Did Jesus really talk about Hell too?

26th Sunday, Year C

Luke 16:19-31 The rich man and Lazarus

Here we come face to face with the concepts of Heaven and Hell in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Imagine that – the Catholic Church didn’t make it up!

Most people refuse to believe that a loving God could allow such a reality as Hell.

But it’s not about God.

It’s about you and me, and the choices we make.

The rich man could have taken Lazarus out of his suffering. He could have lifted him up, treated his sores, gave him food and shelter, but he chose not to. He chose to leave Lazarus in his personal hell.

Now all this gives rise to a basic question about our world.

Is there justice?

The first thing to note is that we all want justice.

We all have a sense of what’s fair … but where does it come from?

Even the most notorious prisoners – who’d been anything but fair to others – had a sense of fairness when it came to their own lives. (I served as a prison chaplain for a number of years)

We all have a sense of fairness but we’re not always fair! But where does it come from?

It’s the presence of God in us.

In other words, our human words and language, our desires, are reflections of eternal realities.

This of course is one of C.S. Lewis’ great arguments for God.

The second thing to note is that we do attempt to create justice but often our attempts are at best approximations.

How can we give justice to the families of missing persons?

How can we give justice to the families of murder victims? Can we give them back to their families? Approximations!

How can we give justice to a young terminally ill mother of 4 children or to her husband and children? We can’t – but we do try!

The simple truth is; life is not fair. We try to make it fair … but it’s not fair.
Of course, life would be much fairer if we just observed the Ten Commandments! But it still wouldn’t be fair.

Unless there’s an after-life, a putting to rights beyond our immediate grasp, a transformation of the human (prefigured in the risen body of Christ still bearing the marks of his suffering), realities that we call heaven, purgatory and hell, then there is no true justice.

But worse still, the world, our lives, everything is ultimately meaningless.

We are going nowhere, absolutely nowhere!

Jesus didn’t embrace sinners unconditionally saying peace, love, everything is OK. He’s saying it’s not OK!

1 Reply

24th Sunday Year C

15th September 2013

Luke 15:1-10 The Lost Sheep / Drachma

Here’s a piece that’s often mistakenly used to justify, tolerate and accept behaviour that is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

More often than not, you’ll find a very selective focus on the Good Shepherd that effectively denies the reality of sin, denies there’s a real danger to the lost sheep.

Surely it’s the danger to the lost sheep that provokes the loving Shepherd to leave the ninety nine and go in search of the one?

So, effectively, while Jesus tells us much about himself, he’s also telling us that sin is not OK!

Firstly, the Gospels use the terms sin and sinners. Indeed they are terms that Jesus affirms. If you remove sin and sinners from the Gospels, Jesus Christ becomes meaningless.

Secondly, when Jesus tries to explain sin He tells stories / parables that understand sin as loss, potentially fatal. He uses sin and loss as if they’re interchangeable.

Thirdly, the sinners are seeking the company of Jesus to hear what he had to say. It’s not a case of Jesus embracing sinners unconditionally saying peace, love, everything is OK! On the contrary Jesus is saying it’s not OK!

Nowhere is this more obvious than on the Cross.

ILLUSTRATE USING CRUCIFIX

This is what sin does to God.

But since this (Jesus Christ) is also man, this is also what sin does to humanity.

That’s why Jesus is interested in the sinner, but he’s interested like a shepherd facing the potential permanent destruction of one of his sheep.

Therefore, far from justifying, tolerating and accepting sin as OK the scriptures, indeed Jesus himself, actually argue and teach the very opposite.

If you can’t be trusted with money how can you be trusted with the Kingdom of God?

Leave a reply

25th Sunday Year C

22nd September 2013

Luke 16:1-13

As we’d say in Wexford, there’s fierce sense in this piece. It’s common sense.

Jesus takes everyday experience and uses it to teach us about eternity.

In this case He argues that if we can’t be trusted with money, how can we be trusted with the riches of Gods Kingdom, with Heaven?

It’s common sense. If you’re an employer and you can’t trust a particular employee with your money, do you make that employee the manager?

So, if God can’t trust you with money He’s not going to give you his Kingdom! He’s not going to give you Heaven!

Can’t trust us with money yet give us the power of angels? It’s not going to happen!

Notice Jesus’ descriptive terms (how he describes things); ‘genuine riches’ against ‘money, that tainted thing’

There’s always a tension in the teaching of Jesus between making provision for our earthly life (money that tainted thing, what is not yours) and making provision for eternal life (genuine riches, what is your very own)

Let me put it this way:

How many people in Ireland buy a lotto ticket every week? Why? There are very good reasons but generally it’s about making provision for our earthly life.

Jesus makes the point that we’re very good at making provision for our earthly life but not so good at making provision for eternal life; the children of this world are more astute in dealing with their own kind than are the children of light.

Now compare the intensity, the expectancy, the anticipation, the hope, the sense of possibility with which we approach the lotto (or our business or other interests), compare that with our approach to the Church, to Mass and the Sacraments, particularly Holy Communion.

What do you find? A kind of unawareness that God can make us happy, that God is the source of true happiness, that we’re designed for union with God.

When Jesus speaks of genuine riches, what is yours, He means himself, his life poured into ours.

How many Catholics started to build but didn’t finish? Sunday 23, Year C, September 08 2013

Leave a reply

Be sure to read the Gospel: Luke 14: 25-33

The first thing to say about that piece is; it’s about us and God. But since God by his very nature is not interested in Himself (he doesn’t need to be) we can take it that it’s really about us, about our good.

Without hating my father, mother, wife … What could that mean?

Hating in this piece means second place, any place but not first place! So Jesus Christ gets first place, everybody and everything else comes second …

Jesus is saying; put me before parents, wife, husband, children … Why on earth would you do that?

Jesus Christ is suggesting He’s the true source of happiness. This is radical stuff, completely counter cultural.

What’s the goal of our culture? What’s our cultures vision for you, for the human being? Consume, so that you will be happy! That’s it, nothing more. It’s the biggest lie ever told on the face of the earth.

Jesus says; I’m your true goal.

By the way, anyone who thinks there is no basis in the teaching of Jesus for priestly celibacy needs to have a look at this!

The king going out to war is you and me, indeed particularly priests, going out against an enemy that’s far greater than us, the world and all its allure, (ultimately it’s a spiritual war) and very often we sue for peace, meaning we compromise, sometimes we give up altogether.

How many priests have gone that road? How many ordinary Catholics? How many started to build but couldn’t finish – it’s a tough environment! Don’t you get it? It’s war, spiritual warfare, like one King marching to war against another King!

Why practice religion? If you practice with your heart it’ll take you into the Divine Life. But so many never even start! Others get side-tracked along the way. Some object to others and leave …

Behind this radical call, this seemingly crazy task of putting Christ first there resides the most important truth often unknown to humankind; life in Christ (grace) is our true goal. He is our happiness, knowing Him, loving Him.

God alone can satisfy the human heart!

Twenty First Sunday (C): Jesus was tolerant only in so far as it served Mercy!

Leave a reply

So what have we got this weekend?

Basically we’ve got two sides – on one side there was the religious people (the Jews) and on the other, atheists, agnostics and sinners all thrown in together. Broad strokes, of course.

Into that dualism arrived Jesus Christ – no less than God Himself!

He spends his short earthly life calling both sides (not just one side) to repentance. Very interesting.

We’d expect that he’d call sinners to repentance, to change. Or would we? Is there sin anymore?

On this point – the reality of sin – Jesus never waivers. He never denies the reality of sin. On the contrary His life is an argument for the reality of sin and for ultimate justice.

Jesus wasn’t so much tolerant as merciful. Tolerance suggests almost anything is acceptable, there are few laws, almost everything can be collapsed into tolerance, almost everything is grey, there’s no black and white, nothing is definite. In broad strokes it’s the world we live in.

But Jesus didn’t bring tolerance. He brought Mercy. He was tolerant only in so far as tolerance served Mercy. That’s a totally different reality. Mercy implies that there are definite laws, an objective order. Besides, mercy is painful. Think of a husband’s, wife’s, partner’s unfaithfulness. Now think (feel) forgiving that unfaithfulness. What do you get? A kind of crucifixion for God’s sake!

But tolerance is not so painful because it doesn’t matter, nothing matters, there are no absolute laws, there is no ultimate justice, whereas Jesus says it does matter, there is ultimate justice. There’s always a price to be paid. It matters that you are saved. Me too!

Now, as Jesus calls sinners to repentance (unbelievers to belief) the religious people start to object – they start to fight with Him, they actually start to resent God – thus the first move to be last, and the last move to be first.

How dare you they say, this is not fair!

A kind of religious / spiritual pride!

Can you see where the religious people are wrong?

They are religious but their religion is about them rather than God! It’s religion without the heart of God. It’s a religion that really doesn’t understand what’s at stake. A man (or woman) can be lost! That’s what gave rise to parables like the lost sheep, the prodigal son.

Twenty Second Sunday (C): Jesus insults the guests, then the host!

Leave a reply

Luke 14:1,7-14

Twenty Second Sunday, Year C, September 01 2013

A leading Pharisee – a person of standing in the community, in society generally – hosts a meal, inviting family and friends and among the guests is Jesus.

So here’s the scene; a host, guests and God all rubbing shoulders!

And the guests are more interested in their personal standing, in themselves, than they are in God and Gods Kingdom. There’s nothing new there – even to this day!

Their religion is about themselves rather than God and neighbour. Or perhaps their religion has had little impact on them. Their religion hasn’t converted self – which usually means self has converted, indeed, corrupted religion! Which is what we’ve got today; no, yes?

They’re full of self rather than God and neighbour.

And if something, indeed, somebody is full then you can’t get anything more in. She or he will have to be emptied before God can enter.
Really Jesus is asking; are you so poor inwardly that you must compete outwardly for position at a table, for recognition, for honour, for contentment, for meaning?

It’s the classic Jesus question: Do we find ultimate meaning in the material or the spiritual? It’s an important question – especially in a time when the material has failed and so many have lost meaning.

And given their self centredness it’s not likely they had the humility to hear Jesus call to a much deeper love, a more radical service, to forget self and put God and neighbour first.

Without that humility it’s most likely they felt insulted by Jesus.

In the end it comes down to who is dominating us, deep within?

Is it self or is it God?

Inside; who is in charge?

You’ll be much happier when God rules inside!

FATIMA, RELIGION IN SCHOOL AND OUR COMMON FUTURE

1 Reply

For many years now I’ve been troubled by the quality of the religion programme taught in primary school, the Alive O programme, particularly when it comes to sacramental preparation. However, it’s possible that the greater problem is the prevailing culture and I’m misappropriating responsibility. As a direct result I have developed my own programme of preparation for First Communion and Confirmation as a supplement to the ongoing work of the school.

It consists of meeting the children once, sometimes twice weekly. While together – with at least one other adult present (the teacher) – we view DVDs about Fatima, Lourdes, St. Margaret Mary, St. Pio, St. Faustina and Blessed John Paul.

This is followed by a children’s Mass on Sunday mornings. I usually tell the parents: Holy Mass is for the children – the homily is for the parents!

As a young seeker of Truth I was struck by the details of Fatima and my recent work has simply brought Fatima to the forefront of my thoughts once again.

While watching the various DVDs about Fatima it becomes very obvious that this attempted intervention of God in human affairs caused great suffering; for the children and their parents and for the local ecclesiastical and civil authorities.

Having watched the DVDs I generally point to the trauma caused in Fatima and ask; what was it all for? What did Our Lady and ultimately God want to achieve?

The answer takes most people by surprise.

Firstly, Our Lady asked that people stop offending God. So much trouble just for that! One must conclude therefore that offending God is a very serious matter.

Secondly, as if to emphasize the point, Our Lady then went on to request reparation, the repair of the hurt caused to the heart of God by human offences.

How are we to do that?

This is very striking. We are to appreciate Holy Mass. We are to partake of the Eucharist, to believe, adore, trust and love her Son Jesus Christ truly present there. Fatima clearly indicates, without room for doubt, that neglect of Holy Mass and the proper worship of the Blessed Sacrament amounts to neglect of the person and the work of Jesus Christ, and causes great suffering in the Heart of God. I always remind the kids that when the Angel came to visit the children in Fatima, the Angel didn’t come with a can of coca cola and a bag of crisps! No, the Angel came with the Sacred Host and a Chalice. Why? Because that’s how God decided to remain with his people. In the message of Fatima the Eucharist is central because God intended Eucharist to be central until the end of time. The Eucharist is God-self and God’s work in Jesus Christ – it can’t be any more central than that!

Furthermore Our Lady taught the children to offer sacrifices (particularly the difficulties and sufferings of life) in reparation. This is a common theme in the lives of all the great Saints – they offered their sufferings in reparation while working tirelessly to relieve the suffering of others.

I explain reparation by asking the children to imagine if one of them clobbered me. Then I ask them to imagine another child apologising on behalf of my attacker and offering to make a cup of tea; one child is hurting me, the other is making reparation, trying to repair the damage.

But the full meaning of Fatima goes much further and connects the state of human affairs directly to humankind’s relationship with God.

During the apparition of July 13th Our Lady said that if people do not stop offending God another and more terrible war will break out – obviously meaning the Second World War.

We understand the Second World War to have been the result of Hitler coming to power in Germany. However, Our Lady suggests that the Second World War happened as a result of people offending God. In other words, when we choose against God we choose to put in place a chain of events that eventually, ultimately, causes great suffering to ourselves, to the body of humanity.

Thus during the 20 odd years between the world wars people are given ample opportunity to change or set the course of world events. This of course makes God very democratic – certainly not a dictator or a tyrant. We’re free to choose life or death, good or evil. We make the choices. At the very least Fatima implies that humankind’s well-being depends on an intimate Communion between the creature and the Creator.

Now, if offending God or otherwise determines our common human future then there arises a critically important question, a question I place before every parent presenting a child for sacraments in 2012 – what kind of a future are we creating for our children?

Indeed we might ask; what kind of a future are we creating for Irish children when religious ethos is considered to have no place in the schools of a modern republic?

More generally, what hope is there for a culture that attempts to exclude religion from public life?

Divorce, Politicians, Priests, Police, Bankers and Original Sin!

Leave a reply

Divorce: The death of pledged love, a dark, dark place to be. Because the death of pledged love involves people so personally, so deeply, it is seldom looked at without blame, without trying to blame somebody.

At the very start of life the Church invites us to Baptism following the directive of Christ. There is something truly shocking in the Rite of Baptism for infants – a prayer of exorcism! Why?

Well, because from its earliest days the Church has taught that all human nature is fallen; wounded is the actual word used in the documents. It does not mean we’re corrupt but that the human nature we receive at conception is “weakened in its powers” and “inclined to sin.” This is the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and I believe Vatican II quite rightly observed that “what revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience.”

Again the words of Vatican II reflect human experience: “The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.”

But Catholic teaching goes further believing that through Original Sin “the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.” This is a radical statement suggesting that humankind cannot succeed without God.

It is therefore:

A wounded nature that marries …

A wounded nature that becomes a politician …

A wounded nature that becomes a priest …

A wounded nature that joins An Garda Siochana (Police) …

A wounded nature that becomes a banker!

And this wounded nature cannot and will not be fully overcome without Gods grace. Is it any wonder we’re in the state we’re in?

That’s what the Church teaches – take it or leave it – but never be surprised by corruption; without God we can’t win!

Fourth Sunday of Lent: The Prodigal Son

Leave a reply

If you can imagine Christ at a football match.

He’d be shouting for both teams!

He’s like that.

He wants everyone to win the prize.

Christ loves both victim and perpetrator of injustice equally, but different.

Christ’s love seeks to;
– heal every wound.
– burn out every evil.

It’s a double edged sword, cuts both ways.

Christ doesn’t want to lose a single soul, that’s how the true lover of Christ, the Christian, views the world.

We have little difficulty with Christ as long as He’s on the side of the good, but when we realize He’s equally on the other side, all-be-it differently, calling for repentance and conversion, He becomes a little more troublesome.

The good son has all the exterior signs of good religion but he hasn’t got his Father’s loving, forgiving heart.
Incidentally, isn’t the good son’s religion the kind of religion the majority of Church critics want to see? Wouldn’t he suit their agenda perfectly?

In fact, most of the commentary we hear about the Catholic Church in our day comes from the perspective of the good son who wants nothing to do with the bad son and fails absolutely to see the matter from the Fathers perspective!

Christ is on all sides, equally, but differently!

CLERICAL ABUSE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

Leave a reply

“Yet as early as 309AD the Catholic Council of Elvira recorded the phenomenon of clergy abuse of minors. So, for at least seventeen centuries our church was supposedly totally unaware of paedophile recidivism and of the fact that clergy sexual abuse of children causes the deepest psychological (and therefore also spiritual) injuries – including severe mental illness and suicide.”
So wrote Sean O Conaill, “Shame over sexuality has blinded Church to sex abuse”, http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie
I’m not convinced that the Council of Elvira proves anything other than some level of an awareness of a problem that has been part of the human story for millennia.

As far as I know other ancient writings originating outside the Catholic Church show a similar awareness of this problem throughout society.

But Sean’s question is a good one; why clerical abuse? I suspect if we can answer that question we’ll also go a long way to discovering why ‘lay’ men and women abuse children. In other words, I believe the problem is fundamentally one of basic human development whether learned, environmental, individual choice, biological or genetic, or a combination of some or all of these and other factors? Of course there may very well be factors specific to the clerical lifestyle, but I believe such factors merely compound a pre-existing human problem.

As a priest educated in the 1980’s (ordained 1991) there was no mention of child sexual abuse in my ‘formation’. It’s not that child sexual abuse was somehow a Church secret or denied; it’s that it just didn’t register on the minds of our teachers. We had some superb teachers, and I have no doubt that at least one of them would definitely have considered child sexual abuse extensively as part of our course-work if he had been aware of paedophile recidivism and the deep psychological injuries caused by such abuse.

So if there was awareness of the destructive effects of paedophilia as apposed to a vague awareness that there are ‘dirty old men’ in the world it had been largely lost by the time I was studying for the priesthood in the 1980s, or at the very least, it was the preserve of a few and wasn’t filtering down to the masses.

My knowledge of the clerical abuse scandal suggests that while we now know there was clearly some level of awareness among Church leaders of a problem, there was limited concrete knowledge of paedophile recidivism and the damage caused to victims.

My current thinking which is always open to re-evaluation suggests that the clerical abuse crisis represents the beginning of an evolutionary type jump forward in our understanding of child sexual abuse. The world is entering a new level of consciousness about an ancient human problem through the door of clerical abuse.

This position is supported by the evidence currently available which indicates that clerical abuse represents somewhere in the region of 5% of an overall human problem. It is also supported by the fact that the civil authorities are currently bringing forth substantial legislation (and a recent referendum) which are undoubtedly a response to revelations of child sexual abuse in recent decades. It begs the question; why didn’t the civil authorities bring forth such legislation 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 years ago? I think the answer is; because 20 years ago we hadn’t reached the necessary collective point of awareness. We just hadn’t reached sufficient knowledge. We’re reaching that point now and it’s largely through the door of clerical abuse that the world is now entering this new level of human consciousness. However, beyond the door is an unknown – but I think most of us fear it’s a mirror image of the dynamics of clerical abuse. Study the Savile case as it unfolds; even at this early stage the same essential pattern is already evident.

Finally, surely you will agree that it is stretching human reason to argue that our current level of awareness already existed in 309AD. Taken to its logical conclusion such an argument goes a good way to denying the development of human knowledge – at least in this particular area!