« Background Check, please | Main | Books 4 Sale »
December 08, 2005
Busy Day
The Pope had a lot to say today. And do - he blessed the Olympic torch (from his window, at a distance). First, his homily at Mass, which celebrated, not only the Immaculate Conception, but also the 40th anniversary of the ending of the Second Vatican Council.
Now, the wire stories on this homily have headlines like "Pope says holiness not boring." Well, he did, but there's more, of course.
Much more. If you want some thought-provoking catechesis today, simply read this homily, and reflect on it:
But now we must ask ourselves: What does “Mary the Immaculate Conception” mean? Does this title have something to tell us? Today’s liturgy clarifies the content of this word for us with two great images. There is first of all the marvelous account of the annunciation to Mary, the Virgin of Nazareth, about the coming of the Messiah. The Angel’s greeting is woven by threads from the Old Testament, especially from the prophet Sophoniah. This shows that Mary, the humble provincial woman who came from a priestly lineage and carried in her the great priestly patrimony of Israel, is “the sacred remains” of Israel to which the prophets, in all the times of torment and shadows, had referred. In her, the true Zion is present, the pure, living dwelling of God. The Lord dwells in her; in her he finds the place of his rest. She is the living dwelling of God, who does not live in stone buildings but in the heart of the living man. She is the branch which, in the dark winter night of history, comes forth from the trunk felled by David. In her the words of the Psalm are fulfilled: “The earth will yield its fruit” (67:7). She is the sapling from which the tree of redemption and the redeemed comes. God did not fail, as may have appeared already from the beginning of history with Adam and Eve, or during the period of the Babylonian exile, and as appeared once again in the time of Mary, when Israel had become a people without importance in an occupied region, with very few recognizable signs of its holiness. God did not fail. In the humility of the house of Nazareth, the holy Israel lives, the pure remains. God saved His people. From the felled trunk comes blazing forth his history once again, becoming a new living force which directs and pervades the world. Mary is the holy Israel; she says “yes” to the Lord, she puts herself fully at his disposal and becomes thus the living temple of God.
[snip]
On Genesis:
What is the picture placed before us in this page? Man did not trust God. He harboured the suspect that God, at the end of the day, was taking something from his life, that God was a competitor who limits our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we have put him aside; all in all, that only in this way can we fully realize our freedom. Man lives in the suspicion that the love of God creates a dependency and that it is necessary to get rid of this dependency to be fully oneself. Man does not want to receive his existence and fullness of life from God. He wants to be the one to draw from the tree of knowledge the power to mould the world, to make himself god, raising himself to His level, and to win over death and darkness. He does not want to count on love which does not seem trustworthy to him; he counts only on knowledge in that it confers power upon him. Rather than love, he aims for power with which he wants to take his own life in his hands, to be autonomous. And in doing so, he places his trust in deceit rather than in truth and thus, he sinks with his life into a void, into death. Love is not dependence but a gift which gives us life. The freedom of mankind is the freedom to be a creature with limitations and that is therefore a limitation in itself. We can possess it only as a shared freedom, in the communion of freedom; only if we live in the right way with each other and for each other can freedom develop. However, we live in the right way if we live according to the truth of our being and that is, according to the will of God. For God’s will for man is not a law imposed from outside which forces him, but an intrinsic measure of his nature, a measure which is inscribed in him, making him in the image of God, therefore a free creature. If we live against love and against truth – against God – then we destroy each other and we destroy the world. Then we will no longer find life, but we will serve the interests of death. All this is narrated with immortal images in the story of original sin and the banishment of man from the earthly Paradise.
Dear brothers and sisters! If we reflect sincerely about ourselves and our history, we must say that this account describes not only the beginning of history but history throughout the ages, and that we all carry inside us a drop of poison of that way of thinking illustrated in the images of the Book of Genesis. This drop of poison is called original sin. Even on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the suspect emerges in us that a person who does not sin at all is really boring; that something is missing in his life: the dramatic dimension of being autonomous; that the freedom to say no is part of truly being men, the descent into the darkness of sin and to do as one pleases; that only then will one be able to exploit completely the vastness and depth of being men, of being truly ourselves; that we must put this liberty to the test even against God to become in reality fully ourselves. In a word, we think that really evil is good, at least a little, we need to experiment the fullness of being. We think that Mephistopheles – the tempter – was right when he said he was the strength “which always wants evil and always does good” (J.W. v. Goethe, Faust I, 3). We think that bargaining a little with evil, reserving some freedom against God, is good, perhaps even necessary.
However, looking at the world around us, we can see it is not like this, that evil always poisons, it does not elevate man, it degrades and humiliates him, it does not make him bigger, more pure or rich; it damages him and makes him smaller. Rather, we must learn this on the day of the Immaculate Conception: the man who abandons himself completely in the hands of God does not become God’s puppet, an annoying, conscientious person; he does not lose his freedom. Only the man who entrusts himself totally to God finds true freedom, the great and creative vastness of the freedom of good. The man who turns towards God does not become smaller, but bigger, because thanks to God and together with Him, he becomes large, divine, he becomes truly himself. The man who puts himself in God’s hands does not distance himself from others, withdrawing into his own private salvation; on the contrary, only then his heart will be truly awakened and he can become a sensitive person, hence benevolent and open.
...Jeopardize yourself with God then you will see that thus, your life will become larger and illuminated, not boring, but full of infinite surprises, because the infinite goodness of God is never exhausted!
Her heavenly candour leads us to God, helping us to overcome the temptation posed by a mediocre life, made up of compromises with evil, to orient ourselves decisively towards authentic good, which is the source of joy.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834654caf53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Busy Day :
Comments
is this man amazing, or what? Wow.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 8, 2005 10:29:37 AM
Am I miss something here? The Pope does not treat the Adam and Eve and original sin story as an historical event but as a profound image. Neither does he talk about inherited stain of original sin on the soul. I get the feeling that the old lingo about original sin is really changing. And for the good.
Posted by: Caroline at Dec 8, 2005 11:18:36 AM
With Benedict XVI, we all got better than we deserved. The man's piercingly luminous intellect is truly awesome.
Posted by: Ed at Dec 8, 2005 11:39:12 AM
Caroline,
From what you have said the answer to your question is; Yes you are missing a great deal. Original sin is a dogma that is not going to change. The pope is only going beyond the literal meaning of the text. When scriptural commentators do this, they are not denying the literal meaning.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Dec 8, 2005 11:51:22 AM
Ummm Caroline -
"God did not fail, as may have appeared already from the beginning of history with Adam and Eve, or during the period of the Babylonian exile, and as appeared once again in the time of Mary, when Israel had become a people without importance in an occupied region, with very few recognizable signs of its holiness."
He seems to state, pretty clearly, that Adam and Eve are historical, and not just a "profound image"
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 8, 2005 11:59:49 AM
You know what I love about him the best? I can read his books and listen to him and actually understand what he is writing about or saying/teaching. I woke up at 4 AM and heard the homily he gave today and I understood each and every word! And I didn't fall back asleep!
I also gave pause to silently thank Mother Angelica for giving EWTN the liftoff which gives us the opportunity to see/hear these beautiful Masses... stuff our local Catholic station doesn't broadcast.
Posted by: Colleen at Dec 8, 2005 12:05:44 PM
Next week I will read this homely to my students when we learn about Our Blessed Mother and her place in the Church and our salvation. How can anyone top this!
Posted by: Touchy Technician at Dec 8, 2005 12:33:44 PM
Am I miss something here? The Pope does not treat the Adam and Eve and original sin story as an historical event but as a profound image.
It's both! This is the way the Church has traditionally read scripture - in addition to (not replacing) the literal meaning, the characters and events of scripture (especially the Old Testament) reveal in a spiritual way truths about the coming of Christ and the condition of man. Because God is the Lord of history and the Holy Spirit inspired scripture, Catholics have no difficulty in finding these richer meanings in the events of salvation history as told to us by the Sacred Scriptures.
The Fathers of the Church read scripture in this way and Pope Benedict is immersed in their writings. His homilies resemble those of the Fathers.
Posted by: Zadok the Roman at Dec 8, 2005 12:56:21 PM
This homily seems to owe a lot to the Pope's short book Daughter of Zion. (Except it's a lot easier to understand and digest.)
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 8, 2005 1:36:59 PM
I was blessed to be at the IC Mass today with the Holy Father. The content of the homily was excellent of course but beyond that he preached with passion.
Posted by: frsteven at Dec 8, 2005 2:15:15 PM
At my Paulist church today the pastor said that those of us his age and upwards had probably been taught that original sin was some kind of dirty stain on the soul. He said that was very bad theology and that original sin was something only analogous to sin in the sense that God made us ultimately to share in His own life through sanctifying grace and that coming into the world without sanctifying grace was a deficiency opposed to His will and thus analogous to sin although we term it original sin. Mary, of course, was filled with sanctifying grace from the first moment of her conception. He said that the Immaculate Conception doctrine was a "backhanded' and complicated way of saying what the angel said so much better, "Hail full of Grace." Afterward I had the opportunity to thank him for a homily that made sense.
In my life time we have renamed two sacraments in order to clear up misunderstanding and to better emphasize their positive meanings. Is it out of the question that a dogma be renamed, not changed, but renamed to clarify its theology and to emphasize its positive element? I would suggest "The Sanctification of Mary."
Posted by: Caroline at Dec 8, 2005 5:52:06 PM
At my Paulist church today the pastor said that those of us his age and upwards had probably been taught that original sin was some kind of dirty stain on the soul. He said that was very bad theology and that original sin was something only analogous to sin in the sense that God made us ultimately to share in His own life through sanctifying grace and that coming into the world without sanctifying grace was a deficiency opposed to His will and thus analogous to sin although we term it original sin. Mary, of course, was filled with sanctifying grace from the first moment of her conception. He said that the Immaculate Conception doctrine was a "backhanded' and complicated way of saying what the angel said so much better, "Hail full of Grace." Afterward I had the opportunity to thank him for a homily that made sense.
In my life time we have renamed two sacraments in order to clear up misunderstanding and to better emphasize their positive meanings. Is it out of the question that a dogma be renamed, not changed, but renamed to clarify its theology and to emphasize its positive element? I would suggest "The Sanctification of Mary."
Posted by: Caroline at Dec 8, 2005 5:53:56 PM
Thanks for the suggestion Caroline, but when it comes up for a vote, I'm casting my ballot for keeping Immaculate Conception. It's clearer (many people have been sanctified, only two immaculately conceived; plus the Immaculate Conception isn't just Mary being sanctified, i.e., made holy, it's Mary being conceived, through miraculous prefigured grace, free from the taint of Adam's sin), carries with it the weight of tradition, and has been fought and argued out by theologians over the centuries.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 8, 2005 6:42:04 PM
It's not either/or. Either/or is the protestant alternative.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Dec 9, 2005 12:36:25 AM
Does anyone have a link to the entire homily?
Posted by: Grace at Dec 9, 2005 1:24:02 AM
Never mind. I see that I didn't read far enough into the link Amy provided. The homily is extraordinary. Thanks, Amy.
Posted by: Grace at Dec 9, 2005 1:33:23 AM
This is indeed an extraordinary statement. However, so long as the Church continues to go along as if nothing is wrong and is seen as continuing to avoid responsibility for the horrific abuse crisis both here and in other countries, the pews will continue to empty and the Church, whatever the intellectual gravity of its new leader, will continue to be an object of contempt. I really think there is a large measure of denial on this point in the Church and among its most devoted followers.
Here in Portland, the declaration of bankruptcy to avoid judgments is widely seen as an attempt to side-step responisbility, leading many to conclude that the Church is just another den of contemptible hypocrites.
Posted by: NewSisyphus at Dec 9, 2005 6:50:21 PM
Speaking as a non-Catholic, I was particularly impressed by the section on faith not being "boring" - especially when he said, "The man who turns towards God does not become smaller, but bigger, because thanks to God and together with Him, he becomes large, divine, he becomes truly himself."
Posted by: Bruce Armstrong at Dec 10, 2005 11:53:58 AM



















