Jesus Himself knows that anyone who stands for actual peace and real justice will be greeted often not with acclamation but with persecution. He, again, is the foremost example.
What makes righteousness so repulsive to certain powers-that-be in the world as to inspire persecution against those who practice it?
Righteousness, in the sense that Christ uses it here, means the practice of one's life in accordance to what God wants. That means standing up for real peace, not just "peace and quiet." It means giving ultimate homage to Jesus alone and no one and nothing else. But powers today, just as did powers in the first century, demand exclusive loyalty from people who refuse to give it to anyone but Christ.
Especially in a society that recognizes the free practice of religion, we can be thankful that the penalties we face for dedicating our utmost loyalty to God alone are minor by comparison. But in other parts of the world followers of Christ continue to pay the ultimate price.
It is widely accepted conventional wisdom that being persecuted or discriminated against is part and parcel of being different and therefore often misunderstood. If anyone is called to live their lives in a startlingly different way, it is the Christian.
As I've previously said, in a world marked by sin, there can be no love of righteousness that does not carry with it some manner of marginalization or discrimination. Jesus says that such persecution is a gift -- or at least it is the sign of a gift. The saying goes, "If you're not taking flak, you're not over the target." If we're not living our lives in a radical way for Jesus, then we may avoid making enemies, but we may also miss a chance to be truly blessed with the friendship of the One who matters most.
]]>In order to understand the term "peacemaker," we must understand the term "peace."
"Peace." What do you think of when you hear that word? Here's the wikipedia definition:
Peace (symbol: ☮) is a quality describing a society or a relationship that is operating harmoniously. This is commonly understood as the absence of hostility, or the existence of healthy or newly-healed interpersonal or international relationships, safety in matters of social or economic welfare, the acknowledgment of equality and fairness in political relationships and, in world matters, peacetime; a state of being absent of any war or conflict.
And here is the Catholic definition, which is found in the Catechism in paragraphs 2304 and 2305:
Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."
Notice: the Catholic definition of peace includes justice. It is called the work of justice. More secular understandings of peace tend to be more preoccupied with the appearance of peace without the work that is sometimes necessary in order to ensure the actual peace that comes only when justice is achieved. Many who say they want peace in this world really just want "peace and quiet."
If we really want to make the kind of peace to which Christ calls us, it will not do merely to avoid "conflict," in fact it somtimes may require that we dive right into conflict, that we speak difficult truths in hostile environments, that we live and behave in ways considered taboo, not for the purpose of offending others or calling attention to ourselves but simply because it is right.
It is not that we seek conflict for its own sake. But in a world marked by sin and injustice, there can be no imitation of Christ, no love of justice or peace, that does not give rise to conflict.
Christ Himself provides the perfect model for this. He came to establish justice and peace. But in another sense He understood that His coming into the world would give rise to conflict and even violence. He said "I came not to bring peace but a sword."
He wasn't claiming to be a warlord. He was making clear that to be a peacemaker is not simply to run from conflict and ignore injustice. It is to stare injustice in the face and say no. It is to stand one's ground and at times patiently endure injury and violence, as He did, for the sake of true justice and true peace. Christ did not run from conflict. Christ drove the money changers out of the temple, called the religious leaders of the time "hypocrites," and called one of His own best friends "Satan." Why? Because that friend wanted Jesus to run from the violence and conflict that comes from standing up for peace.
The key is always to respond to the conflict with charity, as Christ did. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," He would say as he endured the unfathomable violence of the crucifixion.To work for peace in such a way, as He did, is to be a brother or sister to Him. Thus it is to share in His identity as a child of God.
]]>No more.
Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has proclaimed that her Democratic colleagues have some kind of higher duty to pass healthcare reform, even if it means ending their careers. So has President Barack Obama.
"[T]he American people need it," she said. "Why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."
Very noble. Of course, Pelosi is not in the awkward position of representing constituents who think nationalized healthcare reform is a bad idea. Her constituents are definitely more likely to re-elect her because they are just as uncompromisingly liberal as she is. But let's assume she's sincere in saying that her colleagues should sacrifice their political careers. Why is that so? Because she and other Democratic leaders believe it is The Right Thing To Do. In other words, they are legislating morality.
That is one assessment of the current situation. The other assessment is that Democrats believe that the quickest way to concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of the federal government is through people's medical care. Because through that you can control every aspect of people's lives. I can't disprove that, but, perhaps naively, I prefer to assume best attentions.
That supporters of nationalized healthcare reform think it's The Right Thing To Do explains their determination to "ram it down people's throats" no matter how much the people protest it, and no matter how obvious it may be that a vote for healthcare reform will effectively destroy one's chances of getting re-elected. Would some Republicans fall on the sword to pass major abortion-curtailing legislation, Roe v. Wade notwithstanding? Sure. This healthcare reform legislation is at that level for certain Democrats. It is so fundamental and dear to their hearts that at this point consent of the governed, and even consent of colleagues, is out the window.
But the people are opposed to healthcare reform not on coldly political grounds but moral grounds also. It's a huge tax increase. Although it has been painted as a glorious government bequest unto its people, it's a government taking. It forces people to buy something even if they don't want it. And if they already have it, it forces them to pay more for it, under the pretense that what they will get is better than what they have now. It places the next generation of Americans under tremendous debt. It may not even accomplish the extension of coverage to the supposedly 30 million people it claims. It would force taxpayers to pay for medical procedures to which they have deeply moral and religious objections, like abortion.
Supporters of the medical care overhaul will say that the government must intervene because so much uncompensated care is unsustainable. Conservatives agree that such a problem exists. The question, as Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin made plain at the healthcare summit on Thursday, is whether the federal government is competent to address that problem with one-size-fits-all legislation. Conservatives believe that allowing the people to develop market-based, private sector solutions would not only work better, it would also be the right thing to do.
President George H.W. Bush made the Christian virtue known as "prudence" nerdy when he used it during his administration. But it seems our elected officials could use more of this virtue, which dictates that we cannot achieve good works solely through the righteousness of our intentions. We have to smartly channel those intentions in ways that can be effective.
]]>To be clean of heart (or "pure of heart" in classical translations) is to see the world as God sees it. Great Catholic writer Frank Sheed used the analogy of the sunrise. The beautiful thing about a sunrise is not just the sun itself but the fact that you can see that light of the sunrise all over everything else: on trees, cars, house, animals. People. To be pure of heart is to see that light of God when we behold any part of hs Creation, particularly a person.
Again, like mercy, we think of cleanness or "purity" as passively or even lazily keeping our noses clean. But purity is a challenge. We have to be actively pure. Purity means that not only do we actively do what God would have us do, but we do it with the right motivations in our hearts. We love and serve others because when we look at them, we see the Christ within them. We see that they are created to be sons and daughters of God. The love of Christ must be the driving force behind everything we do. But it starts with how we see the world, and the people in it. We have to see as God sees.
How do we see as God sees? It starts with famiiarizing ourselves with the data that we have on God, in the form primarily of his revealed Word. The first thing we notice in Genesis is that God saw His creation, particular Man and Woman, as "very good."
It takes work and patience to grow even a tad familiar with God's own vision of humanity and the world, but it is worth it. Although one is tempted to think that "seeing God" is a reward for seeing as God sees, I would suggest it is a natural consequence of seeing the world through the eyes of God. If I see the world more and more with God's eyes, and recognize that my eyes are not mine but His, then the more I will be reminded of Him every place I go and in every person I meet. And after a lifetime of that, I will have been prepared to see God not just dimly through the written Word or through my experience of other people pointing the way to Him, but face to face in Heaven.
]]>Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin slammed the claims that the bill, which he said was "full of gimmicks and smoke and mirrors," reduces the deficit over time. "Hiding spending does not reduce spending," he said.
The big difference, he said, was that the Republicans who oppose the bill believe the U.S. government should not take a command and control approach, but rather leave it to individuals and the marketplace which they constitute to find market-based solutions to the problems of healthcare costs.
The assessment of the National Review Online's Steve Spruiell was that the supporters of the healthcare legislation engaged in "ducking and dodging" in response to Ryan's critique.
Earlier this week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had some sobering words for Congress, essentially saying that this level of deficit spending is going to come back and bite this country's government, and the people who freely consent to it, in the collective posterior, the same way such debt recently has the country of Greece. He told Congress's big spenders that he would not help them by printing money to pay for the ballooning national deficit.
So, have supporters of Obamacare seen the light and decided to give a little? Nope.
Said Obama:
"The truth of the matter is that politically speaking, there may not be any reason for Republicans to want to do anything," Obama said, summing up. "I don't need a poll to know that most Republican voters are opposed to this bill and might be opposed to the kind of compromise we could craft."And if we can't," he added, "I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, and then that's what elections are for. "
In other words, he's going to hang his colleagues in his political party out to dry, forcing them to take vote after damning vote on an issue that they all know is now toxic for them. And for a bill that many are already declaring dead. In his own mind, he probably thinks he doesn't owe them anything. Perhaps he thinks many of them rode his coat-tails into office anyway. That's the only explanation I can think of for such nonconsideration.
Few people if anyone think the Democrats have even a snowball's chance of growing their majorities or even minimizing their losses. Members of the mainstream press including David Gergen at MSNBC are even applauding Republicans.
Here's a piece from the Washington Times on the model statesmanship of President Obama:
President Obama pledged to "listen" at the outset of his much-ballyhooed bipartisan health care summit on Thursday. Turns out he meant he'd be listening to his own voice.By the end of the televised event, Mr. Obama had spoken for 119 minutes - nine minutes more than the 110 minutes consumed by 17 Republicans. The 21 Democratic lawmakers used 114 minutes, giving the president and his supporters a whopping 233 minutes, according to a "talk clock" kept by GOP aides.
From the beginning, no one could agree on anything, even how much time each side had used. When a miffed Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, pointed out early on that Democrats had controlled 52 minutes to Republicans' 24, Mr. Obama jumped in to dispute even that.
"I don't think that's quite right," he said.
But then, with a twinkle in his eye, he added: "You're right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because - I'm the president." Half the room laughed. "I didn't count my time in terms of dividing it evenly."
Now that's what I call "cowboy politics."
]]>I, for one, am getting tired.
It's not that I want to stop doing what I'm doing for Lent. It's just that there are times when I want to take a "break" for just a little while.
But isn't that how giving up always starts? We get a little tired and the devil offers that we just take a break. And then when we decide break time's over, the devil says, not that we don't ever need to return to doing the Lord's work, but rather, "You've got time. Do it tomorrow."
The genius of Jesus' incarnation was that he probably faced times like that as well. He shares in and understands our tiredness.
But Jesus constantly drew His strength from above. The problem is that we rely too much on ourselves to do what He has asked of us. In other words, we fail to "poor in spirit," and to be "meek." Only by focusing on Jesus and inviting his strength into our weakness can we persevere.
So the danger: Relying on ourselves too much leads to tiredness, which leads to taking a break, which becomes giving up. Let's fight the fire at the source. Rely not on our own strength but the strength that comes from the one who created us.
]]>This beatitude is different from the previous ones. In all the previous beatitudes, the gift which the blessed person receives is the opposite of that which defines him. Your poor in spirit, you inherit the riches of a kingdom. You mourn, you are comforted. You patiently endure injury, you inherit the comforts of the Promised Land.
In this beatitude, the gift the we received is like that which defines us. We are merciful, we will be shown mercy. It very closely hints at the golden rule, which Christ will go on in this same sermon to speak explicitly.
We may at first think that mercy is merely a negative precept -- that it constitutes not doing something to someone. If someone sins against me, the way for me to be merciful to him is to forgive him. That is certainly one part of being merciful, but really there are many different ways to show mercy -- known as the works of mercy. There are corporal works of mercy and spiritual works of mercy. For today I will focus on the spiritual. They are:
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.
Those first three put the lie to one particular error that I think some of us may have about mercy -- namely, that mercy is about refraining from ever challenging anyone. To be injured in some way by a friend or acquaintance and not admonish him is not mercy. In fact, it falls quite short of mercy. Mercy (in the sense of forgiveness) is about recognizing the offense and refusing to hold a grudge. But the offense is still an offense. And to fail to observe as much to the one perpetrating it is to allow him to continue to live a life hampered by sin. That is not mercy.
And all of these works of mercy are things that Jesus does. He instructs our ignorance, counsels our doubts, admonishes us when we sin, bears our wrongs patiently, forgives our sins willingly, comforts our afflictions, and hears our prayers for the living and the dead. But in order for all this to be "shown" to us, in order for us to really see it, we must do the same for others.
God's mercy challenges us. Our mercy should challenge others. God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us too much to let us stay that way. He wants us to be more like His Son, Jesus. We should be able to love ourselves just the way we are, but at the same time we must constantly struggle to be exactly who God created us to be, because that version of ourselves is the one most able to receive and reflect God's mercy to others. And of course we should love each other just the way we all are, yet constantly be inviting each other to become more like Jesus.
]]>One of my favorite beatitudes. Because everyone understands hunger. We feel it every day to some degree.
Hunger means we need something. We need food to keep our bodies from starving. If we go too long without food, we grow restless and uneasy. We get uncomfortable, even irritable. We become more prone to sickness or physical ailments like headaches. We weaken.
Just as our bodies hunger, our spirits hunger. If our spirits go without food too long, they weaken. Our spirits grow restless and uneasy, uncomfortable and irritable, more prone to inner sickness (think temptation and sin).
The key to avoiding that is, Jesus says, righteousness. That means that it is not enough just to keep our noses clean and avoid wrongdoing. If all we do is go through life trying to avoid sin, then eventually sin will find us wherever we are hiding. We will find ourselves not fulfilled, not satisfied. It's not enough just to not drink poison. If we get thirsty enough, we'll drink sulfuric acid. If we avoid sin but do not replace it with something that satiates the desires of our hearts, the desires that God has placed within us, then eventually we will settle.
Sex is a great example. It's a deep hunger that many people have, God knows. God gave us those desires. The Church has many examples of sinful ways of satisfying the sexual appetite. Most of us know what they are. Many people believe such prohibitions are unreasonable. The truth is they are perfectly reasonable and eminently wise. The problem is what's missing. The problem is that we have forgotten in many ways how to satisfy our sexual appetites -- again appetites that are from God Himself -- without resorting to these sinful methods. We've forgotten how to really relate to one another as men and women. We've forgotten how to appreciate and embrace the things that make us different and the things that make us fit together so beautifully. So when the Church tells us we must not do things like have intercourse outside of marriage or self-gratify, we think the Church is telling us to starve ourselves. Not so. The Church is inviting us to pursue what really satisfies, not what tides us over for a time but has poisonous long-term consequences.
We have to actively seek out opportunities to do what is right -- to love our neighbors as Christ loves us. We have to search like starving people, because the truth is we are starving. We need to find opportunities to love other people, and to show our love for God above all. We have to make it so there is no room in our lives for sin, because when we are living on a truly healthy and holy appetite, if we have truly loving relationships and are truly serving others, then we won't hunger for anything else.
Because why compromise? Why settle for anything less? Righteousness satisfies.
]]>I have always had a difficult time understanding this particular beatitude. On the surface, it makes about as much sense to me as "Blessed are the lame, for they will take over the world." Obviously that is not what the actual beatitude says, it just sounds like that to me sometimes.
My confusion I think comes down to two ambiguous terms in it: "meek" and "the land."
"The land" is relatively simple -- it means the Kingdom of God, the entirety of gift that God wishes to give us. Think of the Old Testament "Promised Land."
For one, what is meek? What does a meek person look like? What does a meek person not look like?
Feeling quite lame, just now I looked up the term in the dictionary, and discovered that it has three meanings. One is "deficient in spirit or courage." At first I am inclined to think this may not work very well with the beatitude. But then I must remember that the psalm does not say the meek will "conquer" the land. It says they will "inherit" it -- i.e. that it will be given to them by one who is more powerful. Remembering that, the language of the beatitude is more credible, but only if the one who is "meek" submits to God in order to find greater courage.
Another meaning is "not violent or strong." This one too just makes a person sound weak and flimsy.
The first meaning listed is "enduring injury with patience and without resentment." Now this is something I can wrap my mind around. Jesus Himself was certainly a model of meekness in this sense. The ability to endure injury with patience and without resentment is the opposite of weak, the opposite of being deficient in courage. It takes real strength to endure injury at the hands of others with patience and without resentment.
So a "meek" person isn't some scrawny, helpless little man-child. It is a strong tower of a person who can take whatever anybody can dish out, patiently and without losing his temper. That is Jesus, right there.
The irony is that that kind of strength only comes from deference and submission to God. St. Paul says, "Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong."
The Israelites recorded in the Old Testament wandering the desert for 40 years in search of the Promised Land had to be meek in order to inherit it. They had to endure injury with patience and without resentment. Jesus invites us to share in his meekness, so that we can inherit the Promised Land that His perfect endurance of suffering has made accessible.
]]>Well now the latest proposal, straight from the White House, apparently is coffing up even more tax dollars to pay for abortions through its funding of "community health centers," like Planned Parenthood.
If abortion really was the factor that halted Obama's vision of nationalized healthcare reform last year, and I think the case can be made that it was, then he is only hurting his chances of getting something, anything, passed. As the Cato Institute observes:
Abortion may be the one issue that Democrats care about more than health care. Democrats may therefore prefer to let ObamaCare die than violate their principles on abortion. One can imagine pro-life Democrats saying, Health reform, yes -- but not at the expense of the unborn, just as one can imagine pro-choice Democrats saying, Health reform yes -- but not at the expense of a woman's right to choose.]]>
No matter which way ObamaCare comes down on abortion, the legislation could lose enough House Democrats to fall short of the 218 votes needed to win.
This is the second beatitude. For some reason, I'm reminded of what is basically the opposite phrase, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints." This old adage always struck me as 1) a veiled justification for being satisfied with a mediocre life, and 2) inaccurate.
And it's inaccuracy is itself twofold. First it distinguishes saints from sinners. WIth the exception of one Saint, Jesus' Mother, saints are sinners. There is no flesh and blood saint alive today who is not keenly aware of his own sinfulness. That is why he mourns in the first place.
Saints do not mourn because of their lack of fortune. As we know from the first beatitude, lack of fortune, or "poverty," is in the spiritual sense a good thing. What saints mourn is our brokenness beause of sin, and the brokenness of this world because of death. "They who mourn" are simply those who recognize the stain of sin on their hearts, and that they and their loved ones are destined for a death that was not intended. Jesus Himself mourned at this reality.
Acknowledging our brokenness is quite different from recognizing that without God we are nothing. Adam knew that he was nothing without God before he sinned for the first time. In fact, he probably recognized his nothingness without God better before his fall than afterward.
It is because of sin and death that we mourn, and we are "blessed" when we do because it is better to acknowledge an undeniable truth -- even if it upsets us -- than to ignore it for the sake of keeping up a pretentious smily face.
There are two kinds of happiness in the world: the happiness that comes from constantly trying to forget about the difficult realities that deep down we know we can't escape, like knowing we will die someday; and the happiness that comes from acknowledging it, and then finding that when we acknowledge, we find a deeper comfort than we could ever have had otherwise. It's the comfort that comes from Jesus. By acknowledging our brokenness, we open ourselves up to the comfort of His healing power. But we have to mournfully acknowledge it, like a patient who goes to see a doctor. If the patient refuses to admit that he is dying of cancer, he will continue to sleep with cigarettes in his mouth and refuse chemotherapy. And he will die. If he acknowledges his brokenness, then there is a shot that he will be fixed.
This is the other big confusion about "laughing with sinners." Under which of the above circumstances is the patient likely to laugh more sincerely for a longer time? Not if he refuses to acknowledge the problem. In that case he likely to suffer longer, and more needlessly. It is the man who gets treatment who has more chance to live an exciting and fulfilling life. In the same way, one who "mourns" is not destined to spend the rest of his days crying.
The comfort of God is what gives us our greatest capacity for joy and laughter. Saints aren't just a bunch of old people who sit around crying all day. Having met a couple of living saints, what I can say about all of them is that they are full of life. They have a tremendous capacity for joy and laughter, far more than the cynic who dismisses a life of honor and virtue because he would rather laugh dishonestly for the rest of his life than cry honestly for a short time and laugh for eternity.
]]>The Heritage Foundation has observed:
In reality, there are a number of reasons why health insurers raise their rates, and so-called "insurer price-gouging" is one of the least likely causes. The biggest reason is growth in the price and volume of medical care that the plans pay for. If policyholders consume more medical care and/or if doctors and hospitals charge higher fees, then insurers must--obviously--raise their premiums to cover the added costs.
The chances of it passing are not much better this time around, probably because observers and elected officials, and pretty much everyone, see this "new" plan as basically more of the same from the president. The same $1,000,000,000,000 spent over the same ten years, to supposedly extend coverage to 31 million currently uninsured people. The Associated Press calls it "starting over," even though Obama himself has said that simply starting over was not going to happen.
The president called the upcoming healthcare reform summit a "test" of Washington's ability to "solve problems".
Obama often talks about "solving problems," which is common and by no means new in the liberal progressive vernacular. Stanford Economics professor and conservative political pundit Thomas Sowell has written a lot about this topic. Liberal progressives will often talk about "solving problems" categorically rather than incrementally. Sorry, English: solving a problem categorically means eliminating it completely. That's Obamacare. It's universal health coverage for everybody while driving down costs.
Sowell's point is that this view of problem-solving is dubious because it ignores the fact that the universe is limited -- that we have a finite amount of time and resources and a very long list of undesirable situations. The choice to solve a problem in the liberal vision is to essentially support the use of enormous amounts of time and resources (like 10 years and $1 trillion) to not solve a myriad of other problems.
]]>The beatitudes are a serious of principles that Jesus taught to his followers, and this is the first, in my opinion because it is the most fundamental. The less "poor in spirit" we are, the less able we will be to be blessed in any other way.
In addition to being the most fundamental beatitude, it is also perhaps the most ironic. We have to be poor in order to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. When I think Kingdom, I think major bling. I think significant wealth. But it is only by being "poor in spirit" that I can inherit the significant wealth of Heaven. If I fill up my heart with the insignificant wealth of this world, there will be no room for what God wants me to have.
But what does "poor in spirit" mean? It means recognizing that we are nothing without God. It also means recognizing that no possessions that we may acquire, no lesser goods like notoriety or money, can give our lives the sense of meaning or joy that comes from being with God. Being poor in spirit means nothing else besides God preoccupies us.
Being poor in spirit means that we recognize that nothing else can make us happy -- that is, nothing can satisfy the deepest desires of our hearts -- other than Jesus. It doesn't mean that we must never enjoy any of the gifts that he wants us to have. Lent takes up only a little over ten percent of the calendar year. But none of those gifts can make us happy. Not even doing what God wants us to do can make us happy.
What does it take to be poor in spirit? In short, it takes letting go. It takes emptying ourselves, as Jesus did, of all the things that we rely on to give us joy and to keep us going -- whether it's our job (should we be blessed to have one) or our social life or whatever. Again, it doesn't mean we can't derive joy from these things, or be thankful to God for them. In fact, we should.
But there is only One who can occupy the very center of our hearts. That's Jesus, who himself gave us a model of spiritual poverty when He was being tempted by the devil in the desert, as Pope Benedict observed in his Angelus message on Sunday:
Of the three temptations of Jesus, the first "had its origin in hunger, in material want", said the Pope. "But Jesus responded with the words: 'One does not live by bread alone'". The second temptation came when the devil showed Christ all the kingdoms of the earth; this, the Holy Father explained, "is the lure of power which Jesus unmasked and rejected". To the third temptation, the proposal to perform a miracle that everyone might believe in Him, Jesus responded: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."Making constant reference to Holy Scripture", the Pope added, Jesus "made human criteria subject to the only true criterion: obedience to the will of God. This is a fundamental lesson for us too: if we carry the Word of God in our minds and hearts, if it enters our lives, then we too can reject all the tricks of the Tempter".
The devil (who did not know who Jesus truly was at that point) was tempting Jesus to put something other than his closeness to God first in His life. Jesus refuses.
Jesus says, "I cannot do anything on my own; I judge as I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me." Jesus constantly relied upon His Father, surrendering to Him. So we must constantly recognize that we are poor, that we have nothing spiritually to sustain us, to give us joy, to make us capable of loving. We have to constantly rely on Jesus.
He says "Without me you can do nothing." Jesus can love without me. He can love an eternity without me, and He has. He can love all of creation and the whole human race, without me. But I can't love in any real sense without Him. Recognizing that, every single day, is the key to inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven.
]]>Indeed, the very term "Washington" has become a sort of catch-all for bad ideas and red tape -- too bad for our nation's first president who helped guide our first armed forces to victory in the war for independence. President Obama has tried to portray himself as somehow above the Washington fray, mentioning Washington nine times in his most recent State of the Union Address, every time negatively. His first mention lamented that "Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems."
But he is not faring much better than the Washington establishment as a whole. His approval rating is 45 percent compared to 54 percent who disapprove, and those who strongly disapprove of his leadership outnumber those who strongly approve by 41 to 22.
This discontent translates to faith in government to handle the country's problems. Some 61 percent say the government should stay out of the housing market. Sixty-four percent of those polled believe government policies made it easier for people to purchase homes that they could not afford. In other words, in the minds of those polled, in Washington's zeal for "solving problems," it created new ones.
Only 28 percent of those polled believe the country is moving in the right direction. And -- most damning of all -- only 21 percent of those polled say the U.S. Government actually has the consent of the governed. The innovation of the United States Constitution was that it established a government that derived its authority from the consent of those governed. Some 71 percent view the government itself as a special interest group, and 70 percent think that government works together with big business in ways that hurt consumers, at a time when limited-government conservatives are hardly in any majority.
Now, in a strict technical sense, the government does have our consent. We voted these people into office. They have a mandate that derives from that fact that they won the last general election. But it is evident that the people feel that the spirit of the consent of the governend has been violated. People feel that they have made their voice heard loud and clear and Washington is just not listening. Healthcare is a prime example, as 61 percent believe it is time for the government to start over on reform. And 51 percent trust business leaders with economic decisions more than government officials. Even if I agreed with the prevailing policy proposals in Washington, I would think that those advancing them were doing a lousy job of explaining themselves.
Yet only 43 percent of those polled believe that Republicans would actually change things if they were voted into a majority, versus 32 percent who do not. If government is to regain ts credibility, it must do so not on the basis of party but on the basis of ideas. There is no reason why certain ideas, like low taxes, reduced spending, and basic fiscal responsibility cannot exist in each party. The problem is that in the eyes of many, such principles are non-existent in one party, and all too often abandoned in another.
The lack of trust in government may simply be an indicator that people believe the United States government is stretching outside of its intended scope, which has historically been understood to be insure the safety of its citizens, and protect their rights and liberties under the rule of law.
Conservative leaders across the country are looking to seize upon this documented lack of faith in the competence of our governing institutions by signing a document called the "Mt. Vernon Statement," named for George Washington's home. I'll be watching to see if its signatories can translate the statement of principles into actual policies that don't involve new spending or taxes and can stand a real chance of rebuilding the private sector to get real jobs into the hands of so many who are looking for them these days.
]]>It is Jesus in fact that you seek when you dream of happiness; he is waiting for you when nothing else you find satisfies you; he is the beauty to which you are so attracted; it is he who provokes you with that thirst for fullness that will not let you settle for compromise; it is he who urges you to shed the masks of a false life; it is he who reads in your hearts your most genuine choices, the choices that others try to stifle. It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be grounded down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.
There's a lot of confusion these days about what is meant by "happiness." Is it a feeling? Is it a state of mind? Or is it an objective state of being?
I can say confidently that happiness in the sense that John Paul II spoke about it is what happens to us when the deepest desires of our hearts are satisfied. One is happy not necessarily when one feels warm and fuzzy. In fact, happiness that comes with the satisfaction of our deepest, most powerful appetites can coincide with suffering that comes with the dissatisfaction of our lesser ones.
This kind of happiness, which overcomes any suffering we may face, is what Jesus calls being "blessed." The classical term for it is "beatitude."
That's what I'll be looking at for the next few days.
]]>