Raising Lazarus--A Reflection for the 5th Sunday of Lent

Most, if not all, of us here have lost a loved one; someone we were close to. It may have been a friend, family member or even a pet. We have known sorrow and grief; the pain of loss.

In the gospel of St. John, chapter 11, the evangelist tells us how Jesus experiences to death of his friend, Lazarus. Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha, were some of Jesus closest friend. St. John tells us that Jesus loved them.

When news reaches Jesus that Lazarus is sick, he waits two more days before he leaves to see his friend. In fact, he waits long enough for Lazarus to have died! Jesus tells his disciples that Lazarus’ death from this illness is not the end for Lazarus; that it is for the glory of God.

When Jesus and his disciples arrive at Bethany, where Lazarus, Mary and Martha live, Martha greets him. She says “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” It sounds almost like an accusation! When Jesus tells her that her brother will rise, she gives the theologically correct answer, “I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day.” Isn’t this how we respond to grief? We look for the correct answer.

What Martha failed to understand is that the correct answer was standing right in front of her! Jesus, as he tells her, is “the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” Martha had her theology right; Lazarus would rise in the resurrection on the last day. But theology, as important as it is, can only take us so far. Theology cannot raise the dead! To raise the dead, it takes the power of “the resurrection and the life”. Notice that Jesus is not only the resurrection, the power to bring the dead to life; he is “the life.” That is, Jesus is life itself. Once raised from the dead, we will live in and by Jesus.

After challenging Martha with to look beyond her theology to understand that he is what she is truly looking for, Jesus asks, “Do you believe this?” Do you believe that I can conquer death and give life? Beyond your good theology, do you trust in me?

Martha answers, “Yes, Lord. I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world.” She answers a best she can, she responds with more good theology. She lists three facts about Jesus. She doesn’t say that she believes Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.” In her grief, she doesn’t rise to Jesus challenge go beyond her theology to believe in him.

When Mary meets Jesus, she says the same thing her sister Martha did. “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” This time St. John tells us that Jesus, seeing her weeping with grief, becomes “perturbed and deeply troubled.” This time, his response is deeply emotional. He becomes “perturbed and deeply troubled.” He even weeps.

He asks them to roll the stone away from the tomb. Lazarus has been dead four days now. According to the Jewish belief at the time, his soul would have definitely left his body. Decay had begun, hence “there will be a stench.” The stone is rolled away. After a brief prayer for the benefit of the mourners, Jesus cries out in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” Does Jesus think a dead man can hear? When “the resurrection and life” call, they can! Lazarus shuffles to the door of the tomb, still wrapped in his burial bands. Having raised Lazarus form the dead, Jesus asks the others to untie Lazarus and let him go. When Jesus gives new life to our loved ones, we need to free them from their bondage to sin and let them go to him.

Jesus answered Mary and Martha’s prayer. He doesn’t tell Martha “Sorry, but you didn’t answer my question ‘Do you believe that I am the resurrection and the life?’ correctly, so I won’t raise your brother. No, he raises Lazarus. He doesn’t tell Mary that her weeping indicates lack of faith. No, he weeps with her, and then he raises Lazarus.

Lazarus has been raised from the dead. As a result many people will believe in Jesus. The chief priests will plan to kill Lazarus. Stories will be told that Lazarus lives another 30 years, goes to Cyprus and is made bishop of Kition by St. Paul. In any event, Lazarus will die again. But next time, at the resurrection of the last day, Jesus will raise his friend Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha, and all those who believe to the fullness of eternal life, never to die again. We will live in Jesus, the resurrection and the life. Do you believe this? Then believe beyond just sound theology, (as important as that is) and believe in Jesus.

Bishop Montgomery

Interesting story about Bishop Montgomery here.

Michael Dubruiel, Resquiat in Pace

You may have heard by now that Michael Dubruiel, Amy Welborn's husband, passed away on Tuesday, Feb. 3rd. More at my Rosary Around the World blog here.

The Meaning of Data

Information. Lots and lots of information....
H/T to Deacon Greg at The Deacon's Bench.



The problem with technology, as shown in this video, is that we know the data, but have no idea what it means. "And the word became flesh and dwelt amoung us..." (John 1:14). The logos, the word, the data, became flesh and dwelt amoung us. So what does it all mean? The meaning we are looking for is in Christ. Unless we give the data flesh and blood, the data will be all there is. Data tells us facts about our world, we must put that information in context. We need to master the data, or we will be mastered by it. We have the tools of theology and philosophy. Let's get to work.

Scandal At The Weather Channel

If you like nothing better on a stormy day than to spend it watching The Weather Channel, then this report from ONN might shock you.


Weather Channel Accused of Pro-Weather Bias

I Have Never Been More Proud

I got an e-mail that a "friend" had sent me this video. This immediately made me suspicious since I have no friends. Also, this is apparently from the future; a wonderful future to be sure, but the future nonetheless. Here's the video.



Here's a link to the rest of the story...

An Angry Squirrel

About a month ago, Sen. John McCain was scheduled to be on The Late Show with David Letterman. He cancelled and Letterman was miffed, especially when substitute guest Keith "big head" Olbermann set-up a live CBS news feed showing McCain getting ready for an interview with Katie Couric.

Letterman has never met a grudge he couldn't nurse ad infinitum, so he's spent a few days last month ragging Sen. McCain about the cancellation at every opportunity. Now he's back to attacking the McCain/Palin ticket as per usual, although with a little more rancor--if that's possible. Strangely, he's said nothing about Obama. As the Center for Media and Public Affairs pointed out in August, "David Letterman told only 46 jokes about Obama..." That seems high to me; certainly none that I can recall in the last few weeks.

Sen. McCain has been rescheduled to appear on Thursday night's show. I'm guessing Letterman will be doing his usual impression of an angry squirrel as he barks and chirps at Sen. McCain, even though he rightly considers McCain a hero for his actions as a POW. I wouldn't mind so much except that Letterman is giving a free pass to Obama. But then he's not the only one to do so.

Marian Gangs?

Recently several high school kids in Texas and Oregon have been asked not to wear rosaries as the local police consider them gang signs.

I hope the kid wearing the rosaries are praying them as well.

Today is the memorial of Our Lady of the Rosary.

Nancy Pelosi, Non Capite

Nancy Pelosi lectures the Catholic Church on it's own beliefs.

On Sunday's "Meet the Press" Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did Catholics in America a huge, though unintended favor; she woke up our bishops! I am so proud of New York's Cardinal Egan or Archbishop Chaput of Denver, or Washington's Archbishop Wuerl or even the USCCB!

Speaker Pelosi, a self-decribed ardent Catholic claimed that her long-time study of Catholic theology, notably St. Augustine, she has come to the conclusion that the Church hasn't really defined when human life begins and even if it did "The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose."

This is so wrong, I honestly don't know where to begin. Fortunately others have done the heavy lifting for me: Amy Welborn, Fr.Z here and here, American Papist and even that other AP!


PS Forgive me if my attempt at an Italian pun via Babelfish failed. "Non Capite" is supposed to mean "you don't understand". I hope I did!

An Explosion of Apologists

I was listening to EWTN’s Life on the Rock tonight. During the discussion someone mentioned the explosion of apologists and apologetical works. Hearing this I thought “Wow! That’s a great collective noun; an explosion of apologists!” It seems fitting since many apologists seem to be on the verge of exploding much of the time!

Let me ‘splain. St. Peter in 1 Pt 3:15-16, a favorite of apologists, talks about always being ready to give people a reason for your hope. We all need to understand our faith well so we can explain to others the reasons we believe, not just apologists. Notice that St. Peter talks about a reason for our hope. This is more than just intellectual faith. It speaks to our emotions as well. Not only that, but hope gathers all we believe and are and entrusts it into the hands of a God who is love. That hope then lifts up to heavenly places with Christ where we have an inheritance “that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading, kept in heaven” for us (I Pt 1:4).

I believe that it is especially because St. Peter is referring to hope, that he reminds us to explain the reason for it “with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear (1 Pt 3:16a). We are dealing with people’s deepest emotions here.

Yet some apologists seem to get the idea of explaining but miss the gentleness and reverence. In the heat of defending the faith, there can be rudeness rather than reverence and a kind of greediness in having the truth rather than gentleness in reasoning from it.

When people bring up these attacks on others rather than defending the faith, a common reply is that they are just being honest and to-the-point. They say that St. Paul could be a bit prickly. Even Jesus woe-ified the Pharisees, calling them whitewashed tombs. So they see their lambasting as a legitimate strategy.

To which I say when you are as brilliant as the apostle Paul, you can be as bombastic as he; when you are the Son of God like Jesus, you can be discourteous to the sons of men.

Until then we must all practice that gentleness and reverence as we give an explanation to anyone who asks about the reason for our hope.

Myers Wanna "Cracker"?

PZ Myers is a godless liberal. Hey, that's what it says on his blog! He's a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris. He is an atheist and proud of it. In recent days he has become notorious for the sacrilege of desecrating a consecrated host or, as he calls them, "horrible little crackers."

According to the Catholic Church, when a priest speaks the words of consecration over the hosts (i.e. thin wafers of wheat bread) during a Mass, by the power of God the hosts become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in their essence while retaining the appearance of bread. Since the hosts are changed in what they essentially are but not in how they appear they still look and taste like bread. If you could examine them in a lab they would have the chemical composition of bread. Except for a few Eucharistic miracles, the consecrated hosts don't become physical flesh and blood. If you prick them, they do not bleed.

But that is apparently what PZ Myers expected or thought Catholics would expect. He did prick a consecrated host by pushing a nail through it. It did not bleed. Imagine his surprise and dissappointment. (It's funny how fundamentalist atheists become when it's to their advantage, but I digress). Remember this is not the first time someone put a nail through Jesus. On that occassion he said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." I'm sure that what Jesus said when PZ Myers drove a nail through him--again!

Catholics must forgive PZ Myers for his sacrilege. This desecration of the Eucharist, this taking something of value to someone else and breaking it, is the action of a frightened, arrogant, petulant child who can't play nicely with others and whose vocabulary consists of profanity, silly blasphemies and "nyah, nyah, na, nyah, nyah!"

PZ Myers said that "nothing must be held sacred." I suppose that includes even the U of Minnesota and it's students. So the University might want to be careful. This breed will turn on you. For militant atheists have only their anger at a God they don't believe exists and at anyone who believes in anything other than their bitter screed. To them, all religions are lies and we would be better off without them. They are right in a sense. As St. Paul says if Christ is not raised our faith is in vain; we are still in out sins. If Christ is not God, if God doesn't exist, then the Eucharist is just a "horrible little cracker".

Fair enough. If PZ Myers wants a world without religion, especially Christianity, especially Catholicism, he can have one as long as he gives up any of the benefits of the Church. No hospitals, no art, no genetics, no seismology, no music, no charitable organizations, no universities, no care for the poor or elderly, no atheists, no one to rant and rail against.

So let's not rail and rant against PZ Myers. Let's pray for and forgive him. Priests at the London Oratory are doing just that!

Me? A Scholar?

What type of story would you write?

My Result: You'd make a great scholar!

You'd be best at writing text books for students or just regular scholarly reading. You are very intelligent and enjoy analyzing everything. You take in every thing you learn, rather than one thing in the ear and out the other. Every piece of information you collect makes you that much smarter.

What are you?http://web.tickle.com/net/caq/quiz.html?id=13492700

The House That Benedict Built

A few brief words about the Papal Mass at Yankee stadium. After driving to Yonkers yesterday, it was nice to take a bus in from my church and get to know some of my fellow parishioners. It took a while to get into the stadium until some more security check points became available. We had great seats. The altar staging was set-up over second base. Our seats were in the mezzanine directly behind home plate.

Due to an almost vain and very frustrating attempt that saw me spend 45 minutes or more on line at the concession stand to get a $8 Yankee stadium hot dog, I missed most of the pre-mass Concert of Hope.I did get to see most of it on the TV behind the concession stand! The only lines worse than the food lines were the lines for the ladies room. I know that because the ladies were even lined up outside the men’s rooms stalls! It’s a little difficult to be a gentleman and, you should excuse the expression, let ladies go first *ahem* when you have to go too!

I got back to my seat in time for the Benedict’s entrance via Popemobile to great cheering and applause. Interestingly, the Pope and Cardinal Egan were taken into the dugout (was it the home or visitors? Hmm…) to vest for the mass. They joined the processional several minutes later.

The mass itself was serenely beautiful. The readings were appropriate not only for the 5th Sunday if Easter, but for the Pope’s final mass on his apostolic journey to the United States. They really summed up what the Catholic Church is all about. The Pope’s homily brought out so clearly the teaching of the Scriptures and the theme of the mass.I’m sure my old Southwestern Baptist seminary preaching professors would have given it high marks indeed! Right, Dr. Fasol?

The music was excellent. It modeled what liturgical music should be: beautiful classical pieces, some basic chant, use of several languages in a way that fits the liturgy. Not to mention well-performed! Solo Deo Gratia! Let’s not forget the beautifully chanted Gospel. None of the insipid, stultifying music so common in parish masses today. You know what I mean.

I have heard some disparaging comments regarding the music at the Nationals Stadium mass. From what little I have seen, I think it important to keep in mind that mass was a votive mass of the Holy Spirit, so there was a Pentecostal theme (I mean the Holy Day, not necessarily the denomination!). It was also a weekday mass. So I think there was more room in that mass for music that might not be appropriate for a Sunday liturgy.

The Holy Father has returned to Rome. While his apostolic visit was so moving, profound and celebratory in every way, I think I can safely say it’s good that it’s over! Now we can begin the hard but necessary work of reflecting and meditating on his words and example. Let’s us imitate Pope Benedict XVI as he imitates Christ.

Lost in Yonkers with Pope Bendict XVI

I attended today's Youth Rally with Pope Benedict XVI in Yonkers, NY--if someone my age can attend a youth rally! Getting there was indeed half the fun! Traffic wasn't too bad considering how much of it there was! So as I sat in traffic I said a prayer to the Blessed Mother asking her to get me to the rally in time. No surprise, I made it! At the merchandise booth a Yonkers police officer asked me how traffic was. I told him about my prayer and it's good result. He got a nice chuckle out of it.

The rally was tremendous. If you watched the coverage, especially on EWTN, you saw the main field with the stage at one end and the media at the other. Up the hill from there across a one-lane path was another field with the food and merchandise concessions. There was a large TV screen there, but no audio. Next to that field there was an adoration chapel and several areas with priests hearing confession.

Security definitely tightened up once the Pope arrived. People who left the main field to get food, for example, found that they couldn't get back. Since the video screen didn't have audio I could only hear what drifted over from the main field. Even so Pope Benedict was clearly enjoying himself. I'd say he smiled more than I've seen in any other event so far. And I thought Kelly Clarkson did a fine job singing Schubert's "Ave Maria".

Who Do You Say That I Am?

Christ’s question to his disciples “who do you say that I am?” is the most important question ever asked.

Jesus and his disciples were in Caesarea Philippi when he took the first messianic straw poll and asked them, “who do men say that the Son of Man is?” “Some say John the Baptist…” John the Baptist was Jesus cousin. Herod had John beheaded. Apparently, some people, including Herod, thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead. Like Jesus, John was popular with the common man, not so much with the religious leaders. John had said that he was not the Messiah. “…others, Elijah….” Elijah was supposed to return before the Messiah and prepare the people’s hearts for his coming. Jesus had said earlier that John the Baptist had fulfilled the role of Elijah. “…still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” One popular idea was that Jeremiah had hidden the Ark of the Covenant until the messianic kingdom was established. Surely Jesus was at least a prophet?

Now Jesus asks these men who have been with him and know him “But who do you say that I am?” The first time he asked “who do men say that the son of man is?” But these are his disciples. He wants to know who they think he is. Silence. Crickets chirping. Throat clearing. Then Peter says, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Peter’s statement is a revelation--literally!

Jesus tells him that this has been revealed to him by the Father. When Peter says that Jesus is not only the Christ but also the Son of God, we miss how startling this is. For Peter to say that Jesus is the Son of God is to acknowledge his divinity. It is an insight not only into who Jesus is but into the nature of his Messiahship. He didn’t say “you are the Christ, the liberator of Israel from the Romans”; that’s what most people expected of the Messiah. It’s what the disciples expected most of the time. Not this time. Peter realizes that the nature of Jesus mission is to reveal God as our Father.

Peter’s first thought after this answer might have been something like “what did I just say?” Had he said too much or too little? Did he get it right or did he disappoint Jesus again? He must have been astonished at what Jesus said next. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.” Peter was right! He was right because he had listened to what God was telling him. No other person had clued him in. The Father himself had. This answer, this blessing, would change Peter’s life.

Whether Peter understood all he said or not, he got it right. He listened to God and passed on what had been revealed to him. And of all the disciples, it was Peter who said it; the Rock that Jesus would build his Church on.

To let Peter know how much his life would change, Jesus changed his name. Peter’s given name was Simon. Now he would be Peter, a Greek translation of the Aramaic name Cephas, “the Rock.” In the Bible, whenever someone’s name is changed it indicates a change in their identity, in how they will be used by God. Abram, “exalted father”, becomes Abraham, “father of a multitude”. Jacob, “deceiver”, becomes “ Israel ”, “he who contends with God”. Now Simon will be known as Peter, “the Rock”. Jesus goes on to say that he will build his Church on this rock. All this was because Peter listened to the Father when he revealed to him who Jesus was.

When Jesus asked “who do men say that I am?” he wasn’t only asking Peter or the other disciples. He was asking all of us. Go ahead, answer him. And get ready for your life to change.

Here’s Mud in Your Eye

Over the past couple of months my parish has been hosting a series of Eucharistic adoration holy hours, led by our seminarian summer intern. One of the holy hours was on “Marriage and Family Life”. As usual, my mind had been wandering during prayer until a guest speaker reminded me on the night’s theme. I spent come time praying for renewal of marriage and family life in the parish. Before long I was mentally wool-gathering again! Then a thought came to me.

I have been praying that God would use me to serve his Church in some way. I remembered that in one of the RCIA classes I taught, we looked at John 9. Here Jesus heals a man born blind. He spits on the ground, makes some mud and spreads it over the blind man’s eyes, telling him to wash it off in the pool of Siloam. When the man does this, he can see again.

What I felt the Jesus telling me was “If I can use dirt and spit to heal a blind man, I can use you! You feel like dirt sometimes, don’t you? Good! I can use dirt. I may have to spit on it, but I can use it!” This had the strange effect of comforting me. Yes. If God can use dirt, he can use me.

I once heard a speaker comment that he thought it was foolish for churches and shrines to be built in the Holy Land on places where Jesus had been or performed miracles. He said that Jesus had once spit on the ground to make mud to heal a blind man. “Why not have a Church of the Holy Spittle?”

Why not indeed? He missed the point. God spits on dirt and heals a man. God can use dirt; that should be remembered!

Who Can Forgive Sins But God Alone?

One of the best ways to get to know someone is to ask questions. You might ask them about were they're from or what they do for a living. You might ask their opinion or for their help. Listening to their answers will teach you more than just the facts they give. The way they answer will often reveal more than what they say. Our questions reveal us as well. Do we ask with interest or boredom? Are we inviting or challenging?

If you've been in any bookstore recently, you've probably noticed many books that question the Church and the Scriptures, even books that question the existence of God, with titles like "The Lost Gospels", "Misquoting Scripture", and "The God Delusion". Two favorite targets of these books are the Bible and the Catholic Church. One tactic is to claim that the books we have in the Bible are full of error or that books that the author thinks should have been included were denied a place in the Scriptures and that this was done deliberately by the Church. If the Church and the Scriptures can be successfully challenged, their authority can be called into question.

It seems only fair that if people want to question the Church and the Bible, the Church through the Bible ought to be able to question them! Not surprisingly there are several questions the Bible asks us. Are you willing to answer them?

Who Can Forgive Sins But God Alone?

The Gospel of St. Mark (Mk 2:1-12) tells us of a paralyzed man who was brought to Jesus for healing by four of his friends. In fact, they did some home remodeling so they could reach where Jesus was! Seeing this display of their faith, his response to the paralyzed man was “Your sins are forgiven.” (Mk 2:5)

This upset the religious leaders who were there. They accused Jesus of blasphemy! He had told the paralyzed man that his sins were forgiven. Their challenge was “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk 2:7)

Like many today, they asked the right question but had the wrong answer! They thought that Jesus was blaspheming by telling the man that his sins were forgiven. “Who is this man to speak like this?” they asked. (Mk 2:7) If Jesus was only a man, they were right to accuse him; but what if he was also God?

Jesus knew better than to get into a theological arguement with these Scribes. So he asks them “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic ‘your sins are forgiven’ or to say ‘Rise, take up you pallet and walk?’” (Mk 2:9) I am sure he paused to let his question sink in. The Scribes must have thought “Hmm...it’s easier to say ‘your sins are forgiven’. The man wouldn’t look any different. But if he was told to walk and didn’t, then…Wait, what’s Jesus saying now?”

Jesus wanted them to understand clearly what he was about to do. Of course he was going to heal the paralyzed man. But Jesus wanted them all, the Scribes, the crowd and most of all the paralyzed man to realize what the healing would mean. It wasn’t only a physical healing; it was a sign of who Jesus was. He healed the man so that they would “know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man “Rise, take up your pallet and go home.” (Mk 2:10-11). When the man got up, picked up his pallet and “went out before them all” he did so forgiven of his sins!

The Scribes were right to ask “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But Jesus claim to do so was not blasphemy. He forgave the man’s sins and healed his paralysis. If Jesus had only healed his paralysis, the man would have still been paralyzed by his sin, unable to approach God freely. If Jesus had only forgiven his sins, there would be no visible sign that his life had been changed. Jesus healed the man’s body so that everyone would know that he also had forgiven the man’s sins by his own authority. It was a sign to them, and to us, that he was God.

Jesus and Sola Scriptura

“Sola scriptura!” has long been a rallying cry of churches whose history begins with the Reformation. The Bible alone is their authority for what they believe. To them, the Catholic Church adds to the Bible by its use of Tradition, the teaching of the apostles that was written in scripture and their oral teaching that was passed on by the Church (2 Thess. 2:15), later including the teaching of the Church after the time of the Apostles. Catholic apologists point out that the very decision as to which writings make up the Bible that Protestants appeal to as their only authority is one of those Traditions of the Catholic Church!

I find two incidents in the Gospels shed light on Jesus view of the scriptures and authority. The first is in Mark 12:18-27 (also Matthew 22:23-33). The Sadducees issue their challenge against the resurrection of the dead by recounting a story of a woman who was married to seven brothers according to levirate marriage laws. The Sadducees want to know which of the seven she will be married to in heaven since she had been married to all seven in succession on earth! (BTW, this story bears a striking resemblance to Tobit 3:7-9, a book Protestants do not consider canonical, but which Catholics do. So which scriptura is sola?).

Jesus reply is that when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven. She will be married to none of the seven or to anyone else! But more than that, he tells them that they are mistaken because they do not know the scriptures or the power of God, the very things they were sure they knew! They had forgotten the scripture where God had said “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6). And they had forgotten the power of God, for if he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then they are alive because God is not the God of the dead but of the living! As Jesus tells them, “You are greatly misled.”

The Sadducees argued from a scripture they didn’t believe. The scriptures alone were not enough; they had them and they were wrong about the resurrection of the dead because they also needed to understand the power of God.

The other incident is found in John’s Gospel. In chapter 5, Jesus heals a lame man by the pool of Bethesda. The Pharisees are angry with Jesus because he has healed on the Sabbath. When Jesus responds by telling them “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work” they become incensed! They understand that by saying that Jesus is making himself equal to God (a claim so many today deny!) So, naturally, they want to kill him (v 18).

Jesus tells them that the work he does testifies that he comes from the Father and that the Father himself has testified on Jesus behalf. But they do not believe. “You search the scriptures because you think that you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life.”

The Pharisees were right to search the scriptures to find eternal life. Jesus does not rebuke them for this. But the scriptures alone will not give them, or us, eternal life, only Jesus can. But they would not come to Jesus. They thought they had eternal life through the scriptures. But they missed the testimony of the scriptures about Jesus, so they would not come to him to have life.

In both instances, people relied on their understanding of scripture alone and were mistaken. What they missed each time was the God of the scriptures. Words on a page can only give you the letter of what you need to have eternal life. It is the Spirit of God whose power gives that life. It is that same Spirit that Jesus said would lead us to all truth (John 16:12-15). He has given the Spirit to the Church and the Church has given us the scriptures. We need both; the scriptures and the Spirit-led Church that gave us the scriptures as part of her Tradition—the Catholic Church.

Isn't That a Bit Harsh?

I was in a Catholic bookstore the other day when I overheard a conversation between a customer and a sales associate. In discussing a various authors of devotional booklets, the bookseller compared one to Thomas Merton. "Oh, no. I don't like him as much," the customer said, "he can be harsh. It might be alright for someone living as a monk, but regular Catholics have lesser standards to live by." (I don't think the bookseller agreed with that assessment.)

Hearing this I had to wonder what the customer would make of some of Jesus' statements in the Gospels! "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Mt 10:34) or "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!" (Lk 12:49). There are many other such words of Jesus. Aren't they a bit harsh?

And what, I wonder, are these lesser standards? A little sin is OK? A smidge of adultery? A bit of lying? A pinch of stealing?

Apparently books aren't the only things to watch out for in Catholic bookstores! Hmm, I hope that's no too harsh...

Mr. Monk and the Jesuit

I was watching "Monk" the other night, the episode "Mr. Monk Gets a New Shrink". I noticed in the opening credits the name Rick Curry, S.J.. I don't think in all the years of watching way too much TV, I can't recall ever seeing a actor's name followed by the name of a Catholic religious order. S.J. is the acronym for Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits.

Watching the show, I tries to guess which character was being played by Rick Curry. It seemed most likely that it was, in fact, Mr. Monk's new shrink!

So I did a little search and came across websites that mentioned Rick Curry, who is a Jesuit Brother. Here's a couple of them: this one from ABC News and one from the National Jesuit Brothers Committee. And yes, he played Mr. Monk's new, albeit temporarily so, shrink!

See if from the links you can guess why he made Monk so uncomfortable!