First Sunday of Advent
Print Friendly Version| The Peace Pulpit by Bishop Gumbleton | Sunday, December 3, 2006 |
| Homily Archives | Weekly Homily |
It seems pretty clear to me that we need this season of Advent -- a season when we can begin to stir up within our hearts and our spirits a very powerful spirit of hope, a spirit of encouragement, a spirit of joy. This, in fact, is what Advent does bring into our lives -- hope and joy. We need it, I think, at this time especially, because so many people seem to be discouraged with what is going on in the world and what is going on in our church.
The world we know is filled with violence; people hate one another. We're engaged in what seems to be an endless war; no one seems to have a way out.
But I think what troubles some people, perhaps not more deeply, but maybe on a more day-to-day basis, is some of the discouragement that they find in the church. I've had people say to me, "Why should I continue to be a Catholic? Why belong to the church?" They're looking for leadership and they're not finding it or they're finding a kind of leadership that seems to be pushing them away. There are a couple of things that happened at the bishops' meeting two weeks ago that many people found very discouraging -- married people being told, "If you practice birth control, don't come to Communion," almost as though we had never written back in 1968 a pastoral letter called Human Life in our Day which made it clear that this was a matter for individual conscience, made it clear that there is a right, and a responsibility even, to dissent within the church. Now all that seems to be forgotten. People are pushed away and told don't come.
A few years ago we wrote a very positive letter welcoming gay and lesbian people into our community. Now we published a new one that seems to say, "No, we say we want you, but, in fact, unless you change what they now call an 'inclination,' you're not very welcome."
We also find our church leadership failing to speak out on this violent war that is going on. And, throughout our country, but perhaps especially here in the archdiocese [of Detroit], we feel a lack of leadership as we find our churches being closed. All Catholic high schools except one being closed in the city of Detroit. And we hear our church leaders say, "Well, we have to follow the demographics. Our Catholic people are moving out; therefore, we go with them." Forgetting that this city of Detroit, among the largest cities, is the most poverty-stricken, where the church ought to be present more vibrantly than ever. Of course it is a very racist thing, too, because the city of Detroit where we are closing our churches is 83 percent African American so we're walking away saying, "We don't really need you or need to be among you."
So people are discouraged because of what is happening, but if we listen very deeply to the Scriptures today we will find, I think, reason to develop within our hearts a sense of hopefulness. We need to put ourselves into the time of Jeremiah when he spoke those words that we heard as our first lesson. It could not have been more discouraging for the people then. They had been promised by God that they would have leadership starting with King David, who was the ideal king, and then they would have that kind of leadership. Now suddenly they don't. They find that one of their kings, Ahaz, is an apostate. Another is Zedekiah who is totally weak and incompetent, unable to lead the people. Jeremiah proclaims how the people need to be faithful to God and to the covenant, but they're not, so they're overwhelmed by the Babylonian army and carried off into exile.
And yet, in the midst of all that, Jeremiah is able to say, speaking for God, "The days are coming when I shall fulfill the gracious promise that I made in favor of Israel and Judah. In those days and at that time I will make him who is the shoot of righteousness sprout from David's line. He will practice justice and righteousness in the land. He will be called, Yahweh, our Justice, our Holiness."
That's a powerful image that Jeremiah is using because he could see what was happening. The leadership was deteriorating, and so they could picture it as, instead of a full, blossoming tree, just a stump. That's all that was left. It seemed to be dead. And yet there was to be a shoot that would come from that stump and give new life, break into new fullness. The shoot that was to come, this new life, of course, Jeremiah is looking forward to the time of Jesus. Jesus will come. The very Son of God will be that new shoot. God our righteousness, God our holiness, God our justice is Jesus. Jeremiah, Isaiah, the other prophets, could look forward to that and so they had hope.
And, of course, we're looking forward now, in the season of Advent, to remember once more that moment when Jesus came into the world -- where he brought the message of God's love, where he brought his way, his truth and his light for us to follow. So how can we not be hopeful if we commit ourselves to Jesus? The Gospel lesson makes it so clear. Jesus is talking about, first of all, the destruction of the temple that took place in the year 71 A.D. when the Roman armies invaded the Holy Land. Then he also projects that to the end of time.
But the end is also a beginning, isn't it? One thing ends, but then new life comes. As the world in our time in history, moves on, disappears, the Reign of God can break forth in its fullness. Jesus has come and proclaimed that the Reign of God is near. And then as God continues to be with us in Jesus, Emmanuel -- God with us, that Reign of God can come into its fullness.
And the Word of God, of course, is trustworthy. Jeremiah knew that, Isaiah knew that and so they knew that out of that stump of Jesse would come new life. That's what Jesus tells us. "Yes, there is an ending, but there is a new beginning -- we can have hope in that. The Reign of God is present in our midst," Jesus tells us.
In our second lesson today, St. Paul again instructs us what to do while that Reign of God is in our midst waiting to be brought to its fullness. "Love one another. Do good to one another," Paul says. A very beautiful passage. "For the rest, brothers and sisters, we ask you in the name of Jesus, we urge you to live in a way that pleases God. This you do, but try to do more. You know the instructions we gave you on behalf of Jesus. The will of God for you is to become holy. Let each of you love one another."
So while we're waiting for the Reign of God to come in its fullness, we prepare for it by deepening our spirit of love for one another. We can make that Reign of God happen in that part of the world in which we live, where we are, where we spend every day, by following what Jesus tells us, what Jesus showed us, by bringing love and goodness and kindness wherever we go.
This is the way that we will really celebrate Advent. Yes, we can be discouraged, but we can also have hope, trusting in God's Word. Jesus has come. He will come again. In the meantime he is with us as we make the Reign of God come into its fullness. This can be a season of great joy and also a season of great hope as we continue to listen deeply to God's Word and to try to follow more faithfully the way of Jesus and we'll discover a deep sense of joy and hope in our hearts.
| Homily Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
"Could it possibly be that
"Could it possibly be that the diocese is closing these schools because of financial difficulty and not out of racism?"
It might have something to do with the the thirty million dollars in assetts Cardinal Maeda transferred out of the diocese to facillitate the building of the JPII Cultural Museum. Apparently he did this out of the kindness of his own heart without consultation with anyone in his diocese. I suspect he may have more to worry about than Bishop's Gumbleton's musings.
He probably does have a lot
He probably does have a lot more to worry about than Bishop Gumbleton, and therefore lets him continue to do what he is doing. It's probably just simply less of a hassle for him. Unfortunately, Bishop Gumbleton gets to have his ramblings read not just by people in Detroit, but by folks all over the world.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Oh, goody! Now we don't have
Oh, goody! Now we don't have to say, "Oh,Lord, I am not worthy."
Erv Sanders
Not so. None of us is ever
Not so. None of us is ever worthy to receive such a gift, but we can and should receive in a worthy manner.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
I think--and I could be
I think--and I could be wrong--that the only people who have to go to confession before communion are those who are conscious of serious sin. Anyone who believes that contracepting is the moral and responsible use of the gift of sexuality would not fall into that category.
Acknowledging with reverence is not the same as mindless compliance.
What might have thrown a diocese into financial difficulty--could it be a failure of moral responsibility?
You are correct in the first
You are correct in the first part, if we have no recollection of the sin, even if it just slipped our mind, then we are bound to confess it at the next opportunity. However, even if we feel that something contrary to Church teaching may not be grave matter, we are separating ourselves from the unity of the Church, and should abstain from physical reception of the Sacrament, as that would indicate a unity that does not, in this case, exist.
Here today, Excuse me for
Here today,
Excuse me for butting in, but, if I understand what Frannie is saying, it is not that someone forgot anything but that when a well intentioned individual takes into consideration, among other things, "the Church's" teaching on birth control and comes to the conclusion that it is not worthy of belief then, that person, acting in harmony with the Holy Spirit, has properly formed his or her conscience and is not guilty of any sin and in no need to go to confession because he or she practices birth control.
As to, "However, even if we feel that something contrary to Church teaching may not be grave matter, we are separating ourselves from the unity of the Church, and should abstain from physical reception of the Sacrament, as that would indicate a unity that does not, in this case, exist." once again you are confusing "the Chruch" with "the church" and missing the point that the Holy Spirit does not belong to one group within the community which is the church but gives divine guidance to all and it is the Magisterium who, when their teachings are rejected by the rest of the church, have separated themselves from the unity of "the church."
I know what frannie means,
I know what frannie means, and I was trying not to pull out the "you're wrong" argument. But, since you bring it up,...
1)"A properly formed conscience", You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. Certainly not within Catholic theology, as outlined in Gaudium et Spes (from paragraph 50: But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel.) see also paragraph 16.
2)By your argument the Prophets had cut themselves off from the Jewish faith, as the rest of Judaism embraced the diveristy of gods of their neighbors.
BTW, you might want to brush up on a the ECF's and the history of contraception and Christitianity (the latter should be a rather short study, all Christians denounced contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Confrence opened the doors.)
Bob, There's also the
Bob,
There's also the element of primacy of conscience. If a couple has made the decision that artificial methods of birth control are necessary in order for them to maintain the sanctity of their marriage, if the risk of more children would be more stress on them than they believe they can handle, if more children would be a financial burden that would create a problem as far as feeding, clothing, educating, providing health care etc. for the children they already have, it would be my pastoral judgment they must use artifical methods. It would be wrong for them not to. They know the ideal the magisterium holds up to them. They know that where they are right now it is not possible for them to immediately live up to the ideal, they are willing to work toward the ideal . . . . then I think the sin is on those who condemn them or tell them they must not go to Communion.
No pope, no bishop, no priest, no lay person has the right to override the primacy of conscience of the individual and/or to make a judgement about a particular conscience. Their pastor, if he's worth a damn, must be available to help them arrive at a conclusion that is right for them even though it may not be the ideal held up by the institutional bureaucracy.
Hi Bob: That very well may
Hi Bob:
That very well may be what frannie is saying, but nonetheless it is wrong. Culpability has nothing to do with whether or not we believe something is wrong, but rather whether or not we KNOW it is wrong. And how do we know if something is wrong? Well, we turn to the Church for guidance. So, if a person knows that the Church teaches that artificial birth control is wrong and they use it, regardless of what they think about the teaching, they are (all things being equal) guilty of a mortal sin. However, if a person does NOT know that using such is a mortal sin, then their culpability is mitigated.
Lumen Gentium states very clearly that the faithful are to adhere to Church teachings.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Hi Hermeneutic of
Hi Hermeneutic of Continuity,
Herein lies the problem. I must say that there was a time in my life when I believed that, if the Chruch said it, it must be so. At that time, had I known the Chruch said such and such a thing was a mortal sin and gone ahead and done it anyway, I would agree I would have been guilty of mortal sin not just because I had acted contrary to Chruch teaching but also because I had acted contrary to my conscience.
However, as, over the years I have reflected on the teaching of the Chruch, of science, of history, indeed of life, I no longer believe that if the Church (meaning Magisterium) says it it must be so. I still believe I must take into consideration what the Magisterium says in the process of forming my conscience, but I refuse to offer up my God given gift of reason on the altar of blind obedience.
We can cut hairs between "believing" and "knowing" but I can only say I believe and know that the Magisterium's teaching condemning the use of artificial means of birth control has no basis in Scripture, science or reason. I believe (know) also that the "sensus fidelium" comes into play here and that the Magisterium, to be true to its own teaching, is obliged to listen to it.
If I were the only one or one of a few who believed (knew) this teaching was not worthy of belief, I would be skating on thin ice in rejecting it. But, seems to me the People of God have rejected it and I am in good company. You see, I believe and I know that the Holy Spirit works through the whole church, not just "the Chruch." It is a reality the Magisterium is going to have to get used to or it will find itself howling at the moon (if it is not already).
I, in writing these posts, while I do stand behind what I say, I recognize the very real possibility that I could be mistaken. My beliefs have evolved over the years and I certainly hope and pray they will continue to evolve. The more abosolute "WRONG" responses from people who believe they couldn't possibly be wrong themselves, the more convinced I become what I know and believe contains truth.
If you do not agree, please explain why. "The Church says" is not a good enough reason.
Okay, I don't agree, and
Okay, I don't agree, and here is my very simple (yet not easy) reason why: Because Christ promised us that He would not let His Church teach in error in faith and morals.
It is Christ's promise that I abide by.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Since you missed Bob's
Since you missed Bob's statement the first time, here it is again: "once again you are confusing "the Chruch" with "the church" and missing the point that the Holy Spirit does not belong to one group within the community which is the church but gives divine guidance to all and it is the Magisterium who, when their teachings are rejected by the rest of the church, have separated themselves from the unity of "the church."
I missed no such thing. I
I missed no such thing. I too believe that the Holy Spirit can and does speak through the laity. The laity can inspire the Magisterium and often great movements of the Church spring forth from the laity, for example, the "renewal" of the Church started by St. Francis of Assisi. However, when the laity want to put forth a teaching that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Magisterium, I know that that teaching from the laity does not come from God. When an action by the laity does not contradict the teachings of the Church, it can indeed inspire the Magisterium to do even greater things.
So, in case I wasn't clear: when the laity want to put forth a teaching that is in direct contradiction to a teaching of the Magisterium, that teaching from the laity is not inspired by Christ.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Looks like you have talked
Looks like you have talked yourself into a moral obligation to report Bishop Gumbleton to the highest authority so he can be defrocked, removed from his parish, and not allowed to work in pastoral ministry. Maybe you'd get a prize. Perhaps a domino's pizza.. . . covered with Taco Bell green onions so you'd have something important to worry about.
No need for me to tattle on
No need for me to tattle on him. I am sure his superiors know what he is doing. After all, NCR is a public forum, as is, to an extent, St. Leo's parish.
I would, however, encourage the Bishop to present himself to his superiors and perhaps apologize for intimating that they are racist.
But thank you for hoping that I might actually get a dangerous illness that could cause me to die.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
All Catholic schools should
All Catholic schools should be open to thr poor. If we can not afford to do so, the schools should be closed and we use the resources for something else which can be kept open to the poor.
Katharine, Dear Bishop
Katharine,
Dear Bishop Gumbleton,
Thank you for this homily. It helps to remind me why I joined the Catholic Church with so much hope and faith just two and a half short years ago. I placed too much on Vatican II and saw too little of how humans, even those we call The Magisterium, can make things small and divided again: how too much emphasis can be placed on form instead of function.
Meanwhile, for each of us, these ARE the end times. For each of us, faith and hope and love born anew in our individual hearts, IS the second coming.
Thank you again, kw
Paragraphs 44 and 45 of
Paragraphs 44 and 45 of Human Life In Our Day:
44. "Let married couples, then, face up to the efforts needed, supported by the faith and hope which do not disappoint . . . because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, Who has been given to us; let them implore divine assistance by persevering prayer; above all, let them draw from the source of grace and charity in the Eucharist. And if sin should still keep its hold over them, let them not be discouraged, but rather have recourse with humble perseverance to the mercy of God, which is poured forth in the Sacrament of Penance" (Humanae Vitae, 25)
45. We feel bound to remind Catholic married couples, when they are subjected to the pressures which prompt the Holy Father's concern, that however circumstances may reduce moral guilt, no one following the teaching of the Church can deny the objective evil of artificial contraception itself. With pastoral solicitude we urge those who have resorted to artificial contraception never to lose heart but to continue to take full advantage of the strength which comes from the Sacrament of Penance and the grace, healing, and peace in the Eucharist. May we all be mindful of the invitation of Jesus: "The man who comes to me I will never turn away" (Jn 6:37). Humility, awareness of our pilgrim state, a willingness and determination to grow in the likeness of the Risen Christ will help to restore direction of purpose and spiritual stability.
Emphasis mine.
It seems to me that Bishop Gumbleton has forgotten these sentences in that pastoral and is attempting to pit Human Life in Our Day against two recent documents: Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist and Married Love and the Gift of Life.
Bishop Gumbleton is wrong when he says that Human Life in Our Day allowed Catholics to dissent from Church teaching on such things as contraception. As we can see in the above paragraphs, couples who use artificial contraception must go to confession, as Human Life in Our Day states quite clearly that artificial contraception is objectively evil. Confessing the use of artificial contraception not only brings the individual back into full communion with the Church but also the priest can determine the level of culpability of guilt for the individual.
"Married Love..." simply reiterates what Human Life stated all those years ago. "Happy are those..." also states how we are to prepare to receive Communion, both remotely and proximately. It says in no uncertain terms that daily repentance of sin and regular pariticipation in the Sacrament of Penance. It reiterates that we are not to receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin and that even if we are not in a state of mortal sin, confession is still good for us.
In neither of these documents are people told not to come, as Bishop Gumbleton states. Instead, the bishops encourage what has been encouraged for quite some time: when in a state of mortal sin, repent, go to confession. If we cannot confess, then go to Mass, but do not receive the Eucharist.
Bishop Gumbleton is also wrong when he says that we can reject Church teaching which he erroneously equates with dissent. Too many Catholics believe that Vatican II allowed us to finally reject any Church teaching we want, but Lumen Gentium says otherwise:
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Emphasis mine.
I am concerned that Bishop Gumbleton is leading people astray and this is quite upsetting. The truth of these documents needs to be told and Bishop Gumbleton has failed gravely in that respect.
Addendum:
Bishop Gumbleton also writes:
Of course it is a very racist thing, too, because the city of Detroit where we are closing our churches is 83 percent African American so we're walking away saying, "We don't really need you or need to be among you."
What is his justification for calling this action racist? He tells us it is racist but gives no back up to this assertion, save that Detroit is 83% African-American. Could it possibly be that the diocese is closing these schools because of financial difficulty and not out of racism? This statement borders on calling Cardinal Maida a racist (it only follows since the Cardinal is responsible for the final authority to close these schools). This is the same Cardinal who allows Bishop Gumbleton to still preach, despite his affiliation with Call to Action (a group which was excommunicated in Lincoln Nebraska) and despite the fact that Bishop Gumbleton never handed in his mandatory letter of resignation at 75.
It's not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you, Bishop.
Hermeneutic of Continuity