reflection Archives - Amazing Catechists

99 Ways to Teach Like the Master – Book Review

No matter what my job title or career choice, I have always considered myself an educator. In all things I strive to reach out and teach by word or deed. The material or topic is almost irrelevant as is the age of the person.

This book of meditations, 99 Way to Teach like the Master by T.J. Burdick lends itself to all of us who teach. And by all of us who teach, I literally mean all of us! Whether you are a preschool teacher or a college professor, just starting out or an old hand, one child at your kitchen table or enough to fill a bus, there is something to be gleaned from reading the scripture and reflections T.J. has put together.

Used with permission, from T.J.Burdick

There are five chapters with reflections in them, each beginning with a brief introduction. I don’t think it is necessary to read the book from front to back, you could pick and choose which reflection to read based on the title which you find intriguing, such as “Humility”, “Mercy” “Knowing it All” or “Keeping Healthy”. My favorite reflection is “Understanding God’s Report Card”.

Each reflection begins with a scripture quote, then an explanation as to how the passage relates to a facet of education, and closes with how to apply the teaching in a practical way, either with an action or prayer. The reflection takes just a few minutes to read and then you can think about it as you go through your day, helping to form the minds you are teaching

The book is available as an E-book and paperback. Both are available from En Route Books and Media. The E-book is on sale for $3.99 until February 9, 2015.

Jesus, a theologian, and a rock star…

By Christopher Smith, OP

I know the title for this post might raise an eyebrow but I promise, in a few minutes it will make sense. It’s not the beginning of a bad joke like, “A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar…” And even though the title is, Jesus, a theologian, and a rock star, I am actually going to discuss each of those people in the reverse order. I mean, Jesus has to get top billing in the title, right? First, the rock star…

I was listening to satellite radio (i.e. Sirius) yesterday and stopped on the hard rock station, Octane. The band that was on at the time is called Stone Sour and they were singing their new song, Do Me a Favor. I am familiar with the band but had never heard this particular song before; the lyrics didn’t strike me as any radical departure from the norm of today’s hard rock.

The song had plenty of angst and rage directed outwardly; the lyrics didn’t really leave me with an understanding of who or what the target was for all the rage, although the imagery in the video suggests the lyricist has some daddy issues and a beef with the Catholic Church.

Basically, I see the song as just another contribution to a culture that is already bursting at the seams with angst and rage. In fact, the first line of the song begins with, “I am an anti-everything man…” so that kind of lets you know from the beginning where the whole thing is going.

Despite the rage, the second time the chorus was sung, it did get my attention. The first half of it goes like this:

So do me a favor
Your behavior
Is just a reason why
There is no savior

I know it may be a little difficult without the melody, such as it is, but the way it is sung leaves the listener with the impression that someone’s behavior is why there is no savior. Now objectively that is ridiculous. No one’s behavior, good or bad, can cause a savior to exist or not exist. Or can it? Let’s hear from our theologian – Dr. Ralph Martin.

Dr. Martin’s latest book, Will Many Be Saved: What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization, is the published version of his doctoral dissertation which dug deeply into the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). In working his way through the doctrinal developments of Lumen Gentium, Dr. Martin also refers to the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and at one point quotes from paragraph four of the decree. I think after reading it, you may begin to pick up on the connection to song lyric I mentioned above:

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church’s image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God’s kingdom is delayed (UR 4a (my emphasis added)).

Do you see that? Members of the Church – Christians – failing to live their life of faith adequately are impeding the growth of God’s Kingdom! Dr. Martin adds his commentary on this section of Unitatis Redintegratio:

Not every proclamation of the gospel can be deemed “adequate,” either because of deficiency of content, manner, or witness of life, and therefore not everyone who apparently rejects such an “inadequate” preaching of the gospel can be judged culpable of unbelief” (Martin, 53 (my emphasis added)).

This is really significant and should be a wake up call for Christians. If our “witness of life” (i.e. “behaviors”) is an inadequate representation of the gospel, then it is the Christian who will be held accountable for their neighbor’s unbelief.

For example, if you preach and preach at your neighbor about reforming their lives and returning to the Church, but everything they see you do is contrary to the gospel, then the fact they didn’t choose to believe and return to the Church is as much on you, as it is on them, maybe even more.

So this leads us to Jesus (as everything should). How many different instructions did Jesus leave us on how to act? Honestly, not a lot; it was always the same instruction, just perhaps worded a little differently each time:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another (Jn 13:34)
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (Jn 13:35)
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these (Mk 12:30-31).
Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (Jn 15:13).
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Mt 5:44).
If you love me, you will keep my commandments (Jn 15:14)

I think you might be catching on by now on what Jesus’ expectations for us are (I sure hope so!).

It is possible, sadly it is even quite common today, for people not to believe there is a savior, to think one doesn’t even exist. And why is that? Well, it might be they have hardened their hearts to such a degree that no amount of persuasive talk and loving generosity will change their mind. If that is the case, we are not released from our obligation to love them but they will held culpable for the unbelief.

However, there is a chance that some are not as convinced by persuasive talk as they would be by seeing a living example of Christ’s love. If they can’t see that in us and decide all our talk is just that – talk – then it us who will be held accountable for their unbelief.

Don’t be a Whiner!

By Christopher Smith, OP

The title of this post must seem a bit strange. It becomes a bit stranger still when you consider the one telling you not to be a whiner is not me, but Pope Francis!

He said it (basically) during his homily on Tuesday, May 7th, while reflecting on today’s first reading from the Book of Acts, Chapter 16, where Paul and Silas are in prison yet they are joyful, even “singing hymns to God!” Imagine that! Being in prison and yet finding a voice to sing joyfully unto the Lord (cf. Ps 95:1). I know there are plenty of times when I find myself in far less precarious situations than being in prison and I struggle to even pray, much less sing a hymn of praise.

The Holy Father said in his homily (my emphasis added):

“When the difficulties arrive, so do temptations. For example, the complaint: ‘Look what I have to deal with … a complaint. And a Christian who constantly complains, fails to be a good Christian: they become Mr. or Mrs. Whiner, no? Because they always complain about everything, right? Silence in endurance, silence in patience. That silence of Jesus: Jesus in His Passion did not speak much, only two or three necessary words … But it is not a sad silence: the silence of bearing the Cross is not a sad silence. It is painful, often very painful, but it is not sad. The heart is at peace. Paul and Silas were praying in peace. They were in pain, because then it is said that the jailer washed their wounds while they were in prison – they had wounds – but endured in peace. This journey of endurance helps us deepen Christian peace, it makes us stronger in Jesus.”

Not only does Pope Francis say that people who constantly complain can become “Mr. or Mrs. Whiner,” but they “fail to be a good Christian.” Wow! Talk about cutting through all the excess and getting down to the heart of the matter.

But suffering is not something new to God’s people, nor is it news to God that his people suffer. He knows, understands, and acts decisively in the midst of his people’s suffering in order to bring about their good (cf. Rom 8:28). For example, consider God’s intervention on behalf of the people of Israel:

Then the LORD said, “I have seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Ex 3:7-8).

The Holy Father reminded those at Mass this morning (and by extension all of us) that Christians are to be imitators of him who moves to relieve his people’s suffering and therefore Christians are to act decisively to relieve the suffering of others (cf. Mt 5:48 and Mt 10:8). Consider the following quotation from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (my emphasis added):

The Church, “since her origin and in spite of the failing of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defence and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere.” Prompted by the Gospel injunction, “You have received without paying, give without pay” (Mt 10:8), the Church teaches that one should assist one’s fellow man in his various needs and fills the human community with countless works of corporal and spiritual mercy. “Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God,” even if the practice of charity is not limited to alms-giving but implies addressing the social and political dimensions of the problem of poverty. In her teaching the Church constantly returns to this relationship between charity and justice: “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”(#184).

One of the things I like most about Pope Francis so far is the simplicity of his language. Don’t get me wrong, I still really enjoy the mysticism in the writings of Blessed Pope John Paul II, and the deep theological language employed by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, but with Pope Francis you don’t have to spend a lot of time wondering what he was saying; you just have to think about how to apply it. In closing, check out this example from his homily today (my emphasis added):

And the Lord invites us to this: to be rejuvenated Easter people on a journey of love, patience, enduring our tribulations and also – I would say – putting up with one another. We must also do this with charity and love, because if I have to put up with you, I’m sure you will put up with me and in this way we will move forward on our journey on the path of Jesus.

Easy to understand…tough to put into practice!

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and the new normal

By Christopher Smith, OP

Today’s Gospel reading is a short one. In fact, I can copy it in its entirety right here:

The mother of Jesus and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd. He was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you.” He said to them in reply, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it” (Luke 8:19-21)

When discussions or debates are held about Mary’s perpetual virginity – the teaching that she remained chaste even after giving birth to Jesus – inevitably two scripture references are brought up. The first one is the one I quoted above which refers to the Jesus’ “brothers.” The second is from the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel:

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus (Mt 1:24-25, my emphasis added)

The implication when these two verses are combined is Joseph didn’t have sexual relations with Mary while she was pregnant with Jesus, but afterwards they adopted a “normal” marital relationship which produced additional offspring (i.e. Jesus’ brothers).

That line of argumentation is one of those “zingers” Protestant fundamentalists like to throw at Catholics. For Catholics who are not grounded in the bible, which sadly is many of them, and who do not know the development of the doctrine on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, this argument comes across as rather convincing. I remember a well-intentioned Baptist deacon rattling off these two quotes in quick succession at me when I was 19 years old and I had no idea how to respond (until I got this book, published two years earlier).

The debate on this topic is not a new one. A man named Helvidius published a tract in Rome (c. 383), arguing against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. The great linguistics expert and biblical scholar, St. Jerome, who was also in Rome when Helvidius put forth his ideas, wrote a rebuttal, defending the Church’s teaching.

There is one part of Jerome’s response to Helvidius every Catholic should be able to grasp with the use of reason alone. It doesn’t require an in-depth knowledge of scripture nor does it require one to know the 2000 history which comprises the Church’s teaching on Mary’s virginity. No, all a person needs to ponder for a moment is the idea that nothing about Mary and Joseph’s life was going to be “normal” after their respective angelic visitations (cf. Lk 1:26-38 and Mt 1:18-25).

Think about it. How was anything in the lives of these two people going to be “normal” after angels come to inform them of the miraculous conception of Jesus and tell them they will be the earthly parents of the Son of God? I’m sure their lives were many, many things, but normal probably wasn’t one of them.

I feel comfortable making that kind of assumption (<– Marian pun) because it puts me in company with St. Jerome (not bad company to be in). He wrote in his treatise, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary:

In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Mt 1:20) And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” (ibid) The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent!

We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learnt from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, “Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;” (Lk 2:10)and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;” (Lk 2:14) and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, “Now lettest thou thy servant depart, O Lord, according to thy word in peace: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation;” (Lk 2:25-34) and when he had seen Anna the prophetess (Lk 2:36-38), the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?

Jerome uses a lot of words (an admirable trait) to basically say, “Whatta stupid?”

I think there are two things that we, as modern 21^st century people, struggle to get our heads around. First is the radicalness of Mary and Joseph’s experience. Ideas such as angelic visitations, voices from the heavens, pregnancy without intercourse, parenting the “Son of God,” etc. lay just out of our reach to comprehend. We struggle with them (understandable) because we likely have nothing comparable in our own lives. Our children didn’t come to us through divine intervention and they seem a little less than divine when they are throwing a fit about not getting their way.

The second concept is the idea of forsaking sexual intercourse for life. That certainly doesn’t seem “normal” by today’s standards, perhaps not even by 1^st century Palestinian standards either. It would seem much more likely that Helvidius’ position, the one maintained by most Evangelicals, is right: Joseph and Mary refrained from intercourse “until [Mary] had borne a son” but afterwards they adopted a “normal” sexual relationship. But what we must seriously consider is that Joseph’s and Mary’s standard for “normal” had been radically changed because of God’s intervention in their lives.

Just reflect on the magnitude of the responsibility this couple was being given. Think about the mind-blowing, life-altering experiences they had before Jesus’ birth and after. What would you be willing to give up to be part of the plan to being salvation to the entire world?

You are part of that plan to bring salvation to the world you know, or at least to your corner of it. God has intervened in your life in many different ways (e.g. sacraments, prayer life, through family/friends), your definition of “normal” is now different from the world’s definition (cf. 1 Pt 2:11, Rm 12:2 and Jn 17:16) . Because your version of normal is different than the world’s, ask yourself: “What sacrifice am I willing to make in order to bring Christ to others?”

Jesus on “the exception to the rule”

By Christopher Smith, OP

In today’s Gospel reading, Jesus and his disciples were “going through a field of grain on the sabbath” when the hungry disciples “began to pick the heads of grain and eat them.” The Pharisees saw this and challenged Jesus saying that what his disciples were doing was “unlawful to do on the sabbath.” The Pharisees’ charge was a sabbath violation, not a case of theft, because eating from a neighbor’s standing grain was, in general, an acceptable practice (see Deut 23:25).

In this post, I want to examine Jesus’ response, where he explained his disciples were not violating the law, looking at it from four different aspects: historical, lawful, prophetical, reasonableness.

Historical

First, Jesus appeals to the behavior of David (1 Sam 21:1-6) as an example from history. Surely the Pharisees would admit that David’s behavior and that of the high priest Ahim’elech were above reproach. In the story from 1 Samuel, David arrives at Nob and asks the priest Ahim’elech for something to eat. The only food on hand was the “bread of the Presence,” which is “holy bread,” fit only for the high priests to consume (for more on the bread see Lev 24:5-9). However, Ahim’elech shares this bread with David and in turn David shares it with those accompanying him. Jesus is making this historical connection because the Pharisees will not likely admit that David or Ahim’elech, key figures from Israel’s history, made a mistake, and to recall to the Pharisees’ mind how David shared the bread with his followers.

There is a difference between the two stories that some may believe significant when making the comparison (i.e. David and his followers / Jesus and the disciples). David actually deceives Ahim’elech into giving him the bread. He told the priest he was on a secret mission from the king when, in fact, he was fleeing from Saul who had vowed to kill him. In his hasty preparations to flee, David had not packed sufficient supplies. While the lie does not come into play in the New Testament story, most commentators don’t view the difference between the two accounts as significant as the common theme of necessity. Both David’s followers and Jesus’ disciples, in serving their masters, had grown sufficiently hungry in the course of their duties that their masters broke with the norm to feed them.

Lawful

Next Jesus weaves a lawful argument based on the requirements specified in the Book of Numbers (28:9-20). In the Old Testament book, the prescription for the sabbath offering is described. To me, it sounds a lot of like work:

…you shall offer a burnt offering to the LORD: two young bulls, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish; also three tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, for each bull; and two tenths of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram; and a tenth of fine flour mixed with oil as a cereal offering for every lamb; for a burnt offering of pleasing odor, an offering by fire to the LORD.

However, a few verses later in the text it says: “On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work….” The “first day” is the sabbath. The Pharisees are chiding the disciples, not for stealing, but working (i.e. harvesting) on the sabbath. The slaughtering of animals, a “laborious work,” is forbidden on the sabbath by everyone except the high priests. Jesus calls the priests who worked on the sabbath, for the purpose of worship, “innocent.” But how is that? Isn’t there a disconnect here? The implication is temple worship takes precedence over the sabbath. Jesus makes the same connection; however, he takes it a step further when he says there is, “something greater than the temple here.” If the Pharisees believe temple worship takes precedence over the sabbath, Jesus is saying there is even something greater than the temple. It’s no wonder they believe Jesus to be a blasphemer.

Prophetical

The next way Jesus addresses the Pharisees objection is by referring to the prophet Hosea who spoke on behalf of the Lord, saying:

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees’ lack of understanding of the scripture by saying, “If you knew what this meant, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned these innocent men.” The implication here is that if the Pharisees truly knew the scriptures they would act accordingly (i.e. know that God desires good will towards mankind and act similarly). Jesus refers to his disciples as “innocent men,” just like the priests who work on the sabbath were “innocent,” because both are working for something that is more significant than the sabbath. The Pharisees were only concerned with outward projections of piety rather than the true spiritual significance of the words contained in scripture.

Reasonableness

The last part of Jesus’ rebuttal is based on reason. Since he is the Lord of the sabbath his disciples, who are acting in union with him, had a right to do what would normally be considered objectionable to do on the sabbath. This is an expansion, a revelation, of the idea expressed above: “something greater than the temple is here.” Yes, there is! The God-man is here! The one who originally commanded what is right, good, and holy, on the sabbath is now, once again, declaring what is right, good, and holy on the sabbath. It is not a canceling of one in lieu of the other; instead, it is a deeper dive into what is already known.

Though not part of today’s reading, the narrative in Matthew’s Gospel continues with Jesus healing a man on the sabbath and Jesus challenging the Pharisees with a predicament:

Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? (Mt 12:11)

Knowing that a reasonable, common sense approach to life would lead one to conclude that relieving a man’s suffering and rescuing an animal are more significant than abstaining from work on a particular day of the week, Jesus concludes with, “So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” This strikes me as much as a statement of fact as it does a question to be posed to those who doubt otherwise.

Conclusion

Jesus shows in Matthew’s eighth chapter, through word and deed, that there are times when the rule needs to give way to the exception. Jesus’ purpose was not to provide “an out” from observance of the sabbath, not at all. In fact, in order for there to be “an exception” there must first be a “rule” (exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis (“the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted”). Worship of the Lord on the sabbath is proper and right. By regularly going to the synagogue to teach and by expressing his intense desire to celebrate the Passover with his disciples (cf. Luke 22:15), Jesus demonstrates a commitment to the rule (i.e. law). However, these teachings in Matthew’s eighth chapter were designed by the Lord to give his disciples, and us, greater spiritual insight into the law’s meaning.