the mystery of the Incarnation, or God entering human flesh in the birth of Jesus Christ.  The mystery of the Incarnation took place through God’s creative use of Mary, the mother of Jesus. As we celebrate the Feast of the Assumption of Mary into heaven, the truth that we celebrate, that Mary’s whole self was taken into eternal life, is a reflection of the Resurrection event of the first Easter – Jesus’s victory over sin, suffering, and death.  Mary’s Assumption offers us the hope and promise of Easter, that one day we will be joined to God, with her, and our loved ones, in eternal life.

Some Church leaders contend that Jesus picked twelve male apostles, and that is why women cannot be ordained priests.  This view establishes the twelve apostles as the first priests. Jesus had many more disciples who were both male and female.  Who knows what the mind of Jesus was in His choice of apostles and disciples, or what His vision of a future priesthood might have been?  Jesus, especially in the Gospel of Luke, is portrayed as spending significant time with women. In a male dominated, patriarchal society, he was a man who defended women.

In the early church, powerful leadership was exercised by women.  Christian antiquity speaks of St. Thecla, Phoebe, Priscilla, and of course, Mary Magdalene, who when the disciples fled, stood with Mary at the foot of cross and was the first witness to the Resurrection.  She was “the apostle to the apostles”, telling the remaining apostles about Christ’s resurrection.  Mary Magdalene was miscast by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6^th Century as a repentant prostitute, perhaps to sully the large image she had in early Christianity.  Jesus exorcised Mary Magdalene from seven demons; he healed her. And she went on to become a significant leader in His movement.  In 1969, the Church officially corrected the miscasting of Mary Magdalene as a former prostitute. 

History tells us that women had significant roles in the early church.  There were deaconesses, who especially helped women in the process of conversion and initiation.  There were widows, many of whom ran the house churches where Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper.  There were virgins, who gave witness to their commitment to the Reign of God through ascetical lives.  Rodney Stark tells us in his book, The Rise of Christianity, that women, especially wealthy women, were, in part, responsible for the propagation of Christianity.  They were attracted to Christianity as converts, and would facilitate the conversion of their families, their households, and even their servants.  However, during the first centuries of Christianity, in terms of influence and position, women were increasingly pushed to the fringe by an emerging hierarchy of clerics. 

There have been powerful women in the history of the Church.  Justice O’Brien mentioned Teresa of Avila and Mother Teresa.  There was Bernadette Soubirous and Therese of Lisieux.  There was Edith Stein, a Jewish woman who became Sr. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, who was martyred in Auschwitz.  In our own day, there are Joan Chittister and other significant female leaders.  These are just a few.  God has always powerfully facilitated the work of women in the Church.  Unfortunately, sometimes the men in the Church have acted as if they do not particularly value or care for women.  I have been a Catholic for sixty-three years.  Both as a younger man and as an ordained priest, it has been my experience that women make parishes happen and facilitate the work of the Church. 

This Feast of the Assumption is yet another feast that celebrates Mary’s contribution to the Jesus movement.  As we celebrate Mary, let us celebrate and say thank you, also, to all of the great Catholic Christian women who have been so life giving for so many of us. 

The Book of Revelation reminds us of Mary’s participation in the mystery of the Incarnation.  The Corinthians reading, this week, articulates the kerygma of the early Church, that Jesus Christ died and rose again.  Mary’s Assumption, as I said earlier, is a reflection of that deep truth.  In the Gospel of Luke, we experience the faith filled interaction of the two strong holy women:  Mary and Elizabeth, both of whom always lived for and acted on God’s will.  In this gospel, Mary prays her famous Magnificat, which expresses some of the same spirituality that we find in Jesus’s Beatitudes.

As some of you know, I am a fan of the old Honeymooners show. Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton belonged to a lodge called the Raccoons.  They would put on special uniforms and wear funny looking raccoon hats at their meetings.  In one episode, Ralph tried to lead the Raccoons in an anti-wife boycott in which the wives were to be barred from going to the Raccoon Convention.  “You are not going”, Ralph screamed at Alice.  “I am”, she said back to him.  Alice and Trixie went to the Raccoon Convention that year.

I can still smile at the antics of the Honeymooners.   Sexism, however, is not funny.  Sexism is “a grave crime”, a sin, and an injustice which needs to be prophetically focused on and worked on.  In the Roman Catholic tradition it appears that there never have been ordained women priests, but the priesthood has evolved down through history and should continue to do so. Even in the early church, leaders insisted that women were not ordained, but appointed. Perhaps trying to break into this male-only circle of ministers is futile at this point; but I predict a declining male priesthood will someday turn to women and say, “Ouch. Help.” Finally, women will be given some of the respect and dignity that God gave to Mary and God gives to all women.  As God said in the Book of Genesis, it is not good for Man to be alone.

In Jesus,

Pat Brennan

Listen to Fr. Pat on the radio every Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m. on 560 AM and at 11:00 a.m. on 1160 AM.

Socialist?

             I was called something last Sunday that I had not been called before.  I have been called a lot of things in my lifetime, but this title was striking.  I had been speaking last week about the Shirley Sherrod situation in which she lost her job because of a quote taken out of context from a larger talk she gave on overcoming racism.  I mentioned that I first heard about this whole situation on FOX News.  One of the FOX reporters was prevailing, saying that, indeed, Shirley Sherrod should be fired.  Something that I was not aware of, which people brought to my attention since my presentation last week, is that Bill O’Reilly was one of the people who negatively reported on Shirley Sherrod; and when he learned the whole story, saw or heard her whole talk, he apologized.  When I was speaking of this situation, I also commented that I had heard that the Obama administration was afraid of what FOX newsperson, Glenn Beck, might do with this whole situation; and that is why Obama’s leaders wanted Shirley to step down.  I did not make any sort of qualitative or judgmental statement about Glenn Beck.  After mass, a woman walked by me and said, “Glenn Beck is a patriot; you are a socialist.”  That is what I was a called last week – a socialist.  I have done some research into where that comment might be coming from.  On March 2, on his radio and TV programs, Glenn Beck warned people to beware of religious leaders who talk about economic or social justice.  He said that those were “code words” for socialism, Nazism, and communism.  He said that if religious leaders persist in talking about social or economic justice, people ought to leave their parishes or congregations.

           After I was called a socialist, a couple of other people came up to me expressing concern about my reference to distributive justice in the closing prayer of the mass.  I have become surprised at the devotion so many people have to Glenn Beck.  His extreme views have led him to gain millions of viewers and listeners and millions and millions of dollars. I need to set the record straight about being Roman Catholic and being concerned about justice.  Last week, Jesus cautioned us against greed in all of its forms and reminded us that life is not about possessions.  This week he tells us, in Luke, that God has given us the Kingdom of God, and that we are to sell our belongings and give alms to the needy.  He tells us that whatever we treasure has really captured our hearts and he calls us to be vigilant about the quality of life.  One of things we are called to be vigilant about as Catholic Christians is justice.  This call to justice goes back to Jesus Himself.  This call to justice is found also in the theology and spirituality of the Hebrew scriptures.  This call to justice is part of the Hebraic Christian tradition.

           In more recent times, the Catholic Church has developed a body of work that has become known as Catholic Social Teaching. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII produced the classic encyclical, Rerum Novarum, in which he talked about concern for the poor, rights of workers, and the duties of both workers and employees. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI again called for respect toward workers, the creation of a just social order, and warned against inherent dangers in both capitalism and socialism.  In Mater et Magistra, John XXIII, in 1961, advocated just wages for workers.  In 1963, John XXIII wrote Pacem in Terris, calling the world to the concern for the common good and calling also for nations to move toward disarmament.  In Gaudium et Spes, the 2^nd Vatican Council, in 1965, encouraged Catholics to pay attention to the signs of the times, and to work for justice and peace. In Populorum Progressio, in 1967, Paul VI spoke of structural injustices that need to be addressed in the world and called the world to a new healthy humanism.  In Octogesima Adveniens(popularly known as a Call to Action), in 1971, Paul VI called for worldwide justice.  In the statement of the Synod of Bishops in 1971, bishops spoke of justice as a gospel mandate.  In Evangelii Nuntiandi, in 1975, Paul VI spoke of evangelization as being incomplete if not joined to works of social justice.  In Laborem Exercens, in 1981, John Paul II spoke of the spirituality of work.  In Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, in 1988, John Paul II spoke of God’s radical option for the poor and challenged structures of sin in the world.  In 1988, the Statement of the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission warned against racism and encouraged conscience formation.  In Redemptoris Missio John Paul II tried to raise consciousness about poverty.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 spoke of the importance of focusing on justice.  In 1995, in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II warned against abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

            Another significant work is Economic Justice for All, prepared by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1986. That document spoke of the three classical divisions of justice in Catholic culture.  We are to be about commutative justice, in which we practice honesty in all of our dealings with each other.  We are to practice distributive justice.  We are to be concerned about and act on proper distribution of the world’s goods so that all of God’s people have at least minimal resources to live happy and full lives.  This has nothing to do with big government trying to reach into peoples’ pockets and redistribute their wealth.  The document also called us to social justice, that is to challenge and change systems that hold people in bondage and keep them from living the fullness of humanity.

          As much as people might like or enjoy Glenn Beck, his admonition to leave your church if your church speaks of justice is something that flies in the face of Catholic identity.

         Someone who has helped me understand the call to justice better than I have in the past is Jim Wallis, founder of the Sojourners Community, in Washington D.C.  The Sojourners Community is a faith community in which to belong, people must make a commitment to justice.  Writing in his classic Call to Conversion, Jim Wallis has said that too many Christians live a kind of political conformity and a spiritual lukewarmness that are not inclusive of justice consciousness and justice work.  To be a Christian, he wrote, one must live with and spend time in proximity to the victims of injustice, working with them and helping them.  The issues of justice, Wallis said, must become part of our prayer lives and become part of our worship lives. 

          Unfortunately, despite all of the qualitative writing that has been done on social justice in Catholic history, often people have not been helped to discover practical steps in which they can become involved in the various dimensions of justice. 

          Someone who helped Holy Family, where I worked for a number of years, is a man by the name of Michael Cowen, who with Bernard Lee wrote the classic Dangerous Memories on Small Christian Communities.  I asked Michael to come to the parish to talk to Small Christian Communities about how to get practical about social justice missions in their groups, challenging groups to not just be into self nurture, but also to be about justice.  Cowen said that justice is something that cannot just be worked on alone.  People need a community to work with on issues of justice.  He said that in the context of community, people ought to share with each other all of their concerns about mercy and justice, to get all of them out on the table.  After that has been done, there ought to be discernment as to which one issue the group is willing to come together to work on.  Discussion needs to be had on how much time people are willing to give to the justice project and what would be the starting point and what would be signs of success or effectiveness.  He encouraged groups to bring in people who have worked in whatever area of justice they are concerned about, to resource them and to serve as consultants.  Cowen’s methodology made at least some groups able to get their arms around issues of mercy and justice. 

          Both the first reading from Wisdom and the Gospel this week call us, as people of faith, to be prepared and vigilant. That vigilance seems to involve an eschatological dimension, being prepared for the end of time.  I think the vigilance issue also has a very day-to-day meaning. We are to pay attention to what is important and to what matters in life.  As people of faith, we are descendants of Abraham who is talked about in Hebrews today.  As people of faith and descendants of Abraham, one of the aspects of human life that we need to be attentive to is justice.

          I need to be honest in conclusion about something, and I take some ribbing from other people about this.  I am, in fact, a FOX News junkie.  Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, who put together FOX News some years ago, have significantly trounced CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. FOX broadcasts have great production value and good reporting.  I find some reporters on the station to be rather shrill, and I cannot stay with them too long; but I enjoy the station.  Some reporters are more “fair and balanced” than others.  My particular favorite is Megyn Kelly.

          Finally, I am not a socialist.  I am an Irish Catholic, an independent voter, a person trying to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, someone who tries to live the Reign of God.

 In Jesus,

Pat Brennan

Bigger Barns

             Shirley Sherrod was an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Last March, she gave a talk at an N.A.A.C.P. gathering.  Someone took a snippet of her talk and began to pass it around electronically.  In this snippet, Ms. Sherrod, who is African American, said that a white farmer came to her over twenty years ago for help in holding onto his farm which was being taken away from him.  She said her first reaction was, “Why should I help this white man when so many black folks, like myself, have lost their farms?”  When Shirley Sherrod told the story of her reactions to the white farmer, that initially she did not want to help him, she was met with applause from the African American audience at the N.A.A.C.P. meeting that she was addressing. That was the snippet of the talk that eventually ran on FOX News.  FOX News beat its chest and said the other networks would not even cover this story.  After this part of Ms. Sherrod’s talk was played both on the internet and on TV, she received a phone call while driving her car.  It was from the Department of Agriculture.  She was told to pull over to the side of the road and formally resign from her position.  She was told that this is what the “White House” wanted.  In turn, the N.A.A.C.P. called for her resignation.  Being a loyal servant, Shirley Sherrod resigned her position.  What came out later was that that small part of Shirley Sherrod’s talk did not convey the full message of her talk.  She said that encounter with the white farmer who was going to lose his farm was a spiritual transformation for her.  She came to her senses and said, “This isn’t about race.  This is about people in need, whether they are African American, white, Hispanic, whatever racial ethnic group they might be part of.  This white farmer is in need.  I am going to help him.”  And she did; she helped the man save his farm. 

        The carefully cropped passage from Shirley Sherrod’s talk, which presented her as a racist, did not reveal another truth about her life.  Her father was killed by a white man in 1965.  In the full body of her talk, Shirley Sherrod said this:  “What it is really about is those who have versus those who don’t.  They could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic.  I have come to realize that I needed to work to help poor people. God helped me to see that it is not just about black people; it is about poor people.  I have come a long way.  I knew that I couldn’t live with hate.  I have come to realize that we have to work together.  It is sad that we don’t have a room full of whites and blacks here tonight because we have to overcome the divisions that we have.  We have to get to the point, where as Toni Morrison said, ‘Race exists, but it doesn’t matter.’” 

             My first reaction to this story was amazement at how people can manipulate the truth and manipulate information to hurt others and to promote their own ideology.  A man carefully took snippets of a talk about spiritual transformation and conversion and used it to cause harm to a good and just woman.  This story has reminded me of the danger in all of us to rush to judgment.

             I myself have been the victim of information about me being manipulated and half truths being told about me; so I could identify with Shirley Sherrod. 

         It also struck me that there was racism on the part of both the Caucasians who propagated the shortened form of her talk, and the African Americans who were listening to her and who applauded her initial resistance to help the White farmer.

         Since the whole truth has come out about Shirley Sherrod, the Secretary of Agriculture has called her and offered her another job.  He has asked for her forgiveness and she told him that she does forgive him, but the last I heard, she does not know whether she wants to return to that former place of employment.  What a tremendously just and spiritual woman.  Not only has she gone through a spiritual transformation that has helped her transcend all racism to focus on care for the poor, but she has even moved to the position of being able to forgive people who trashed and ruined her career.  This story of Shirley’s spiritual transformation, I am sure, has invited the Secretary of Agriculture, the President, who has called Shirley Sherrod, and many who have experienced this story, to our own conversion and spiritual transformation. 

          Her story stands in sharp juxtaposition to the main character of the parable in the Gospel today.  Jesus teaches about the importance to guard against greed.  He says that one’s life does not consist of possessions and then he tells a parable of a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest. Listen to what this rich man says in the parable:  “What shall I do?  I do not have space.  This is what I shall do.  I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.  I shall store all of my grain.  I shall stay to myself, ‘Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, and be merry!’” Unlike Shirley Sherrod who had a spiritual transformation that led her to the care of poor people, the man in the parable is a portrait of narcissism.  Did you notice how many times he used the pronoun “I”, speaking about what he was going to do for himself, not for others?  The man is guilty of narcissism, materialism, and consumerism.  He finds his security in what he has.  God appears in the parable and calls this man a fool.  He tells him, “….this night, your life is going to be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?”

         Jesus, in the parable, warns all of us about storing up treasures for ourselves, but not being rich in what matters to God.  Well, what matters to God?  What matters to God is what Shirley Sherrod discovered.  What matters to God is mercy toward our fellow person.  What matters to God is compassion.  What matters to God is generosity.  What matters to God is justice, especially distributive justice, sharing our resources with people in need, assuring that the goods of this world, the resources of this world, are shared with all of the inhabitants of the world.  What matters to God is forgiveness.  What matters to God is communion with our fellow person and with God.

           The Gospel reminds me of the story of Oskar Schindler, a wealthy man, who during the course of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, used his wealth to protect Jewish people from Nazi squads and to help Jewish people escape to freedom.  It is said he saved 1200 Jews from death. Schindler had an awakening that his vast wealth was not to be used for himself, but for the well being of others.  Schindler, himself, died penniless.

           I have mentioned before the work of Edward Diener and his son, Robert Biswas-Diener, both psychologists in the Positive Psychology movement.  The Dieners, and others in Positive Psychology, have discovered that we have a materialism, consumerism set-point.  That means that, for most of us, after we have acquired a certain amount of wealth or material resources, gaining more does not make us happier.  Happiness is not really found in stockpiling wealth and resources.  Happiness is found in spirituality, in our connection with other people, sharing with other people, good relationships, love, and investing in the well being of others. 

          The author of the Book of Ecclesiastes, the first reading this week, identifies himself as Qoheleth.  The name is mysterious.  Its root seems to mean assembly, so the name seems to refer to someone who teaches wisdom to an assembly, someone who assembles wisdom for others, or both.  Qoheleth says that most of the things that people give their time and energy to miss the point of life, or miss what matters to God, to use the words of Jesus.  “Vanity of vanities; all things are vanity….What profit comes to man from all the toil and anxiety of heart with which he has labored under the sun….even at night, his mind is not at rest.”

             In the second reading from Colossians, Paul speaks of greed (which is exemplified in the man in Jesus’s parable) as idolatry.  Paul says to any of us for whom greed, materialism, or consumerism are problems, “Put to death….the greed that is idolatry….be raised with Christ.”

             Let us learn from the scriptures this week that most often the right direction is to not to build bigger barns for our stuff, but rather, in concern for our fellow person, to be more willing to share our resources with those who are in need.

 In Jesus,

 Pat Brennan

Both…….And

             There were many strong people and movements at Holy Family Parish where I served as pastor for a number of years.  There was a large group of people very devoted to the work of social justice, and another large group of people very devoted to prayer and spirituality.  As pastor, I attempted to make a statement that living the gospel, living the Reign of God, is not a matter of either/or, but rather, both/and.  I borrowed the language of Richard Rohr.  Rohr says that the disciples of Jesus Christ are to be people of contemplation and action.  I tried to re-echo Rohr’s message physically and architecturally.  There were two empty rooms on either side of the worship space.  We transformed one room into a chapel, the Sacred Heart chapel, for twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week, Eucharistic devotion.  There, with the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, people could pray in a variety of different ways, speak to the Lord from their hearts, listen to the Lord speaking to them.  On the other side of the worship space, we created the Social Justice room.  Over the years, the parish discerned ten areas that they wanted to focus on in terms of mercy and justice.  People could come to the Social Justice room to become more acquainted with the ten areas, and perhaps become involved or make a commitment to work in one or more of the areas.  Through those two rooms on either side of where we celebrated the Eucharist, we tried to communicate the importance of being people of prayerful contemplation and action.  As it turned out, the Sacred Heart chapel was used with greater frequency, perhaps a reflection of the situation with many parishes who find social justice challenges hard to get our arms around.

            Today’s gospel delivers a message of both/and.  Martha is portrayed as a woman busy with household chores; so busy that she has gotten to the point of being, in the words of Jesus, “anxious and worried about many things”.  She also expresses some hostility toward her sister who does not seem engaged in helping Martha with the hospitality chores.  I do not think that Jesus demeaned Martha or her activity.  He obviously enjoyed the family, being in their home, sharing refreshments with them.  I think Jesus points out to Martha the need for both/and balance.  Martha’s busyness, her hard work, and her skills as a homemaker are wonderful.  Jesus reminds her however, in the busyness of her life, she must not lose the discipline that Mary has obviously developed.  Luke tells us that Mary sat beside Jesus, at his feet, listening to him speak.  Mary is portrayed as a person of greater inner peace than Martha, possibly because she practiced the discipline of being quiet, listening to Jesus.

            Martha was anxious and worried about many things and hostile because of her feeling of being alone in her tasks.  In our own day, becoming sporadic and undisciplined in prayerfulness can create similar symptoms to those Martha experienced.  I know when I have much to do, and perhaps am not taking enough time to attend to the Lord, I get a feeling of “no more room”.  There is no more room in my mind or my life to fit in any more responsibilities or activities.  Many stress filled people report polyphasic thinking and doing, thinking about and doing multiple things at the same time, resulting in chaos and confusion. People with too much stress in their lives hurry a lot.  They are always rushing to the next task, the next responsibility.  Stressed out people have high expectations.  Sometimes those expectations are placed on them by others; sometimes the expectations come from themselves.   Some people truly do have a lot of responsibilities and expectations that are part of their jobs, family life, parenting, and marriage.  Jesus, in this week’s readings, does not minimize or demean those responsibilities.  I think the Gospel is telling us that responsibilities and tasks can be executed, can be done, with greater meaning, peace, and perhaps also greater effectiveness, if we do them out of a discipline of centering ourselves in the Spirit and presence of God.

       We see a great hunger for God in the life of Abraham in the 18^th Chapter of Genesis this week.  We are told at the beginning of the reading, the Lord appeared to Abraham.  The passage goes on to say that Abraham looked on and saw three men standing nearby.  Though he was an old man at this time, Abraham ran to meet them and greet them, and bowed down to the ground.  He addresses the three men as “Sir”.  This jumping back and forth from the one Lord to three men seems to express the mysterious nature of this encounter.  Nonetheless, this mysterious encounter is an encounter by Abraham of and with God.  As he realizes that he is with God, he becomes urgent about engaging in the experience of hospitality with the three men.   He makes provisions to bathe their feet, to offer them a large meal.  The three men ask Abraham where his wife Sarah is.  He explains that she is in the tent.  A story that has run through Genesis up to this point is that Sarah has been unable to bear a child with Abraham.  Not being able to have a child was a socially embarrassing experience for a woman.  A woman was judged by the people and the culture of the time to have something wrong with her, perhaps some pattern of sin, because she could not bear a child.  One of the three men said to Abraham about Sarah, “I will return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will then have a son.”  In Abraham’s encounter with the divine, he is blessed with hope for the future, for him and his wife.  Sarah will give birth to Isaac. 

            Later, Christian writers looked on Abraham’s experience of God as three, but one, as a prefigurement of the Trinity.  We do not have clarity about the intention of the writers, but we do know that the doctrine of the Trinity was something that evolved in scripture and tradition; so perhaps we do have an early prefigurement of belief in God as three, but one.

       On Good Friday, we who attend the Good Friday service come forward to venerate the cross.  In venerating the cross, we behaviorally do what Paul speaks about in Colossians today when he says, “I rejoice in my sufferings.”  Paul goes on to say at the end of the passage that he has come to have insight into and understand the mystery of suffering and the mystery of life in general.  He says that for him, suffering and life in general is the experience of “Christ in you, the hope for glory.”  Many of us have periods of struggle and suffering in our lives.  We can get lost in suffering and struggle if we do not take time to be with God, to be with Christ, in prayerfulness.  Like Paul, we can gain insight into and draw meaning from the mystery of the cross in our lives, if we take time to prayerfully be with and listen for Christ. 

            I have done a lot of research this past year into Positive Psychology, happiness and leadership.  All of the literature that I have studied has a recurring message.  Happiness, good leadership, necessitate sanctuary time: time and places where we can, as Stephen Covey writes, “sharpen the saw”, or renew ourselves.  I again want to emphasize the principle of both/and.  I have an obsessive-compulsive streak.  I value, perhaps to a fault, work, achievement, setting goals, and accomplishing those goals.  But even ministry can become hollow busyness if it is not anchored in religious experience.  So if we are more into action than contemplation, this week’s scripture readings challenge us to stop cheating ourselves.  Life can be much more peaceful, joyful, and even effective if we take on the posture of Mary, a disciple who regularly sits with God, listens, and prays.   We need not be God-deprived.  All of us are as hungry and as thirsty for God as the elderly Abraham, who ran to be with God.

Reversed Expectations

       Brendan Morrocco is a man in his early twenties who served his country by fighting in the Iraq war.  On Easter Sunday 2009, a vehicle he was operating went over an explosive device that destroyed the vehicle.  It left Brendan without four limbs.  He survived.  He has been fitted with four prostheses.  He spends a great deal of time now, cared for by his brother Michael, who left a successful job at Citicorp to care for his brother. Michael assists Brendan in physical therapy in Washington, at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where both of them share connecting dormitory-style rooms.  Get a feel for the lifestyle this young man has taken on.  He has no arms or hands.  He has no legs or feet.  He has been fitted with a huge rubber hand and another robot-like arm and hand.  The prostheses he has been given for legs and feet make him feel like he is walking on stilts.  Physical therapy is grueling for him.  In the midst of this agony, he has maintained good humor, a positive outlook on life, and he has even managed to fall in love with a young woman, and she with him.  His story appeared on the cover of the July 4 issue of the New York Times.

       Brendan exemplifies a depth of spirituality and faith, though he might not use a lot of religious language.  He reminds us that, frequently, life reverses our expectations, our hopes, and our dreams.  Being a person of faith is to maintain trust and belief in God despite the circumstances of our lives.  One of the recurring messages of Jesus is about the reversal of expectations.  We find this reversal theme in Jesus’s parables.  Jesus’s parables are of three types.  There are reversal parables, in which our expectations about life and God are reversed.  There are advent parables, which speak of how God subtly, but really comes into our lives.  There are action parables, in which the teaching of Jesus calls us to change course, to change behavior, to take action.  And some of the parables are hybrids, performing more than one of these three functions.

       In today’s parable, we hear about the Good Samaritan.  It is a hybrid.  It both reverses our expectations and calls us to action.  The lead-in to the parable gives us a glimpse of a scholar of the law who wanted to challenge Jesus and display his own expertise.  He asks Jesus what he must do to gain eternal life.  Jesus throws the question about eternal life, and its possible relationship with the law, back on the scholar.  Remember that there were six hundred thirteen Jewish laws.  The scholar beautifully summarizes the essence of the law.  We are called to love God and love one’s neighbor as oneself.  Jesus affirms the man’s answer.  The man wants to further push on Jesus.  He asks Jesus to explain who and what a neighbor is.  Jesus engages in his parable of reversed expectations and a call to action.  He tells the story of a man who is physically attacked and left to die on the side of the road.  He talks about two apparently holy people: a priest and a Levite, who belonged to a class of people who wanted to be priests and assisted in some priestly functions.  Both people passed the man by, offering him no aid; but they were keeping the law, for the Jewish law taught that to engage with someone who was dying or bleeding would render one unclean in the sight of God.

       Jews and Samaritans hated each other for a variety of reasons.  In the reversal dimension of Jesus’s parable, he tells us that it is the Samaritan who stops for the apparently Jewish man to offer him aid and long term care out of his own resources.  Many of Jesus’s Jewish listeners must have been outraged at Jesus’s portrayal of a Samaritan as a person of mercy.  Jesus asks the scholar of the law, “Who was neighbor to the man?”  The scholar cannot even bring himself to say the word “Samaritan”.  He can only say, “The one who showed mercy.”  Jesus gets into the action dimension of the parable by telling the legal scholar, “You answered correctly.  Go and do likewise. Go and be a person of mercy and compassion.”

       There is reversal on several levels in Jesus’s parable.  Whom does the Good Samaritan stand for?  Some say he stands for God, and the human family is embodied in the person beat up along the side of the road.  In this interpretation of the parable, God is not so much concerned about our keeping six hundred thirteen laws or keeping oneself pure and clean, according to the law.  Our God is a God of mercy and compassion who wants to heal the broken human family. 

       If the Samaritan potentially and ideally stands for human beings, then Jesus is suggesting that mercy and compassion can be found in people who often are judged harshly, stereotyped, or about whom people have negative expectations.  Could it be that a Samaritan lives out the essence of the Reign of God more than holy Jewish people like the priest and the Levite?  That seems to be one of Jesus’s suggestions.

       One of the genius elements of Jesus’s parables is that the parable can mean everything I have said so far and more.  In Jesus’s parables, we are swept up in a story.  Our imaginations are hooked.  We are challenged to try to sort out all that Jesus means and intends.

       The Book of Deuteronomy, like the other books of the Pentateuch, tells stories that took place in ancient times.  Actually Deuteronomy and the other four books of the Pentateuch were put together relatively late in Jewish history, somewhere around 500 B.C. They existed in oral forms and various fragmentary written forms for centuries. In the story from Deuteronomy, Moses is encouraging the Jewish people to keep the law.  The story was written to convey that message to people who were contemporaries of the Deuteronomist writers. Many Jewish people had abandoned the traditions of Judaism.  Moses is trying to convey what Jesus tried to convey – the essence of the six hundred thirteen Jewish laws is found in common sense. That common sense is love and mercy toward God, neighbor, and self.  God’s law is a natural law, written and placed deeply within our hearts and our minds.  We need only to listen to and attend to God’s presence to discover what is right and good. 

       The Colossians passage this week was originally a hymn sung at liturgy and used for catechesis.  It is a beautiful articulation of Christology, placing Jesus as a force in the creation of time and the world, but also the fulfillment of human nature and human life.  Through His cross and resurrection, He has effected reconciliation and unity for all of creation and the human family.  We need only to grow into the level of growth and development that Jesus has attained for the human family. 

       Let us be attentive in the days ahead to whenever our expectations on self, life, others, and God might be reversed.  The scriptures this week tell us that God could be very active, present, and revelatory in such moments. 

 In Jesus,

Pat Brennan

The 4^th of July, the Cross, and the Mission

          The 4^th of July, this year, made me reflect on my grandparents and some other relatives of their age group who came to Chicago from Ireland around the turn of the 20^th century.  They came here with few resources, but they had hope and belief that a better way of life awaited them in this country.  They were right.  They all ended up in good, middle class homes, on the southeast and southwest sides of Chicago.  They had good work.  They had large families.  They contributed to their neighborhoods.  Most of them were involved in the Democratic Party; and they were invested and involved in their faith and their parishes.  Few of them ever returned to Ireland, which I think contributed to some depression, and perhaps some self-medication with alcohol; but as I look back, I have much respect for their pioneering spirits.  They thought they could experience something in this country that would be good and wonderful for them and the families they would give birth to.  It is because of them that my brother, my cousins, and I enjoy the greatness of this country. 

      This great Irish spirit that led those people to Chicago is a reflection of the spirit of the founding fathers and mothers of this country.  As we celebrate our nation today, let us be grateful for the founding fathers and mothers that had the vision of what this country could be.  We truly are a blessed nation.  The 4^th of July is a day to say thank you to God for the gift of our citizenship.  It is a day to reflect on all that we are grateful for, because we are Americans; and it is a day also of prayer for the things that concern us about America and our relationships with other nations. No longer can we think about our country in isolationist terms.  As we celebrate this holiday, July 4th, 2010, it is important to embrace the reality that we now must always think and feel now geo-politically.  We are a world community, interconnected in so many different ways.  We stand on the precipice of great collaborative efforts with other nations.  We are, also, always on the precipice of possible war, terrorism, and world catastrophe.  We see and experience a microcosm of this truth in how economic conditions in different parts of the world, for example, Greece, can have such a strong impact on the economies of other nations.  This 4^th of July we gather to bring to God our concerns about the way the world is going. 

      I heard a news story this past week about a Christian minister who is in the process of having the cross removed from the roof of his church.  He said, in an interview, that in an attempt to attract new members, he does not want to use a symbol that might alienate or turn away some people.  Unfortunately that minister is reflecting a terribly superficial understanding of Christianity.  As Paul says in Galatians today, the sign of our faith is the mystery of the cross and Christ crucified.  The cross is not a negative symbol.  While the cross certainly speaks a message of pain and suffering, it also is a symbol of great hope.  As I have said innumerable times to you, the mystery of the cross is always leading us to new life.  The mystery of the cross promises us eternal life.  Our ancestors, who came from different parts of the world to start lives here, the founders of this country, knew the mystery of the cross.  Though they might not have thought or talked “cross spirituality language”, they knew that any growth, any benefit they would have in this country, would be born of great effort. 

          In the reading from Isaiah today, we are reading from Trito-Isaiah, or the third section of the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 56-66).  The first section of Isaiah (Chapters 1-39) was written by the prophet himself.  Deutro-Isaiah (Chapters 40-55), the second and third sections were written probably by disciples who tried to continue the line of thinking and the spirit of Isaiah.  Deutero-Isaiah (Chapters 40-55), the second section, promised the exiled Jews in Babylon that they would one day be blessed with their home in Jerusalem again.  Deutero and Trito Isaiah are known as the Book of Consolation whereas chapters 1-39 are known as the Book of Judgment.  In the section we hear from today, some exiles have begun to come back to Jerusalem after decades of exile.  While this particular passage communicates a lot of rejoicing as the Jewish people have been allowed to return to their homeland, we also know from different parts of the Hebrew scriptures that there was great struggle when they returned to Jerusalem.  They inherited a broken city, a city of ruins that had to be built anew.  Some Jewish people felt that they would be better off back in Babylon like the Jewish people longed for Egypt when they were in the desert for forty years.

        I used to work with a Jesuit priest by the name of James LoPresti, whose special interest was ministering to Catholics who had become alienated from the Church.  He wanted to invite them back to their faith community, but he had a theory that he emphasized with us over and over again.  His theory was that we ought not to invite Catholics to return to the church that they left.  Rather than inviting Catholics back, we ought to be inviting them to some kind of a rebirth, a personal rebirth, a spiritual rebirth, a rebirth and a new experience of community.  The notion of return is loaded with a spirit of nostalgia, of wanting to go back to some status quo that was comfortable.  We can never go back. In terms of growth and spiritual conversion, we are constantly being called to be born again.  We need to grow more comfortable with the cross, the pain of growth and conversion, the pain of being human. 

      One of the central motifs of our faith is journey.  Journey always implies relinquishing nostalgia and embracing the challenges that lie ahead as our ancestors and the founding mothers and fathers of America did.  We hear of some of this willingness to accept discomfort in the gospel today.  Jesus sends out seventy-two disciples to be missionaries for the Reign of God.  He challenges them to live simple and austere lives.  They go and do as he sent them, teaching about the Reign of God and performing miraculous works.  When they return, they are jubilant; they are rejoicing at the experience they had as missionaries. 

       Sometimes I think we fail to realize that Jesus sends all of us out to be missionaries.  As American Christians, we have a dual citizenship.  We certainly are citizens of America, but as baptized disciples of Jesus Christ, we are also citizens of and belong to the Reign of God.  Jesus challenges us in our life’s work, in our relationships, in our personal spirituality, to try to instill elements of the Reign of God into American culture, and, via American culture, to help with the emergence of the Reign of God in the world.  To be a missionary requires intentionality, growth, understanding the mission, and a willingness to sacrifice for the mission, to experience discomfort – the cross.

         As we celebrate the great nation that we have been blessed with, let us also be aware of the great gift of faith that we have been blessed with. Without falling into manipulative proselytizing, with a missionary spirit, let us realize on the 4^th of July that we have something this nation and the world desperately need: a relationship with Jesus Christ and the vision and behaviors of the Reign of God which he has entrusted to us.

 Have a good holiday weekend.

 Pat Brennan

Clothed in Christ

             In today’s gospel, Jesus asks a question that perhaps many of us wonder about, especially if we have some role in public life.  He asks his disciples, “What are the people saying about me?  Who do the crowds say that I am?”  The disciples give him various answers and then Jesus asks a very pointed question, “Who do you say that I am – you who have been with me in private moments, you who have had more time with me than just the crowds have?”  Peter answers, “You are the Christ of God.”  The meaning of the word Christ is the anointed one.  Peter is saying to Jesus, “I believe that you are the Promised One in our tradition, the Messiah who is to make all things right for our nation and for our people.”

             The relevance of today’s gospel passage is that Jesus is asking the same question of us today.  Who do we say that Jesus is? 

          The theologian John F. O’Grady wrote a wonderful book some years ago entitled Models of Jesus. He updated the book in a more recent volume entitled Models of Jesus Revisited.  In these books O’Grady tries to do what Avery Dulles did in his Models of Church work.  As Dulles tried to look at the mystery of the church from many different theological perspectives, so also O’Grady has summarized over 2000 years of theologizing about Jesus in six models.  He says that the six models pretty much cover the major themes of centuries of Christology.  Each model, he says, has both strengths and weaknesses.

             The first model is Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  The strength of this model is that it contains doctrinal clarity.  It is a model on which we can build our faith.  The weakness is that it is rather cerebral and does not excite passion from people. 

             The second model is Jesus is the Mythological Christ.  This is a largely Protestant model which says that the historisity of the gospel stories is not important.  What is important is the meaning for life that is contained in the stories about Jesus.  This is a very existential, livable model of Jesus.  The weakness is that it indeed questions the historicity of Jesus in the gospel narratives.

             The third model is Jesus is the Ethical Liberator.  The strength of this model is that it reflects Jesus’s emphasis on justice:  commutative justice, distributive justice, and social justice.  Like the Mythological Christ, it can emphasize the humanity of Christ exceedingly and miss the more transcendent spiritual and mystical elements of Jesus’s teaching.

              The fourth model is Jesus is the Man for Others, the model person.  This also leans in the direction of Protestant theology.  In offering Jesus as the model person, again we have a very livable model, with images of Jesus that we can strive to imitate.  The weakness is that it might be again too horizontal, emphasizing Jesus’s humanity over His divinity.

             A fifth model in O’Grady’s work is Jesus is Lord and Savior.  In speaking of Jesus as Lord, O’Grady and anyone who embraces this model, are saying that Jesus is normative for one’s life.  Jesus has become the standard, the guiding light in a person’s life.  In speaking of Jesus as Savior, this model suggests people go through periods of pain and struggle and Jesus offers to us in these moments of pain and struggle, healing.  O’Grady says that Jesus as Lord and Savior is a passionate and exciting model.  It represents the Jesus of evangelical efforts and movements.  In some of the personal passion contained in this model, some of the communal dimensions of Jesus’s teaching can be lost.

             The sixth model is Jesus is the Human Face of God.  In this model, O’Grady contends God remains for many of us an elusive presence, a mystery.  If we want to understand how God is, we need to look to Jesus.  He is the revelation of the mystery of God.  O’Grady says that he believes this model of Jesus is the model represented most in The New Testament. 

         As I have taught this material over the years, largely to graduate students, people have responded that different models of Jesus have been important to them at different times of the lives.  At different times of their lives, they have needed different dimensions of the person and message of Jesus.  As you hear and read of these models, which have been important to you and your faith development?  Which are important and livable to you right now? 

         In our tradition, we have other titles and terms for Jesus.  We speak of Jesus as our Redeemer.  This suggests He has paid a price to free us and liberate us from some kind of alienation.  We speak of Jesus as Messiah, the Promised One, which is very similar to Peter’s emphasis on Jesus being the Christ.  Early in the Christian tradition, Jesus became known as the Word of God which speaks of Jesus as God’s communication of self to us.  Jesus is the Son of God which emphasizes His sharing in the same divine life of Abba.  We speak of Jesus as our King which again emphasizes Jesus as normative, Jesus as setting the standard for us, Jesus as our leader.  Jesus is the Suffering Servant who gave His life for the salvation of the human family.  This image of Jesus is spoken of in Zechariah 12 this week, as the prophet speaks of someone who is pierced for the well being of others.  This passage from Zechariah is very similar to the Suffering Servant songs of the prophet Isaiah.  Jesus has spoken of himself as the Vine of Life to whom we must stay connected.  Jesus is called in the scriptures Rabbi or Teacher.  Jesus speaks of himself in John 15 as Friend of the human family who has laid down His life for us and who has revealed to us who He is. Jesus is the Revelation of the nature of God’s Kingdom or the Reign of God.  Jesus is the Sacrament of God’s forgiveness.  Jesus offers us in His teaching and preaching a Glimpse of heaven, a Glimpse of eternal life.  Jesus speaks of himself as the Way, the Truth about Life. 

         Obviously our faith tradition holds many titles and many models of Jesus.  Our experience of faith in Jesus is certainly a rich one.  St. Paul in the second reading today from Galatians reminds us that we who have been baptized have been “clothed” with Christ.  The imagery speaks of the gown that was placed on all of us when we were baptized, a white gown that reflects our new kind of living in and through Jesus.  I would like to emphasize this week that indeed at baptism we were clothed with Christ, but the life of a baptized follower of Jesus is to engage in a lifelong process of being clothed with Christ.  To be a disciple is to be a learner, a learner of Jesus and as we learn Him, we are called more and more to live Him.

         Let us make a commitment this summer day, this Father’s Day, to not allow our faith to become frozen or static.  Jesus is spoken of in the gospel of Luke today as praying in solitude, even though disciples were with him.  We grow in faith by private periods of prayer.  We grow in faith through being in community, large groups and small groups with other disciples.  We grow in faith through liturgy.  We grow in faith through reading and reflecting on the scriptures.  We grow in faith in ministry and service to our fellow person.

         Let us continue to clothe ourselves with Jesus Christ, with all Jesus is and can be; and thank God for the many fathers and male figures in each of our stories, who have helped us and are helping us to become clothed in Christ.

 In Jesus,

 Pat Brennan

Listen to Fr. Pat on the radio every Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m. on 560 AM and at 11:00 a.m. on 1160 AM.

Forgiven

          Few things have troubled me recently as much as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  As I see hundreds of miles of water polluted with oil, as I see birds and fish dying or suffering with oil over their bodies, as I listen to the woes of people in the fishing industry and people working in the tourist industry who make a living by serving people who take vacations in that area, I am truly broken hearted.  It truly has been a pollution, a destruction of God’s creation and peoples’ lives that will endure for many years for come.

      When I was watching the news a couple of nights ago, it struck me that spreading oil is a metaphor for other things, an image of other things.  The oil pollution of the Gulf of Mexico, the oil reaching the shore, is comparable to cancer or some other terrible disease spreading unchecked through a person’s body.  The oil reminds me also of the power and force of sin.  I believe that sin frequently begins in an imperceptible way, in our values and our attitudes, and expands into our behavior and our lifestyle.  Like the oil spreading in the water, like cancer or some other disease spreading in someone’s body, sin also is destructive.  It destroys the quality of who we are as individuals; and frequently sin causes pain and destruction to other people, our relationships, and situations that we are part of.

      I believe that at the core of sin there are a couple of primal sins.  All sin has elements of idolatry attached to it.  Frequently the idolatry takes the form of us placing our will, our own desire, above anything else in life, even relationships with others and our relationship with God.  And there seems to be an element of murder in all of sin in that, again, sin is a destructive force that destroys life in many different forms when sin touches life.  Indeed sin resembles the millions of gallons of oil now touching the coast of the regions connected with the Gulf of Mexico.

     I wanted to reflect on sin today because essentially the first reading from the 2^nd Book of Samuel and the gospel reading from Luke touch on the reality of sin.  David has sinned greatly in the Samuel passage.  He has lustful desires for Bathsheba.  He conceived a child with her and then had Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed.  The husband/soldier defended David and the nation, but David arranged for him to be killed in battle.  David sinned on multiple levels.  The woman in the gospel passage is portrayed as a sinner.  We are not told what her sin is, but the Pharisees who prided themselves on a strict adherence to Jewish law sat in judgment against her, but did not see their own tendencies toward sinfulness.  They look down upon this woman although Jesus is open to being with her.  In both cases, there is repentance.  David says, “I have sinned against the Lord.”  In a similar way, the sinful woman cries tears of repentance, washes Jesus’s feet with her tears, dries his feet with her hair, and anoints his feet with oil.  She expresses sorrow and repentance for whatever sin she has engaged in.  Jesus tells the woman that she is forgiven. 

           Three values that we have talked about a lot over the years are held up for our prayerful consideration this week.   The first is the need for repenting from and being sorry for sin, as David and the sinful woman did.  However, we will never express sorrow for sin if we are not people, first of all, of moral inventory, who regularly examine our consciences and pay attention to patterns of sin in our lives; and who go to God and to other people we have hurt and express sorrow for our sin.

      Secondly, as God forgives us, as is taught in the scriptures this week, we are taught to forgive one another.  Forgiveness is not something that is done easily.  Forgiveness involves intentionality, work, decision, empathy; and the giving of forgiveness is a free gift, though often unmerited.  Forgiveness involves relinquishing the urge and the need to get even and to hurt back.

      A third reality that we called to by the scriptures is reconciliation or the rebuilding of relationships that have been damaged in some way by sin or other forces.  We must always forgive.  We must always say that we are sorry.  Reconciliation is an ideal that we need to reach for, but sometimes reconciliation is something that cannot be actualized.  Reconciliation has to be worked on by all parties involved, but sometimes some people do not want to reconcile.  Sometimes to get involved with a person where there has been a break in the relationship can be unwise, unhealthy, and dangerous.  Sometimes sorrow and forgiveness are things we should and can do, though reconciliation perhaps remains an ideal that in some cases cannot always be achieved. 

           Before I close this week, I want to thank and congratulate Fr. George Kane, the pastor emeritus of Church of the Holy Spirit in Schaumburg, who has been a formation minister and a sacramental minister at Holy Family where I was pastor for the last fourteen years.  George taught me in the seminary.  I have had nothing but respect for him since I have known him.  George is what I would call a pastor-theologian, a man with great pastoral skill and ability, but also a man, a priest, who has never stopped being a student, a man who has never stopped learning, and in turn, is always in a posture of teaching, especially in the areas of scripture and ecclesiology.  I have missed working with George this past year.

      I thank George for his prophetic and strong witness to the importance of justice, justice in society at large and justice in our Church.  I want to thank George for his strong, prophetic stand for the rights of women, for his strong prophetic stand against injustice against women, especially when it happens in the context of the Church.  I want to thank George for mentoring Dawn Mayer into the fine pastoral minister that she has become.  I would like to think that I had a role in that learning process also, but I know that George has played the more significant role.  George and Dawn, along with others on the Holy Family staff, made up a great team.  George’s departure from Holy Family is a great loss to the parish.

      George, someone described you to me recently at ageless.  In terms of your wisdom, your insight, and your example, that is very true.  Thank you for all that you have been and done for Holy Family and the thousands and thousands of other people who you have touched in your many years of the priesthood.