June 2010 Archives

Image via Wikipedia

I'm starting a new segment on this website as the first of, hopefully, many to kick-start Catholic Thinker back to active status. Each week, perhaps more often depending on what liturgies I attend during the week, I'll comment on my experience of the Sunday's Mass. Sometimes it'll be retelling what happened at that Mass, or a commentary that is based, more or less, on the events of that liturgy.

God-willing, it'll be mostly positive. It'll be real, however. If the Mass was uninspiring, I'll say so and why. If it was me and not the liturgy, I'll say that too.

This Sunday, I was in The Woodlands attending the older of the two Catholic parishes in the community. This isn't my home parish and I don't know anything about the clergy who shepherd the community.

A non-participating deacon gave the homily. Non-participating is my way to describe the practice of a priest or deacon offering the homily, then heading straight out of the church when they're finished. I'd submit that this is irregular and should not be a common practice.

I'll start by saying that we were late to Mass. A weird traffic light that never turned green followed by a couple of missed turns led us to entering during the first reading. We were far, far from the last ones in the church.

The Gospel today was a beautiful story of Jesus stating a simple truth--the person who sinned much and has been forgiven that many times over realize the power of God to heal in much more personal way than someone whose sins aren't "as bad."

A personal pet peeve of mine, which perhaps is way off-base, is when the homily seemingly ignores the readings. It may try to convey the same lesson, but nevertheless, it never directly discusses the actual readings of that Mass.

Our readings are beautiful, time-tested stories of our religious history and religious present through the lessons taught. Why are we so afraid of them? Why do we proclaim these readings, then ignore them and share another story that is far from biblical? (I'm willing to reconsider this thought when the priest or deacon shares a personal story that is applicable to the readings/liturgy.)

The homily should capitalize on the readings. The homily has this awesome place in our liturgy to take these timeless truths and timeless words and allow them to make sense in our present time and place. It isn't a sermon of a preacher sharing with us whatever topic makes sense at that moment.

The readings are truly a gift from God that are continually being gifted to us.

Is it just me? Am I expecting too much, or something not realistic, from the homily?

Image by John McNab via Flickr

I am a fan of the core thought behind Opus Dei--that all work is for God. In root, the main theory of this religious group is that all work, whether it be of a CEO or a janitor, is directed toward the glorification of God; therefore, all work can be sanctified.

Can all work be included? If a profession has two goals--one public and one private--and the public goal is truly a good goal, but the private goal is based on greed, can that work be sanctified?

The first thought that comes to mind is borrowed from the secular. Gordon Gekko from Wall Street is known to be the King of Green. For those who aren't familiar, the 1987 movie character has, perhaps, the best encouragement of greed in recent history. The famous scene can be seen on YouTube, but the moneyquote:

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

Of course, I find it safe to proclaim that Mr. Gekko is wrong and likewise, the private motivation of such a profession is also wrong. Greed, even if the intention of that greed (the well-being of the person's family) is good, is wrong. Work, by its very nature, demands a just wage to be paid for work and so the well-being of a family should, by the natural by-product of work, be satisfied without an artificial greed.

If we can judge the private goal as being detrimental to the common good, can the work be "saved" by the positive outcomes of the labor? Greed is not a requirement for those preforming the labor, although it is used as the carrot to keep them working. Can the worker ignore the carrot, ignore the quotas or production quantity standards, but do the labor for the greater good and the greater glory of God?

I submit that, if the good being produced and your personal methods of producing the wood are good, then yes. There is nothing opposing the sanctification of work toward the glory of God. There will be difficulty in turning out the voices of greed and it will be a temptation, but a strong spiritual life can focus and ground a person in such a profession.

Greed is never good. Greed is never truly productive toward the greater good. Greed is a virus that can infect someone doing actual good.