David O'Brien: A Time of Mercy

Lent is a season of forgiveness. In the readings, we repeatedly hear about God’s mercy towards people in need of forgiveness. Many Catholics seek out the sacrament of reconciliation during Lent, especially now with the "Light is On" program making confession so readily available.

But God also calls us to take the forgiveness that we receive and give it to those with whom we are at odds. This is certainly the more difficult part of forgiveness. After all, we all want to be forgiven. But many times we are slow to forgive others who have hurt us.

The key is to realize that God will help us forgive others if we are open to reconciling with them. In fact, God will supply supernatural power to forgive if we simply trust Him. A few examples:

Many remember the episode some years ago when a gunman killed several Amish school children in Pennsylvania. He locked them in their one room schoolhouse, intended to sexually abuse them and then murdered them in cold blood before the police killed him.

What you may not have heard about is that afterwards, the Amish families reached out to the killer’s wife and children, telling the reporters who were stunned by this behavior: "They are grieving too."

Later that week, the Amish attended the murderer’s funeral, again explaining to the press: "Jesus said to love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, forgive as you have been forgiven." The newspaper writers were stunned. For all the talk of Christianity in our culture, so rarely had they actually seen anyone really behave like Jesus.

A woman’s teenage son with his newly minted license picked up a hitchhiker who proceeded to rob him and gun him down. A year later, the mother visited her son’s killer in jail. Filled with resentment and hatred, she wanted to ask the young man why he had done that to her son. Was it drugs? Was he deranged? However, as she sat across from the young man, the convict broke down. Placing his head on the table between them, he grieved for what he had become, for all that he had done and for the hurt he had caused this woman.

The mother, moved by compassion, reached out and touched the young man, comforting him and telling him it would be ok. Later when she told her friends what had happened they were shocked.

"How could you touch that animal after what he did?" they inquired.

"In that moment, I saw my own son sitting there across from me. They are about the same age. And I thought, if that was my son, I would want someone to reach out to him," she explained.

Corrie ten Bloom wrote a book called The Hiding Place about her experience in a Nazi concentration camp where her family was tortured and killed. She survived and starting a speaking ministry where she described how God helped her endure the ordeal and had taught her about His powerful forgiveness through the Cross.

At one church in Munich following her talk, a former SS soldier approached her. She recognized him immediately as one of the guards who tortured her sister. The man thanked her for her message saying that he was relieved to know that God forgave everyone, even him.

She recounts: "His hand thrust out to shake mine. And I, who had preached so often to the people the need to forgive, kept my hand at my side.

Even as the angry, vengeful thoughts boiled through me, I saw the sin of them. Jesus had died for this man; was I going to ask for more? Lord Jesus, I prayed, forgive me and help me to forgive him. I tried to smile. I struggled to raise my hand. I could not. I felt nothing, not the slightest spark of warmth or charity. And so again I breathed a silent prayer. Jesus, I cannot forgive him. Give me Your forgiveness.

As I took his hand the most incredible thing happened. From my shoulder along my arm and through my hand a current seemed to pass from me to him, while into my heart sprang a love for this stranger that almost overwhelmed me. And so I discovered that it is not on our forgiveness any more than on our goodness that the world’s healing hinges, but on His. When He tells us to love our enemies, He gives, along with the command, the love itself."

Forgiveness to those who don’t deserve it is one of the few ways in which we are able to share in God’s supernatural power.

Lent is a season of mercy. Is there someone in your life that you need to forgive?

About David O’Brien David O’Brien is the Associate Director of Religious Education for Lay Ministry for the Archdiocese of Mobile. His column, Everyday Faith, appears regularly in the archdiocesan newspaper, the Catholic Week. Email David at dobrien@mobilearchdiocese.org.

John Martignoni: Response to letter to editor of Birmingham News re. HHS mandate (part 3)

This week continues with my commentary on a Letter to the Editor that was in the Birmingham News a few weeks ago regarding the HHS Contraception Mandate.  The letter can be found in its entirety at:
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/02/our_views_disagreeing_with_bis.html

Read: part one | part two

Letter:  “The current position of the bishops appears to be an attempt to claim the power to impose their moral judgments not only on the many non-Catholics who serve or are served by institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church, but on us faithful Catholics as well. We reject the implication that our disagreement with the bishops disqualifies us as faithful Catholics. We are the church, even more so than are the bishops, and we will not abandon, nor be driven from, the beloved community that is the home of our spiritual lives.”

Response: So far we have shown that the arguments of the letter writers with regard to the teachings of Vatican II, the moral standing of individuals vis-à-vis the Bishops in regard to who speaks for the Church, and the understanding of the formation and workings of conscience are fundamentally flawed and without merit.  This week we will show, once again by using the documents of Vatican II, that their understanding of the Church’s hierarchy, and of the Church itself, is equally so.

According to Vatican II, “Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the office of teaching and ruling…In fact…by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given…in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ Himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as His representative,” (Lumen Gentium, #21).

So the statement, “We are the church, even moreso than the bishops,” is one that does not, in fact cannot, come from the pen of anyone who has actually read the documents of Vatican II.  The Bishops, not the laity, are the successors of the Apostles.  So says Vatican II.  The Bishops, not the laity, have been given the authority of Jesus Christ, by virtue of their ordination, to uphold and defend the truth taught by the Church.  So says Vatican II.  

Since my return to the Church some 22 years ago, I have encountered a phenomenon on too many occasions to count, that absolutely boggles my mind each and every time I run across it.  Not too long after returning to the Church, I started encountering - in Bible studies, small group studies, in “Catholic” periodicals, and in one-on-one conversations - this idea that Vatican II had somehow changed the teachings of the Church.  I was told at various times that Vatican II had changed the Church’s teaching on the priesthood, on marriage, on contraception, on Confession, on the Eucharist, on sin, on the liturgy, on this, and on that.  

But, a funny thing happened.  After hearing all about the things that this Vatican II Council had changed, I decided to actually read the documents of Vatican II.  Imagine my surprise when I found out that this Vatican II thing, while it had indeed changed some Church disciplines and practices, never changed a single doctrine or dogma of the Church.  Not one!  

So, for the last 22 years, I’ve heard or read literally hundreds of people who claim Vatican II teaches things that it actually never taught. This particular letter being yet one more example of this phenomenon - what I find to be a profoundly sad phenomenon.  So, if you ever hear someone say something about Vatican II changing this or that teaching of the Church, I can guarantee you that you will not get a specific citation to back up the claim.  You won’t get it, because it doesn’t exist.  There is nothing in any document from Vatican II that changes Church doctrine or dogma...nothing.  

I find it a bit ironic, that the Bishops’ response to the government’s attempt to impose its will on the Church, is being characterized as an attempt by the Bishops to “impose their moral judgments” on others. That is completely backwards - the government is doing the imposing here, not the Bishops.  The Bishops are doing what they have been called by Christ to do, and people are reacting accordingly.

As St. Augustine said, “People hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is they love more than the truth. They love truth when it shines warmly on them, and hate it when it rebukes them.”  And what the Bishops of the Catholic Church do, is teach the truth.  They do not attempt to “impose their moral judgments” on anyone.  They teach the truth, and people quite often do not want to hear that truth.  They teach the truth that they have been entrusted by our Lord Jesus Christ to teach, as shepherds of the flock that our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted them to lead. 

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

John Martignoni: Response to letter to editor of Birmingham News re. HHS mandate (part 2)

There was a “Letter to the Editor” in a recent edition of the Birmingham News written by three Catholic couples that used the issue of the Health and Human Services contraception mandate to basically say that one can dissent from Church teaching and yet still be a “faithful” Catholic.  I would like to take the next few weeks to answer several of the points made in that letter.  Each week I will quote a section from the letter and then give my response.  If you would like to read the letter in its entirety, you can do so by going to this website: http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/02/our_views_disagreeing_with_bis.html

Letter: “Non-Catholics should understand that the Catholic bishops' recent dispute with the federal government is less about birth control than it is about internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals. Many of us practicing Catholics adhere to the teaching of the 1965 Vatican II Council that, while the bishops have teaching authority, so their views are entitled to great respect, they do not have exclusive authority to speak to the government for the church in matters of faith and morals. Rather, each member of the church has a duty to form beliefs, to make judgments about faith and morals by following her or his conscience in light of Gospel values and reasoned consideration of both present circumstances and Catholic tradition, and to speak to their lawfully elected government as Catholics.”

Response: There is a line from one of my favorite poems, An Essay on Criticism, by Alexander Pope, that came to mind when I read the paragraph above: “A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.”  It seems our letter writers did not drink deep enough in regard to the documents of Vatican II, because the claim that there is something in the documents of Vatican II that somehow gives each individual an authority equal to that of the bishops when speaking to the government (or anyone else for that matter) on matters of faith and morals is simply without merit.  

In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), paragraph #77 speaks to the relationship between the “political community” and the Church.  Here is some of what it has to say: “It is of supreme importance…to work out a proper vision of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and to distinguish clearly between the activities of Christians, acting individually or collectively in their own name as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and their activity acting along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”

Christians may indeed speak to their government individually or collectively, but the words and actions of these individual Christians acting on their own, are not to be confused with the words and actions of those Christians acting “along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”  In other words, individual Christians, acting on their own, have absolutely no authority to speak for the Church to the political community on matters of faith and morals.  They do not speak “in the name of the Church” as do the pastors (i.e., bishops) of the Church.  So, contrary to what was written in that letter, there are no “internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals.”  It is the pastors who speak for the Church.  Every Catholic who understands and is faithful to the teachings of Vatican II would agree on this.

Furthermore, paragraph #77 states: “But at all times and in all places the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”  

Vatican II speaks of the right of the Church to “pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics.”  Note that nowhere does this paragraph, nor any part of this document, nor any Vatican II document, speak of the individual as having the same level of authority as the pastors of the Church “to pass moral judgments” in matters relating to politics.  In fact, as mentioned above, Vatican II makes it quite clear that while the individual does indeed have certain rights and freedoms with respect to activities vis-à-vis government, it is, nevertheless, of “supreme importance” to distinguish these activities from those of the Church.  Vatican II simply does not support the premise of the letter writers.

Now, I do not wish to ignore the role of the individual and their conscience, as each individual does indeed have it within their capacity to form moral judgments in accord with their conscience and to act on those moral judgments.  I will speak to that next week.

Next: The role of conscience…

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Pat Arensberg: John 6, part 2

“As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”  -John 6:66

Many things can be said, but I would like to start with the end first.  The crowd took Jesus literally.  When Jesus did not correct this literal interpretation and explain what “he really meant” they figured he was nuts.  As a result of them taking Jesus literally, they left him.  Why didn’t he stop them and correct them?  In fact, after they leave he turns to the 12 who were left (seems like the whole crowd left).  Jesus does not explain the “real” meaning of what he had been teaching.  Rather, he simply asks them if they are going to leave over this notion too.  Simon Peter’s answer is really quite remarkable.  Knowing that Jesus has just told the crowd that they have to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, and not knowing how this would be fulfilled in the Eucharist Peter says, “Master, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life.”  To paraphrase, “Jesus, I really don’t know what you are talking about, but if you tell me I have to gnaw on your flesh then I will.”  I imaging there was great relief at the Last Supper when Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood.

But, I got a bit ahead of myself, huh?  The end of the chapter sure seems to be very strong evidence that Jesus means it quite literally, but is there anything else?  Yes.  On Monday, I would like to give a bit of a blow by blow summary of what is happening in John 6, and then on Tuesday I will argue that if we know that God is love and that humans are body and soul, then we should actually expect something like the Eucharist.  Stay tuned, and have a great weekend!

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: John 6, part 1

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”  -John 6:53-56

Ok, so this is pretty simple.  If Jesus literally means that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood then each Christian needs to ask themself, “How am I fulfilling this command?”  And the answer will be that they cannot fulfill this requirement without becoming Catholic.  If, on the other hand, Jesus is only speaking figuratively in this passage then I think the Catholic teaching about the Eucharist is virtually indefensible and should be rejected.  Simple, but there is a lot at stake.

Before tomorrow’s blog, please read John 6 in its entirety.  Then reread 6:22-71, and ask yourself, “Does he seem to be speaking literally or figuratively?”  One clue that we often look for to determine if someone is speaking literally or figuratively is this, “Is what they are saying possible?”  So when Jackie Gleason warns Alice that he is going to “Send her to the moon,” with one of his famous “pow, right in the kisser” threats we know he is speaking figuratively.  It is not possible for his to accomplish this.  This normal criteria must be set aside when evaluating Jesus’ words because he is capable of the impossible.  For example, when he says the he will be raised on the third day, he was speaking literally even though such a thing was ‘not possible.’  When he told the paralytic to rise, pick up his mat and walk he meant literally to do so, again even though this was not possible.  So, read John 6 asking yourself the voice Jesus is using, but set aside the notion that it must be figurative since it is not literally possible for all of us to eat his flesh.

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

John Martignoni: Response to letter to editor of Birmingham News re. HHS mandate (part 1)

There was a “Letter to the Editor” in a recent edition of the Birmingham News written by three Catholic couples that used the issue of the Health and Human Services contraception mandate to basically say that one can dissent from Church teaching and yet still be a “faithful” Catholic.  I would like to take the next few weeks to answer several of the points made in that letter.  Each week I will quote a section from the letter and then give my response.  If you would like to read the letter in its entirety, you can do so by going to this website: http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/02/our_views_disagreeing_with_bis.html

Letter: “Non-Catholics should understand that the Catholic bishops' recent dispute with the federal government is less about birth control than it is about internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals. Many of us practicing Catholics adhere to the teaching of the 1965 Vatican II Council that, while the bishops have teaching authority, so their views are entitled to great respect, they do not have exclusive authority to speak to the government for the church in matters of faith and morals. Rather, each member of the church has a duty to form beliefs, to make judgments about faith and morals by following her or his conscience in light of Gospel values and reasoned consideration of both present circumstances and Catholic tradition, and to speak to their lawfully elected government as Catholics.”

Response: There is a line from one of my favorite poems, An Essay on Criticism, by Alexander Pope, that came to mind when I read the paragraph above: “A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.”  It seems our letter writers did not drink deep enough in regard to the documents of Vatican II, because the claim that there is something in the documents of Vatican II that somehow gives each individual an authority equal to that of the bishops when speaking to the government (or anyone else for that matter) on matters of faith and morals is simply without merit.  

In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), paragraph #77 speaks to the relationship between the “political community” and the Church.  Here is some of what it has to say: “It is of supreme importance…to work out a proper vision of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and to distinguish clearly between the activities of Christians, acting individually or collectively in their own name as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and their activity acting along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”

Christians may indeed speak to their government individually or collectively, but the words and actions of these individual Christians acting on their own, are not to be confused with the words and actions of those Christians acting “along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”  In other words, individual Christians, acting on their own, have absolutely no authority to speak for the Church to the political community on matters of faith and morals.  They do not speak “in the name of the Church” as do the pastors (i.e., bishops) of the Church.  So, contrary to what was written in that letter, there are no “internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals.”  It is the pastors who speak for the Church.  Every Catholic who understands and is faithful to the teachings of Vatican II would agree on this.

Furthermore, paragraph #77 states: “But at all times and in all places the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”  

Vatican II speaks of the right of the Church to “pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics.”  Note that nowhere does this paragraph, nor any part of this document, nor any Vatican II document, speak of the individual as having the same level of authority as the pastors of the Church “to pass moral judgments” in matters relating to politics.  In fact, as mentioned above, Vatican II makes it quite clear that while the individual does indeed have certain rights and freedoms with respect to activities vis-à-vis government, it is, nevertheless, of “supreme importance” to distinguish these activities from those of the Church.  Vatican II simply does not support the premise of the letter writers.

Now, I do not wish to ignore the role of the individual and their conscience, as each individual does indeed have it within their capacity to form moral judgments in accord with their conscience and to act on those moral judgments.  I will speak to that next week.

Next: The role of conscience…

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Pat Arensberg: Have you been born again?

“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”  -John 3:5

I love it when people ask me if I have been “born again”.  I always answer, “Absolutely!”  They are often amazed because they were asking because they know I am Catholic.  In response their stunned silence I explain to them that I have been born again of water and Spirit.  Then I ask them, “When you were born again, was there water involved?”  Because if not it seems to me that they have not yet been born again the way Jesus describes it.

As Catholics we believe that Baptism is the way we are born again.  Jesus is very clear that we must be born again of water and Spirit.   I have also been asked, “Have you been Baptized in the Holy Spirit.”  Again, I answer, “Absolutely!”  When the priest or deacon pours water on the head of a child or immerses someone in the water he pronounces these words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  The person has then been born again of water and Spirit.  The water is the visible sign of the invisible reality of the spiritual reality.

Baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom, so what about people who die without celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism?  Is there any hope for their salvation?  Well, let us remember that God normally mediates his graces through the Sacraments, but he can give his grace without using the Sacraments (see for example Lk 23:43 where Jesus tells the Good Thief that he will be in paradise even though the man was not baptized with water in the Sacrament).  Let us also remember to very careful about this point:  the Sacraments are not optional.  We must approach the Sacraments.  It is just important to note that God can, in extraordinary circumstances, operate outside of them.  I would strongly encourage you to you the Catechism of the Catholic Church #’s 1257-1261 for more.

*

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: Wedding at Cana

“When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’  Jesus said to her, ’Woman, how does your concern affect me?  My hour has not yet come.’”  -John 2:3-4

I have heard this Scripture quoted to “prove” that Mary had no special relationship with Jesus and that it was silly or blasphemous for Catholics to honor her as we do.  It seems to me that if one tries to use this passage to make that point then we need to find a new messiah because this one just sinned.  If Jesus is disrespecting his mother by calling her “woman” then hasn’t he violated the 4th Commandment?  If Jesus were walking the earth today and said this in English then our separated brethren might have a point.  (In fact, I really chuckle when I picture my wife telling my 10 year old son that his room is messy and him replying, “Woman, how does your concern affect me?)  

Obviously, as Christians we cannot accept the possibility that Jesus sinned, so we must find out what is really going on here (or as Paul Harvey might have said, the “rest of the story”).  Just as sin entered the world through a man and a woman, so too salvation comes through the obedience of a man and a woman; this does not mean Mary is God or anything silly like that.  But it does mean that she had to be obedient to the Father’s will in order for Jesus to enter the world incarnate.  Mary is the new Eve, or the new woman.  Jesus is addressing her as such.  I also find it interesting that Jesus is not going to begin his mission until Mary tells him to.  He is an obedient son, and he loves his mother.  He knows how the story is going to end and the sorrow it will cause his mommy.  He will not move forward until he knows that she is ready.

I am over space for this blog, so one very brief thought:  I love Mary’s advice to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”  This is Mary’s role in our lives.  She bids us to do whatever Jesus tells us to do.

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: Introduction to John

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  -John 1:1

From the very “beginning” John makes it very clear that his Gospel is going to be a bit different.  John’s Gospel tells the same story, namely the good news of Jesus Christ, but he does so in a much more theological way.  By all accounts, John’s is the last Gospel written.  On average scholars date its composition to about the year 95 a.d.  John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, has had more time to reflect on the events than did his Evangelist predecessors.  Some Protestant scholars call John’s the “Catholic Gospel” because some of the Church’s doctrines are more explicit there.  Many scholars call John’s the “Book of Signs” because it is built around signs that Jesus works.

In John notes throughout his Gospel that Jesus is in control of events.  He is not just being swept passively along to an untimely death (see 19:28 when he is fully aware that everything is finished he proclaims that he thirsts just before dying.)  He is often aware of people’s thoughts or truths even though they have not been spoken (see Jn 4 and his conversation with the Samaritan woman).  

Another very beautiful feature of John’s Gospel is his use of the image of light and darkness, “What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (1:5).”  John carries this theme through his account.  I love the image because it is a reminder that evil is not as “real” as the good.  In other words, when darkness and light come together in battle light always wins.  In fact, darkness is not a thing in itself; it is simply the deprivation of light.  Darkness cannot even define itself without light.  

*

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: Be Perfect

“There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known.  Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed on the housetops.”  -Luke 12:2-3

Ouch!  I don’t know about you, but I am a sinner.  I really don’t want all of my sins proclaimed from the housetops.  And this brings us to a very primary matter that is a difference between Catholic theology and most protestant theology.  Specifically, the question of human anthropology needs to be addressed.  Are we basically good, but fallen, or are we completely depraved by virtue of the fall?  Catholic theology says we are basically good, but fallen.  Further, it teaches us that Christ came to make all things new.  Our eternal destiny is to be perfect as the Father is perfect (see Matthew 5:48).  

We are much less embarrassed by a sin that we have overcome than by a sin that still has power over us.  A recovering alcoholic who has been sober for many years actually sees the sins of their past life as something that they are proud to have overcome with the help of Christ.  They are much less embarrassed by the sin.  An alcoholic who is not sober is much more affected by the sin and the publication of the sin.  My point is this, when we are perfected our deeds of darkness no longer have power over us.  They will be seen as stepping stones to the Father.  But this is only possible if we are in fact perfected.  Thus the need for purgatory.  I am not perfect.  If I go to heaven without being perfected my sin still has a certain power over me.  God wants so much more for me than that.  He wants me to live in freedom.  Thank you God!!

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: Simeon's Prophecy

“Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”  Luke 2:34-35

Where did we get the idea that being a Christian would be easy?  This child, Jesus, will be a sign that will be contradicted.  That was true 2,000 years ago and it is true today.  People who live in darkness do not want light shone on them and their actions (getting ahead of myself a little bit since John uses this image a lot).  There really is no middle ground with Jesus.  He either is the Messiah, the son of the Living God or he is a fraud (crazy or lying).  Our response to his life is either that we are all in or that we are all out.  We cannot say, “Well he was a good man and I accept a lot of what he taught.”  He was one of three things, a liar, a nut or God.  I don’t listen to anything from the lips of liars and nuts, and I obey everything from God.

Simeon goes on in the above quoted prophecy to tell Mary that a sword (of sorrow) would pierce her heart, so that the hearts of many may be revealed.  I cannot imagine the sorrow of Mary as she stood at the foot of the Cross.  Her beloved son was dying.  And not only was he her son, he was God, and she had such a pure and complete love for God.

As the new people of Israel, the new people of the promise made so long ago; we have to ask ourselves the question, “Is Jesus going to be our rise or our fall?”  

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Todd Sylvester: Saints for today

I have been reading a book of the Saints of John Paul II and loving it! Many of them are from the 20th century. Each life story inspires and invites me to holiness, but I am especially invigorated by the Saints who were married with children. For years I thought you could ONLY be a Saint if you were a priest or religious, so to read about canonized people who had to change diapers, and pay power bills and change the oil in their cars (Yes- it’s true!) makes me feel that Sainthood IS attainable!
    
God calls us ALL to Sainthood, and the stories of the next Saints will be of people who drove pick-up trucks and watched football games, and worked in offices and loved their spouses and folded laundry and got the mail and went out to lunch and worked diligently to Proclaim the Kingdom of God to all the world with their HOLY LIVES.
    
Those stories will be told and they will inspire the next generation and Grace will flow like a river because of those people…my question is; “Will your name be in the next book of Saints?” Romans 6:22

About Todd Sylvester Todd Sylvester has worked in Church Ministry for almost 20 years. His love for Christ in the Eucharist is evident as he strives to lead his wife and ten children to the heavenly banquet. Todd is a writer, singer/songwriter, radio show host, teacher, and above all else, Lover of God. His child-like perspective is not only poignant, but helps reveal the reality of God in our everyday living.

Pat Arensberg: Hail Mary

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb,…”  -Luke 1:40

Did you know that virtually the entire first half of the “Hail Mary” is taken directly from Scripture and part of it is ascribed directly to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

When the Gabriel appeared to her he said, “Hail (Mary) favored one.”  This can also be translated as full of grace.  He continues, “the Lord is with you.”  So, “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you” is simply Luke 1:28 with Mary’s name inserted so we know who we are talking about.

After the encounter with Gabriel, Mary goes to visit her relative, Elizabeth.  When Elizabeth hears Mary’s greeting the infant leaps in the womb.  John the Baptist, who is the last and greatest prophet is already at work proclaiming that the Kingdom of God is at hand.  And isn’t it interesting that it he recognized the Incarnate Word through the voice of Mary.  But I digress….

Luke tells us that Elizabeth was filled with the holy Spirit (1:41) and she cried out in a loud voice “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” (Luke 1:42)  We add the name of that fruit, “Jesus” to the prayer.  So, the entire first half of the “Hail Mary” is just a meditation on Luke chapter 1.  The second half of the prayer reminds us that Mary is the mother of the divine person of Jesus, and thus the mother of God himself.  It then asks her to pray for us to her son.

It is also interesting to note that when we pray the rosary we meditate on the life of Jesus Christ and those things that relate to our salvation.  While we meditate on that we repeat Scripture over and over and over in the form of the Hail Mary and in the form of the Our Father.  

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: Mary's Virginal Intent

“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”  -Luke 1:34

I believe, although this is certainly not taught authoritatively by the Church, that Mary was planning to remain a virgin even though she was betrothed to Joseph.  We may take up the issue of why she would be married if intending to remain a virgin, but for now let us simply say that there were no convents and people could not survive alone.  There was no Winn Dixie to run to for groceries.

I am struck by the tense of the verbs in the discussion between Mary and Gabriel.  He comes to a woman who is engaged to be married and tells her that she will get pregnant (in the future).  Her answer is, in essence, “Wait a minute.  How can that happen (in the future) since I am a virgin?”  She clearly gets the connection between sex and pregnancy.  She clearly does not understand how she is going to get pregnant in the future.  

Look if the angel told her, “Mary, behold you are with child” her question would make sense.  She was a virgin at that point.  But the angel points to a future time when a pregnancy would occur.  If a girl who was engaged to be married was visited by an angel and told that she would bear a son and that son would become the president, she would have many questions.  But, I would be willing to bet that she would not ask how she was supposed to get pregnant.  The assumption would be that she would get pregnant with her husband.  Mary’s question, I would argue, points to an intention to remain a virgin even after her wedding to St. Joseph.  

In a certain respect the issue is a moot point.  As soon as Mary became pregnant by the power of the Most High she belonged to him in a spousal way, and was therefore off limits to Joseph.  We know that Mary remained perpetually a virgin, and this truth is because of transcendence of the Incarnate Word.  

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.