Catholic in Yanchep

Go out into the deep.

Tag Archives: Homily


by Leave a comment

Christ the King, Year C | Who is king of your universe?

Hans_Memling_-_Christ_Surrounded_by_Musician_Angels_-Christ the King

Christ surrounded by Musician Angels, Hans Memling (c.1480), Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp, Belgium.

I have a friend, Will, who, as an agnostic, is a great gift to me.  At this stage of his life Will is not one iota interested in God; however, talking to him provides me with an opportunity to understand how atheists and agnostics think.  So last weekend, I asked him about his current view of reality:  to what extent did it include the possibility of God existing?

He answered that as it was impossible to prove God exists, my question was meaningless.

Setting aside whether his assertion is correct (I think it isn’t – but will explain that in another post, or you can read this book), I asked him if he had ever tried the experiential approach and bothered to get his answer straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, and ask God if He exists.

No, Will replied.  For if he asks God whether He exists, he is introducing observer bias into the equation, since the question assumes that there is a God to ask whether he exists.  What Will is referring to is a form of confirmation bias, which Wikipedia describes as a “tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.”

That’s not really the case, I replied.  You see, the question of whether God exists is too important not to address.  It’s about ultimate truth, and what we believe about ultimate truth becomes the frame of reference for everything else in our lives.  Take, for example, an atheist like Friedrich Nietzsche who said this: ‘All superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad’.  The last eleven years of his life were a descent into madness.  (What a surprise.)  Contrast this with someone like St Thérèse of Lisieux: ‘Miss no single opportunity of making some small sacrifice, here by a smiling look, there by a kindly word; always doing the smallest right and doing it all for love.’  Which one of these people do you think had the better understanding of the truth?

So, I said to Will, regarding the question of whether God exists, we have these possibilities:

  1. God does not exist and eo ipso does not want to establish a relationship with us.
  2. God exists and does not want to establish a relationship with us.
  3. God exists and wants to establish a relationship with us.

But what you are saying, Will, is that there are only two options regarding these possibilities:

  1. God does not exist and I can ask him if he exists until I am blue in the face, but because he doesn’t exist he won’t answer me.
  2. God may exist, but I can’t ask him whether he exists, because asking the question a priori introduces confirmation bias (according to Will, anyway).

This seems an extraordinarily poor strategy in the game of life.  Because if God exists, I have left myself no apparent way of discovering Him! In fact, the way Will has designed his schema is itself the most perfect example of a confirmation bias for the negative proposition!  Hypocrisy, anyone?  Accusing others of confirmation bias while exemplifying it oneself?

Anyway, I disagree that asking a question of a hypothetical God introduces confirmation bias.  There are various ways we can ask a question to introduce confirmation bias or otherwise.

For example, one could have negative confirmation bias if one worded the question this way:

“Hypothetical God, to determine if you exist (and I am reasonably sure you don’t), I will throw this ten dollar note into the air, and if you sweep it up into the air like Elijah’s chariot, I will believe you exist, but if it falls back to earth, then I will continue to believe you are non-existent.”

… or one could have positive confirmation bias if one phrased one’s question using a scenario which has every likelihood of being fulfilled:

“Hypothetical God, to determine if you exist (and it would be nice if you did), please give me a sign of your presence.   If you are truly present, perhaps, er, perhaps you could give me this sign: let me have a day of great blessing tomorrow.”

You can’t use as your dependent (responding) variable something which is reasonably likely to occur anyway.

So how could one word a question without introducing confirmation bias?

This is Peter Kreeft’s version:

“[Hypothetical] God, I don’t know whether you exist or not. Maybe I’m praying to nobody, but maybe I’m praying to you. So if you are really there, please let me know somehow, because I do want to know. I want only the Truth, whatever it is. If you are the Truth, here I am, ready and willing to follow you wherever you lead.”

Now Will would probably say this version has too much confirmation bias in it, because it already uses words like ‘praying’ – which has religious overtones.  Not only that, but it contains no variable which is measurable or falsifiable.  Also it adds on certain consequences – he says he will follow wherever God leads.  That’s enough to prevent an atheist from approaching the question at all.  For an atheist would say, “Hang on a minute, I only said I was prepared to find out if God exists, I didn’t say I would follow him if he does!”

Perhaps this could be a more scientifically neutral version:

“Hypothetical God (HG), I need to phrase this question as if I am not talking to you, because by appearing to be talking to you, I am introducing confirmation bias.  Therefore, let HG be a possibility.  If HG exists, and HG wants me to know HG exists, HG will presumably let me know in no uncertain terms.  I reserve the right to refuse to respond to HG, should HG’s presence become apparent.”

Something we haven’t discussed yet is what [hypothetical] God might have to say about the Scientific Method as a way of approaching Him.  Would God even bother to answer someone who has the audacity to approach Him in a way that objectifies Him?   Where is the love?  As an analogy, imagine an adopted son who wanted to find out who his birth mother was, but only wanted to know if she was alive and had no intention of meeting and getting to know her.  If the birth mother came to find out that her son was asking questions with this attitude and not with a genuine desire to get to know her, would there be any point in responding?  Would she not be hurt?  In the same vein, isn’t treating God like a science experiment just plain rude?  Well, this is where it might get interesting.  God is a God of surprises, and he doesn’t avoid painful situations (witness the crucifixion).  What’s more, he knows the inmost working of our hearts.  He always responds in the way that is most appropriate for the particular soul.  If He sees that the soul in question would make progress if He responds, then respond He will.  But if he sees that the soul who is half-heartedly seeking him needs more character formation before his heart is in the right place to receive an answer, then he will no doubt first give him some character-building experiences in his life.

There’s a whole lot more to be said on exactly how we hear God and how God speaks to us, but I’ll have to save that for another post.

Readings for Christ the King

Word format: year-c-christ-the-king-2016

Pdf format: year-c-christ-the-king-2016


by Leave a comment

26th Sunday, Year C | Overcoming Indifference

rich-man-and-lazarus-codex-aureus_epternacensis

The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Illumination from the Codex Aureus of Echternach, 1035-1040, German National Museum, Nürnberg. Top panel: Lazarus at the rich man’s door Middle panel: Lazarus’ soul is carried to Paradise by two angels; Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom Bottom panel: Dives’ soul is carried off by two devils to Hell; Dives is tortured in Hades.

This week’s Gospel from Luke 16 should be compulsory reading for all.  Jesus tells a parable in which he contrasts a poor man, Lazarus, ‘covered with sores’, who goes hungry and unnoticed outside the gate of a rich man who enjoys a life of ease and comfort.  After the rich man dies, he finds himself in torment in Hades, not because of any particular cruelty he has meted out, but merely because he has been totally indifferent to the suffering of the man who lay at his gate.  Abraham says to him, “My son, remember that during your life good things came your way, just as bad things came the way of Lazarus.  Now he is being comforted while you are in agony.”

It’s easy in a country like Australia which has an advanced system of welfare and safety nets, to avoid being confronted with real poverty.  And sometimes, social welfare systems are so generous that they have the unintended effect of cementing and rewarding dysfunctional behaviours.  Hence the current conversation about whether school attendance should be a requirement for receiving family welfare.  But it is largely because Australia was founded on the sort of Judaeo-Christian principles explained in this parable and in the first reading from the prophet Amos, that it has had such a commitment to justice and a fair go for everyone.

At the moment I am in Cape Town, South Africa, where it almost impossible to be unaware of the poor around you, and there is a huge gulf between the haves and the have-nots.  I am well aware that I am more like the rich man in the parable when I am visiting here, so I am making an effort not to be indifferent.

On my way to Mass in the morning, I pass by a small park where I used to play as a child.  In this park lives a woman called Ursula, often accompanied by her friend Anthony.  Both Ursula and Anthony have mental health problems.  As I arrive, Anthony is sweeping the soil around the park bench, behind which is a bundle of plastic bags containing all their worldly goods.

“Good morning, Ursula.  How are you today?”  “Hello lady.  Can’t complain.”  “It looks as if it might rain today.  Where do you go if it rains?”  “I stay here.  I come from Somerset East, but I live here now.”  “I can see someone has given you some chicken.  Are you going to cook it?”  “No it’s cooked already.”  (It looks raw and it still in a polystyrene meat tray.)  “Oh well, here’s a sandwich for your breakfast, if you like.”  “Thank you, lady, I appreciate it.” “Hope you have a lovely day.”

Then there is Martin, who has come to South Africa from the DRC.  Every morning, Martin comes to Mass at Nazareth House, and picks up a sandwich from the nuns at the convent in exchange for some light duties.  After Mass, Martin walks up the steep hill to the Kwikspar, wheeling his travel luggage behind him, and all the way, carrying on a lively conversation with himself in French.  I think the Kwikspar might give away some out-of-code items.  At night, Martin stays at one of the homeless shelters which fortunately are available in this area for those who want to make use of them.

The third friend I have made here is one of the carers at Nazareth House.  I will call her Nomandla (not her real name).  Nomandla’s problem is an example of the structural problems in the South African wage system.  For 15 twelve-hour days a month, Nomandla earns R3,000 (that’s about AUD300).  So her weekly wage is approximately R750 or $75.  How is this possibly a living wage?  Nomandla is also supporting her son, who is studying at UWC to be a lawyer and will graduate in 2018.  Nomandla has a grade 12 education, but because of family circumstances, never had the opportunity to study further.  She would like to upgrade her skills and study nursing as soon as her son has graduated.  I am hoping I can help Nomandla achieve this goal.  If anyone is interested in this, I like the idea of direct action without going through all the administration costs involved in charitable donations, so please contact me.

I should also mention that Catholic Welfare and Development have a number of outreach programs here in the Western Cape, if you would like to donate to them.

Today’s readings:

Word format: year-c-26th-sunday-2016

Pdf format: year-c-26th-sunday-2016


by Leave a comment

14th Sunday, Year C | Our Binary Option

Seventy Apostles Russian Icon

Cathedral of 70 Apostles (miniature from the Greek-Georgian Manuscripts , XV century ). Собор 70 апостолов (миниатюра из греко-грузинской рукописи, XV век).

We all have a fundamental choice, and it’s not complicated.  Imagine your life as a computer program.  At every moment, God presents you with certain choices.  It’s up to you to decide what you do.  The fact that you’re given a choice is a good thing.  It means that God is not trying to compel you – he respects your freedom.  But it’s not the freedom to choose as such that decides your outcome, it’s the actual choice you make that determines where you end up: heaven or hell.

Let’s take as an example the towns Jesus is sending the 72 apostles to this week.  They are travelling from Galilee to Jerusalem via Samaria, announcing that the kingdom is at hand.  Jesus is ‘gathering the tribes’ as prophesied in Isaiah 11:12 “He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

The people in these towns have the fundamental option of welcoming the apostles or rejecting them.  It’s that simple.  Now maybe some of the people are naturally fearful of strangers, or possibly Samaritan haters of Jews.  No wonder our Lord instructs the disciples to make their first statement “Peace to this house”.  But Jews in general (and also Samaritans) followed the Pentateuch, which clearly states the principles of hospitality, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia.

The “ger,” the sojourner who lived with a Hebrew family or clan, was assured by the Biblical law not only of protection against oppression (Ex. xxiii. 9) and deceit (Lev. xix. 33), but also of love from the natives (Deut. xvi. 14), who were to love him even as themselves (Lev. xix. 34).

So, when the apostles report back, it seems that many of the towns have in fact been welcoming to them and accepted the proclamation of the Kingdom:

The seventy-two came back rejoicing!

We understand that some did actually reject Christ and his apostles, for he says,

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.”

We’re all afraid of evangelizing our friends and families, because we’re fundamentally afraid of rejection.  Stop worrying and start obeying Jesus.  Yes, our families may choose to reject us.  But keep trying in various ways, and go as a man of peace, and not as an argumentative spirit, and the Holy Spirit will open hearts and minds wherever there is an opportunity.

Concrete example: every night I do some spiritual reading on the Saint of the next day.  On Thursday night, I read about St Thierry, who died on 1 July, 533.  I happen to know someone called Thierry, and thought, “Wouldn’t it be amazing if he happened to ring on 1 July.  I could tell him about this saint!”  Now I usually only hear from Thierry about half a dozen times a year, and it’s always in a work context.  But lo and behold, at 12 o’clock on Friday, my mobile rang and who should it be but Thierry himself, so I was able to carry out my plan by sending him a link to this saint’s life story.  (Fortunately, he reads French.)  I’m always amazed when God creates these opportunities.

Jesus says in Luke 10: ‘Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me.’  The more you give people the opportunity of listening to you explain the kingdom of God, the more likely they are to move towards the option of following Christ themselves.  And don’t we want everyone to be able to ‘rejoice that their names are written in heaven’?

Today’s readings:

Word format: Year C 14th Sunday 2016

Pdf format: Year C 14th Sunday 2016


by Leave a comment

11th Sunday in Ordinary Time | The Deepest Desire of Our Hearts

Rothermel Thou Art the Man David and Nathan

Thou Art The Man [King David with Nathan the Prophet], Peter Frederick Rothermel, 1884, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia.

Today’s Communion Antiphon is one of my favourite verses in the Bible, and there’s a story to why this verse became important to me:

There is one thing I ask of the Lord, only this do I seek: to live in the house of the Lord all the days of my life. (Psalm 27(26):4)

Back in about 1977, when I was seventeen, I decided to read the Bible cover to cover.  It wasn’t as if I didn’t know the Bible, as I had been a churchgoer all my life, but it’s one thing to hear homilies and the Mass readings in a disjointed way, and quite another to read the Bible as a continuous narrative, albeit a narrative in a number of different genres.

What struck me, when I read the Bible like this, was the seriousness with which God takes our sin and disobedience.  Each person’s life is like a quest where even the tiniest decisions determine the state of one’s soul, the course of one’s life, and then finally, the fate of one’s soul in the afterlife.

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14) 

What I wanted was certainty that I was on the right path.  It’s very easy to live a double life – to think you’re on the right path, but to be blind to your own faults.  I could see that I was living a life of relative comfort, while in the same street homeless people were sleeping on park benches.   I could see that most of my day to day activities revolved around pleasing myself, rather than helping others.  I was sure God expected more of me, and I worked myself up into a state of great anxiety wondering whether I would ever be able to walk the narrow way.  I was aware that many of the Protestant churches play down the importance of our actions (works), and attribute salvation entirely to our faith, but reading the Bible made it clear to me that this was only half the story: works are important too!  (For more on this, see Faith – what must we do to be saved.)

It was in this frame of mind that I kept asking God, “Please give me some assurance that you will help me to inherit eternal life!  Because I definitely don’t want to miss out on eternal life through my own selfishness, laziness, stupidity and ignorance.  I just want to know that I won’t end up in hell.”

How times have changed: I can’t think of anyone I know who actually worries about this question any more and talks about it.  But I’ve heard people say they would rather be in hell than have to obey a God who allows the possibility for hell to exist.  Go figure.  Maybe this is because they haven’t had hell explained to them accurately.  But God has to have somewhere to put souls who have self-selected not to love him during their earthly lives.

Bishop Robert Barron explains hell here:

Anyway, around that time, I had entered a Nazareth House knit-a-thon.  Nazareth House was the Convent across the road which provided housing and care for abandoned children and the aged, and they were going to use the knitted strips to make blankets for the needy.  I remember pestering everyone at work to sponsor me a certain amount of money per knitted row.  And I ended up winning the competition (surprisingly, as I am a terrible knitter), so the Nuns gave me a small prize, which included a prayer card with a special message:

There is one thing I ask of the Lord, only this do I seek: to live in the house of the Lord all the days of my life. (Psalm 27(26):4)

It was as if God was giving me his personal assurance not to worry, and to keep persevering in my walk with him.  I still have this card, which is so precious to me for its reminder that God wants to have a conversation with us and answer the deepest desires of our hearts.

For a great homily on today’s readings, try this one – yes, we have God’s grace, but it doesn’t come cheap.  David discovered this in today’s first reading, where God sends Nathan to point out to David his hypocrisy and contempt for the Lord.

Today’s readings:

Word format: Year C 11th Sunday 2016

Pdf format: Year C 11th Sunday 2016

 

 


by Leave a comment

The Most Holy Trinity, Year C | Beyond words (almost)

Trinity-Icon-Andrej-Rublev

Holy Trinity Icon, Andrei Rublev, 1411-27, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Apologies for the lateness of this post, but we had our first big winter front come through and were without power for most of the day.  The electricity being out, we also had to re-locate our Mass from Yanchep to the Presbytery in Two Rocks, where all fourteen of us snuggled up in the Chapel at the back of the house.  This is one of the most cheerful chapels I have seen, because Fr Augustine, in typical style, has furnished it with a profusion of the most brightly coloured flowers and candles to be had in plastic.  Not ideal according to canon law, but I am sure Our Lord will excuse us due to the small number of volunteers available, and it’s a kind of glorious celebration of our poverty.

Anyway, today we celebrate the Most Holy Trinity, and Fr A’s homily got to the heart of the matter:

  1. The Trinity is a mystery.
  2. Don’t fret if you can’t understand it. The main thing is that you can join, with the angels and saints, in a spirit of gratitude, glorifying the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

There’s a lot to be said for this approach, because it’s too easy to botch a homily on the Trinity, if you’re not a philosophy major.  But understanding the Trinity, even a little bit, is vitally important if you want to understand God as a God of Covenantal Love, with the humans as family, rather than say, the Islamic understanding of God as Master, with the humans as slaves.

The Mystery of God is much greater than mere human words and thoughts can explain.  And humans tend not to be very precise with words, particularly where vested interests try to capture the word market.

If I were to give some advice to priests about homilies on the Trinity, I would say:

  1. Please don’t confuse the Catholic use of the word, person, with our everyday use of the word people. My friends at the Church of Christ have a very hard time of it describing the trinity because they don’t have the theological vocabulary to make this distinction.  When we’re talking about God, we use the word person to distinguish the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.   Make it clear to the congregation that person in this sense is more like an independent consciousness, while God at the same time is one divine essence.  Remember God is not a human, he does not fit into human categories, as he is the ultimate Cause of Everything.
  2. Please define your terms. I have heard some woolly and ill-defined homilies about ‘the Spirit of the Father’, the ‘Spirit of the Son’, the ‘Spirit of the Spirit’.  Note that there is only one Spirit in God – the Holy Spirit -which proceeds from the Father and the Son.  Stop dividing the Holy Spirit into a kind of exploding fractal.
  3. Please don’t describe God as ‘a being’. This makes God sound like another creature in the universe.  He is totally other than all created ‘beings’, and therefore requires a different language, perhaps in the end, the ‘I am’ of Exodus comes closest.
  4. Try not to be an Arian in your use of language. Arius thought that God created Jesus, and that Jesus didn’t exist prior to his incarnation.  My Church of Christ friends (sorry to pick on you again!) say things like, “God sent Jesus” when they really mean “the Father sent Jesus”.  We need to use language which reflects our Trinitarian understanding more accurately and emphasises the Love between the Father and the Son.
  5. Avoid Modalism. This is where the different hypostases of the Trinity are just God appearing in different forms, like the Marvel shape-shifter Mystique who pops up in different forms whenever its useful to her.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is well worth reading when it comments on our understanding of the Trinity, and I quote it in large chunks here:

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. [83] The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” [84] In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.” [85]

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” [86] “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” [87] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” [88] The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” [89] Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” [90] “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.” [91]

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople: Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendour. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . [92]

  1. THE DIVINE WORKS AND THE TRINITARIAN MISSIONS

257 “O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!” [93] God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the “plan of his loving kindness”, conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: “He destined us in love to be his sons” and “to be conformed to the image of his Son”, through “the spirit of sonship”. [94] This plan is a “grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”, stemming immediately from Trinitarian love. [95] It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church. [96]

258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.” [97] However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are”. [98] It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.

259 Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known both what is proper to the divine persons, and their one divine nature. Hence the whole Christian life is a communion with each of the divine persons, without in any way separating them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him. [99]

260 The ultimate end of the whole divine economy is the entry of God’s creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity. [100] But even now we are called to be a dwelling for the Most Holy Trinity: “If a man loves me”, says the Lord, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him”: [101] O my God, Trinity whom I adore, help me forget myself entirely so to establish myself in you, unmovable and peaceful as if my soul were already in eternity. May nothing be able to trouble my peace or make me leave you, O my unchanging God, but may each minute bring me more deeply into your mystery! Grant my soul peace. Make it your heaven, your beloved dwelling and the place of your rest. May I never abandon you there, but may I be there, whole and entire, completely vigilant in my faith, entirely adoring, and wholly given over to your creative action. [102]

The Catholic Church. The Catechism Of The Catholic Church (Kindle Locations 1164-1168).  . Kindle Edition.

Readings for today:

Word format:Year C Trinity Sunday 2016

Pdf format:Year C Trinity Sunday 2016


by Leave a comment

4th Sunday of Advent, Year C | Loving Our Mother

Visitation Clyde Monastery

The Visitation, mosaic, nave of Clyde Monastery, Missouri, USA.

No time for writing much today, as I’ve had to do my Christmas shopping! Others have done a much better job so I will point you in their direction:

  1. John Bergsma explains why the Catholic veneration of Mary is completely scriptural, based on today’s readings.
  2. Bishop Barron has a homily for today which asks us to look at our part in God’s theo-drama.  (Didn’t you know you are an actor in a great play and that it’s not all about you?  Best to get in touch with the Director, so that you can understand your part!)
  3. And even National Geographic realises that Mary is the world’s most powerful woman!

The readings for today are here:

Word format: Year C 4th Sunday of Advent 2015

Pdf format: Year C 4th Sunday of Advent 2015

For Christmas Mass times, go here.

And a very happy 21st birthday to Alistair Mungo Fleming (16th December) who may well be the first person in the Yanchep to Lancelin Pastoral Area to have been baptised here as a baby and still be an active member of our Pastoral Area at the age of 21.  Well done, Alistair!


by 1 Comment

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B | How to read the story of Adam and Eve

Catholic weddingCrucial to interpreting The Bible correctly is our understanding of genre.  Many people abandon the Bible, because they can’t reconcile Genesis with evolutionary theory.  But if we can get rid of two major hangups first, Genesis becomes more-easily interpretable to the modern ear.

  1. Genre.  The first few chapters of Genesis are a kind of theological poetry or myth-drama.  ‘Myth’ here is used in the technical sense, not the popular one.  As in any legal document, I have to define my terms here to prevent misunderstandings.

Myth: popular meaning = a fantasy story which is unrelated to truth or fact.

Myth: technical meaning = supernatural or fantasy-like stories that explain reality and natural truths.

(for more on this, read Peter Kreeft’s chapter on The Bible: Myth or History? in his Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, where he gives six definitons of myth.)

So when looking at today’s first reading, ask yourself, “What theological truths is this trying to teach me?”

  1. Reconciling Evolution and Scripture. By the grace of God, the Catholic church has never been against evolutionary theory, but has only placed limits on its scope.  From Dr Edward Feser:

On the subject of human origins, both the Magisterium and Thomist philosophers have acknowledged that an evolutionary explanation of the origin of the human body is consistent with non-negotiable theological and philosophical principles.  However, since the intellect can be shown on purely philosophical grounds to be immaterial, it is impossible in principle for the intellect to have arisen through evolution.  And since the intellect is the chief power of the human soul, it is therefore impossible in principle for the human soul to have arisen through evolution.  Indeed, given its nature the human soul has to be specially created and infused into the body by God — not only in the case of the first human being but with every human being.  Hence the Magisterium and Thomist philosophers have held that special divine action was necessary at the beginning of the human race in order for the human soul, and thus a true human being, to have come into existence even given the supposition that the matter into which the soul was infused had arisen via evolutionary processes from non-human ancestors.

I would highly recommend this two-part outline of the Church’s approach to human origins by Dr Feser.

Part 1: Knowing an Ape from Adam

Part 2: Monogenism or Polygenism?: The Question of Human Origins

Having got these points out of the way, we can now turn to today’s readings and focus on what God is trying to tell us – for which I will refer you to some great commentaries on the beauty of sexuality, love and responsibility, love and children.  Enjoy!

Bishop Robert Barron: Sexuality, Love and Marriage

Michael Barber: The Two Shall Become One Flesh

John Bergsma: God loves Marriage and Children

Edward Sri: Theology of the Body from Eden to Today

Today’s readings:

Word format: Year B 26th Sunday 2015

Pdf format: Year B 26th Sunday 2015