Tolerance” is for menial things like mosquitoes and traffic jams. When it comes to other human beings, let’s seek more.

.

Take a moment to think about the things in your life that you tolerate: your commute to work, heat waves, tax season. But every time I hear the word “tolerance” in relation to peers, beliefs, or opinions, I feel burdened and uncomfortable. The word does not evoke compassion or understanding. It creates a distance between me and the “other.” Tolerance, at its essence, is not inherently negative, as it is often the first step to improving tensions among people—tensions that may stem from class, religion, or ideology. But it is not enough.

The definition of tolerance can be a bit ambiguous. Tolerance can be defined by objectivity, lack of bigotry, and freedom of prejudice. Another definition is to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something without interference, even if it is something we don’t agree with or like. This definition also implies a power structure: one party “allows” the other to exist. The Latin origin of tolerance, tolerare, means to bear or endure, usually through some suffering. We endure the actions, beliefs, or opinions of others with whom we disagree instead of seeking a deeper understanding.

As the principal of a Jesuit elementary school, I strive for more than tolerance. Jesuit teaching calls for educators and students to seek magis, a Latin word that means “more” or “better.” I am called each day to go beyond tolerance and seek God in all things. If we simply allow ourselves to be tolerant, we stop short of truly embracing God through humanity.

At St. Aloysius School in Harlem, New York, where I work, my colleagues and I strive to seek magis through our daily interactions and school mission of helping students become young men and women for others. Only 20 percent of our students are Catholic. The majority is Protestant, and a growing number are Muslim. Through our recent workshops with The Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding this past year, we realized we have a great opportunity to practice our Jesuit ideals. We must learn more about the various faiths both in and out of our school so that we can, in turn, help our students become stronger in their own faith and accepting of others. By doing so, we will also develop more meaningful relationships with students and families of all backgrounds.

This does not mean that we disregard our school’s Catholic identity. We are still a Catholic institution whose educators will discuss and instill moral values through Catholic readings, texts, and traditions. But embracing the diverse range of faiths in our school community will help us engage our students more sincerely. It also provides opportunities to demonstrate the key similarities among world religions as well as how traditions can vary among different faiths.

If we want our students to become successful, they must become 21st Century Learners. 21^st Century learning includes skills like critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. If Catholic schools do not intentionally model this inquiry, how can we expect our students to be ready to effectively analyze, synthesize, collaborate, and create with people who are different?

Leave tolerance for menial things like mosquitoes, traffic jams, and flight delays. Let’s seek magis and embrace the opportunity to acknowledge each other as fellow human beings.

Daniel Perez is the principal of St. Aloysius School in Harlem, New York.

- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201510/tolerance-isnt-enough-30424?utm_source=October+24%2C+2015&utm_campaign=ebulletin+October+24%2C+2015&utm_medium=email#sthash.uC0KeS9E.dpuf

.The problem with biblical justifications for divorce What does the Bible really say?

By Father Paul Keller, C.M.F.| .

 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! It is better, we are told, to live blind and maimed than to be thrown into “fiery Gehenna” with all our body parts intact (Mark 9:42–48, Matthew 18:6–9). What are we to make of Jesus’ teachings? They seem pretty clear. However, interestingly enough, the Catholic Church would consider it a mortal sin if someone with sound mind willingly engaged in the sort of self-mutilation Jesus recommends. Now, let’s get that straight: If someone were to obey the seemingly clear teaching of Jesus about the benefits of self-mutilation for the good of one’s soul, it would actually be a mortal sin! The church interprets these verses as an example of Jesus using extreme exaggeration in order to teach a lesson. In this case, Jesus is emphasizing how important it is to worry about how our actions affect our eternal life with God, not literally telling us to cut of our own limbs. I am certainly not attempting to undermine the authority of scripture or to challenge Christ’s teachings. What I am trying to point out is that when using scripture to guide our moral lives, we almost always have to enter into a process of interpretation. And this process is not always as clear as we would like it to be. Some Catholics (including some bishops and cardinals!) have appealed to scripture to justify their positions on whether divorced and remarried Catholics can ever receive communion. The Extraordinary and Ordinary Synods on the Family held in Rome last October and this month, respectively, have garnered a great deal of press coverage because of these debates. But do these positions remain true to the tradition of biblical interpretation? The first thing that needs to be recognized is that nowhere does Jesus explicitly address the topic of who may or may not receive communion at a Catholic Mass. This seems like such an obvious point; however, one doesn’t need to read too many of these debates to find that some on both sides seem to forget this fact. Let’s take a look at some of those scriptures that are seen as relevant to the debate. Those who argue for a more “merciful” or “pastoral” approach appeal to the scriptures where Jesus spends time with sinners, sharing meals with them and causing scandal with the religious leaders of his time. One might look at passages like Mark 2:17, Luke 5:30–32, or Matthew 9:12 where Jesus tells the Pharisees, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call righteous but sinners.” When the Pharisees and Scribes complain that Jesus welcomes sinners, Jesus responds by telling them the parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and Prodigal Son (Luke 15:1–32). Jesus tell us that those who expect to enter into the Kingdom of God may be cast out with “wailing and grinding of teeth” while “the last shall be first” (Luke 13:22–30). When Jesus encounters a woman accused of committing adultery, he does not condemn her, but tells the gathered crowd “let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw the stone at her” (John 8:7). Violating the social restrictions of his time, Jesus speaks with a Samaritan woman at a well despite the fact that she has had five husbands and the man with whom she currently lives is not her husband (John 4:4–42). Of course, none of these passages explicitly deal with who may receive the Eucharist. However, many find it difficult to reconcile this image of Jesus with the position that no divorced and remarried Catholic may ever be allowed to receive communion under any circumstances. On the other side of the argument there is just as much biblical justification. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus explains that even though Moses permitted divorce, this was not God’s plan. Jesus tells the Pharisees that “what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (10:9). Later, Jesus privately tells his disciples, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (10:11–12). In Paul’s letter to the Romans (7:1–3) we are told that a woman must not consort with another man as long as her husband is alive, lest she become an adulteress. None of these passages mention communion either. But the reasoning goes that because a divorced and remarried couple is understood to be in an ongoing state of adultery, they should not have access to the grace available in the Eucharist until they have abandoned their adulterous relationship (or at least committed to sexual abstinence for the rest of their life together). Those advocating for greater leniency on who may receive communion are not arguing that the marriage covenant can be dissolved (which is a matter of church doctrine), but only that there may be some circumstances that allow a couple to receive communion (a matter of church discipline). However, church doctrine and discipline are intimately connected. A change in church discipline can affect how one understands doctrine. Even though no one is advocating a change in doctrine, the understanding of how the church interprets scripture and applies this interpretation in its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is not as clear cut as many seem to believe. For example: Matthew’s gospel (19:1–12) also tells us that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery; however, there is an exception if there is porneia. In the various English translations of the Bible, this word might be translated to mean “lust,” “unchastity,” “unfaithfulness,” “wantonness,” “fornication,” “incest,” or simply if the marriage is “unlawful.” It seems that there is a biblically-based exception to the teaching about the indissolubility of marriage and we are not even sure what that exception is. What does this word mean? In light of the ambiguity, where does the benefit of the doubt go? Should we introduce a certain humility in the way this teaching is interpreted and applied? Does the church even teach that marriage is indissoluble? Actually, no. You may or may not have heard of “Privileges of the Faith,” or Pauline and Petrine Privileges. The Pauline Privilege, based on the First Letter to the Corinthians (7:12–15), allows for the dissolution of a marriage between two unbaptized people if one of them becomes Christian. Confused? Suffice it to say that nowhere in the gospels does Jesus provide for this exception to his teaching about marriage and adultery. The description of this can be found in the Code of Canon Law (1143). Therefore, The Pauline Privilege represents a particular interpretation of 1 Corinthians and then an application of this interpretation to a specific pastoral circumstance. There is another “Privilege of the Faith” sometimes called the “Petrine Privilege.” It involves a baptized Catholic who married an unbaptized person (with permission from the church) and now wants to marry another Catholic (or other baptized Christian). In these circumstances, the pope can “dissolve the marriage bond.” Is this situation addressed in scripture? Of course not. This exception represents another instance where the church is interpreting the spirit of the scriptures and then applying this understanding to a specific pastoral situation. The church teaches that the only marriages that are indissoluble are sacramental marriages that have been consummated. Now, Jesus didn’t talk about “sacramental marriages” or “consummation” when he addressed remarriage and adultery in scripture. But, the church has done what it has always done (and always can do); seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the scriptures and applying these interpretations to specific pastoral circumstances. There is no reason that the same process of interpretation shouldn’t continue today. -.

Survey: Why we shouldn't censor teen literature.

.

Young adult literature helps start 

meaningful conversations with 

teens about real world issues.

In 2012, exactly two weeks after Trayvon Martin was shot to death for being young and black and wearing a hoodie, I sat in a darkened theater watching children as young as 13 years old kill each other in The Hunger Games. While to me the movie hit more than a little too close to home, that didn’t seem to be the case for the room packed with teenagers, who broke out in cheers every time another contestant fell by the wayside, leaving Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark one step closer to victory.
Shortly thereafter, I brought up my experience to a room full of youth ministers. I asked them if they were having these conversations with their students about violence in pop culture. How did they help these kids interpret a world that held both Trayvon Martin and The Hunger Games? Their responses ranged from, “What’s The Hunger Games?” to “I didn’t realize that was so violent. I’m not going to let my kids see/read that!” No one had the answers to my question, which was how to respond to these hard questions in a way that makes sense to young adults.
No one can deny that most of the popular literature for young adults portrays a dark world—darker, perhaps, than the world in which we want our children to believe. I remember reading The Outsiders in middle school and sobbing when Johnny said goodbye to Ponyboy in the hospital, as he lay dying from a broken back and third degree burns. But the book also taught me about class conflict, family, and friendship. It taught me that growing up is hard, but it’s something we all have to do, in one way or another. After all—“nothing gold can stay.” Today’s teenagers are reading The Hunger Games, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, The 5th Wave, Persepolis, Divergent…the list goes on and on. And it’s understandable that as parents and educators our first reaction is often to protect our children from the difficult issues these books portray. We don’t always want our  kids reading about sexual violence, racism, drug abuse, and murder, much less facing these problems in real life.
But today’s teenagers are living in a world where they have to face these issues. They live in a world where 17-year-old Trayvon Martin can be shot on his way home from the convenience store. According to a 2012 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an average of 13 young adults between the ages of 10 and 24 are killed every day. Another study, this one conducted by the United States Department of Justice in 2014, found that 1 out of every 9 girls under age 18 is sexually abused by an adult. Pretending these issues don’t exist in literature will neither solve these problems in real life nor give kids the resources they need to survive.
When done well, literature provides a lens through which to interpret the world around us. Young adult literature is no different; it allows teenagers a way to make sense of the world in which they live. Teenagers don’t have to suffer horrific abuse to feel alone in the world; this is a fact of teenage existence in many ways, and books give them a way out and a hope for the future. In an essay titled “Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood,” Sherman Alexie (the author of The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian) writes, “I read books about monsters and monstrous things, often written with monstrous language, because they taught me how to battle the real monsters in my life.” Books give young adults the resources and language to talk about their own experiences.
I can hear the cries of outrage already. “As parents, it’s our job to protect our children!” Parents don’t want to tell their children that the world is as horrific as the one they read about in these books; they instead want their kids to learn that the world also has hope and love and beauty in it. Young adult books should not be mired in violence, pain, and horror, lest young adults think that this is what the world is actually like. Or, as Meghan Cox Gurdon, the children’s book reviewer for The Wall Street Journal puts it, the role of literature should not be to “simply validate every spasm of the teen experience.” Yes, Gurdon says, teenagers are forced to deal with issues like sexuality, injustice, and violence. But that doesn’t mean we need to focus on them in our literature. To do so encourages normalizing these parts of the teen experience, instead of teaching them that there is a different, safer way of life ahead.
It’s a tempting idea. But you learn all too soon that even the most well-meaning parent can’t protect their children from everything. Nor should we want to. And frankly, I would rather my child be devastated by the reality, inevitability, and ugliness of death in a book like Where the Red Fern Grows than when she watches her own dog get hit by a car.
We don’t want to inundate our children (or ourselves—let’s not pretend that plenty of adults don’t read young adult literature!) with images of violence and injustice. Gurdon is right; we don’t want to glorify these images, normalize them, or teach teenagers that this is all the world has to offer. But at the same time, we as people of faith don’t have the luxury of turning away from the darkness altogether. We can’t pretend that these issues don’t exist. We can’t ignore the fact that children and young adults are really suffering. Yes, The Hunger Games is appalling in its violence and its depiction of class-based warfare where the victims are those most unable to defend themselves. But we live in a world where this speaks to the real experiences of children all over the country and the world.
Catholic social teaching reminds us that we cannot turn our back on the poor and suffering. As the Catechism states, “We must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren” (no. 1397). We can’t turn away from those who need help the most or purge our lives of all mention of them. To do so would be to go against the teachings of our faith. Instead of protecting our children at all costs, we need to equip them with the tools and understanding they need to work for justice. Yes, these conversations can be hard, but they are worth having.
We take for granted that books are learning tools for younger children. For instance, books like The Lorax, The Story of Ferdinand, and The Paper Bag Princess allow parents and children to have conversations about issues that matter, whether it be recycling, pacifism, or the fact that princesses don’t always have to wear pink poofy dresses. But these conversations shouldn’t stop when our kids learn to read chapter books. The Hunger Games is a great entry point to talk about classism, social activism, and power. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian can teach kids how to deal with alcoholism, sexual abuse, racism, and poverty. Handled well, these books—and others—can give young adults a framework through which to interpret the world around them.
The best books are those that pick us up, grab us, and don’t let us go until the final page. They are books that remain in our imaginations, long after the last page is turned. And often, these are books where there are characters or situations that we can identify with. The same is true for young adult literature; teenagers aren’t going to pick up a book unless they feel like there is something in the book that is connected to their real lives. If we want kids to become readers, we need to have the courage—as parents, educators, and publishers—to give them books where the characters are living through the same issues that they see every day in the world around them. At best, they have a framework to make sense of the world’s injustices going forward. At worst, it tells them that they aren’t alone.
.
.
.

Twenty-eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time B

Image: William Blake, 
To annnihilate the Self-hood of Deceit and False Forgiveness

October 11, 2015

Click here for scripture readings

"What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

That question has been asked down through the ages.

It was asked by a man who threw himself before Jesus in the story we just heard.

We don't know who the man was.

Mark simply presents him as "a man," possibly rich, certainly sincere.

Jesus, clearly impressed by him, leads him to complete what is lacking.

"Go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

Jesus is simply calling him to cast aside all other dependencies and in radical trust stand bare before the God who gives.

This is an invitation to discipleship.

There is no praise of poverty or attack on wealth.

It is the life of discipleship, not the renunciation of wealth, that leads to eternal life.

But if you're going to follow Jesus, you must give him your all and withhold nothing.

All of us have areas in our lives that we are content to give to God.

The man in Mark's story was willing to conform his life to the Ten Commandments.

But there was one thing he was not willing to do.

Each of us may have one thing that we will by no means surrender to God.

It may be my ambition.

Or my sexuality to which I give free rein no matter what the consequences.

It may be a deep-seated hatred for someone.

God can have everything in my life, but this one thing God cannot have.

God can have my service and sense  of duty, my neighborly love, my time and talents.

But this one thing God cannot have.

Now the curious thing is that God lets me find God's own self when I offer God this one thing that is the hardest for me to surrender.

The uncertainties, doubts and difficulties with which we torment ourselves, that rob us of our peace with God and hopelessly block our ability to follow Jesus,

do not lie in intellectual difficulties

but at this one point in our life that we refuse to give up.

For the man in Mark's story it was his money.

Of course, the point at issue here, as I said, is not renunciation as an end in itself but "What is necessary for me to do in order to follow Jesus?"

For some it may indeed be a complete renunciation of wealth.

St. Francis believed he could not follow Jesus until he had given away all he had.

But for most Christians, following Jesus does not mean a renunciation of wealth but a stewardship of wealth.

Stewardship is a baffling concept to some people. Stewardship is simply managing my resources as if I held them in trust for God who is the giver of every good and perfect gift.

How hard, indeed, it is to enter the kingdom of God, especially for the wealthy.

Riches constitute a formidable obstacle to persons who seek discipleship.

But the difficulty is not an impossibility.

The good news does not lie in interpreting the oft-quoted "needle's eye" as a small gate through which unburdened camels could scarcely pass.

Any interpretive efforts to make the kingdom of God humanly possible are out of order. "For mortals it is impossible," said Jesus, "but not for God; for God all things are possible."

That is the good news which Jesus speaks to his disciples, to us.

That obstacle, whatever it is, is not the only thing that stands between me and God. Jesus Christ also stands there, and he stands on both sides.

He stands on God’s side because it is not we who are seeking the kingdom of God

but God who is seeking to bring us into the kingdom.

And Jesus is the lamp, "the light of the world," by which God seeks us.

Jesus also stands on our side, knowing our weaknesses, temptations and what death is, because he experienced them all.

He has come and he has identified with us.

As our great high priest before the Father in heaven he is willing to be our mediator and advocate, willing to cover our nakedness with his own righteousness so that we can approach with boldness "the one to whom we must render an account."

That's why everything, absolutely everything, depends on following Christ, being counted by him as his brothers and sisters,

being regarded by him as his coworkers on behalf of the kingdom of God.

And to the Peters among us who have indeed sacrificed much to follow Jesus, he consoles us with the assurance that our discipleship will be recognized and rewarded  in this age and in the age to come.

But we have to be willing to follow.

So, what is the one thing that “one more thing” that Jesus is asking of you at this time in your life

How it feels to be denied communion

Faithful divorced Catholics struggle to understand their place in the church.

A young couple in their 30s sit near the front of the church at Mass. They are holding hands while crying silently and attempting to comfort one another. But they’re not at a funeral; they’re at a first communion Mass. Two beautiful children (twins—a brother and a sister) are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ for the first time. The woman is their mother. The man is the only father they have ever known. The couple has faithfully brought their children to Mass and religious education for years and regularly spent time at home teaching the children about their faith. But, despite all this, the couple has been told by their pastor that they may not receive communion. You see, they are not married in the church. The pastor has told them that they are living in sin, and the associate pastor has told their children the same thing. Despite the fact that the couple has experienced this relationship as the best thing that has ever happened to them, their pastor has told them that this relationship is putting their eternal salvation at risk. If they were to die in this state of sin, they have been told, they will be eternally damned and separated from God’s presence.
Many important issues will be addressed at this month’s Synod on the Family, but one discussion that caused a great deal of controversy concerned the possibility that divorced and remarried people will be allowed to receive communion after some type of penitential process. Even though many people may find some relief in the reforms to the annulment process that Pope Francis has called for, there will still be some who have remarried who do not meet the criteria for an annulment. The possible consideration of communion for those who are divorced and remarried would only be for relatively few couples in very specific circumstances. However, these couples do exist and their anguish is real. The couple described in the previous paragraph is one of them. (Although this description does not represent any real specific couple, it is, I believe, realistic enough.)
Why is this couple not married in the church? The woman and her first husband were both 22 when they got married. At the time, neither of them were too serious about their relationship with God or with issues of religion, but they got married in the church because they were baptized Catholics. A year into the marriage she gave birth to the twins. Unfortunately, shortly after that her husband was in a car accident. As a result of the accident, he developed an addiction to pain medication, followed by alcohol addiction. As the family situation spun out of control, her husband began to physically abuse her. She feared for her life and the safety of their children. Her husband disappeared for weeks at a time. Eventually she received word that he was involved in a robbery attempt that left one store clerk and one police officer dead. He was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Despite several attempt to contact him, he communicated through his lawyer that he wanted nothing to do with her or their two children. He filed for divorce shortly after his imprisonment.
As a young, single mother with two toddlers, she turned to her local parish for support. The parish’s Saint Vincent DePaul Society gave her regular aid. She began attending daily Mass and turning to God for strength. Eventually she began talking to a man who also attended daily Mass. He was kind, spiritual, and wonderful with her children. They began regularly spending time with each other and over time fell in love. She felt God had answered her prayers and was giving her a new life.
She tried to get an annulment so they could get married in the church. That was important to both of them. However, the car accident that led to the addictions that led to the violence, abandonment, and crime of her husband happened well into the marriage. The church investigation found that these events did not render their consent defective at the time of their marriage. Their marriage was valid and, therefore, indissoluble. To get married again would be to commit adultery. “Jesus is very clear about this,” her pastor told her.
Her response: “You mean that my children can never have a father? Even though I have met the most wonderful man in the world and he has helped me grow as a person and even grow closer to God, we can never be together? At the age of 26, I must spend the rest of my life alone? I’m not called to a celibate life like you! How can this be what God wants!?”
Her pastor responded, “With God all things are possible. Don’t you believe that? The saints and the martyrs were called to heroic virtue. You must be heroic too. God never gives us more than we can handle, so God will give you the strength you need if you don’t close off your heart to Him. This man can still be a father figure to your children. He can still be a friend to you as long as you are careful to never enter into a situation of temptation with him. You can love each other as brother and sister. If you were to give into your lust and be physically intimate, you would pollute your relationship. You would make a mockery of your sacramental marriage. That would be an affront to God. You would put your salvation at risk.”
“My sacramental marriage!” she exclaims. “You mean the ‘sacrament’ with the man who beat me and abandoned his family, who wants nothing to do with me, who killed two people, who will be in prison the rest of his life? Aren’t those things an ‘affront to God’?!”
“Well,” her pastor explains, “you did take solemn vows before God—for better or worse, in sickness and in health, until death. Those were vows you made to God. They can’t be undone.”
Sometime after this conversation she and her partner are married civilly. They continue to attend Mass, but have not received communion for years. They pray together, they volunteer at a local homeless shelter (they wanted to volunteer with Saint Vincent DePaul, but their pastor determined that this would cause a scandal, since they are living in sin), they have faithfully brought their children to religious instruction. All of their friends, family, and fellow parishioners know them to be a happy, generous, faithful, hard-working, and holy family. However, as far as the Church is concerned, God clearly considers them nothing but unrepentant and obstinate adulterers. They are in an ongoing state of mortal sin, just like unrepentant rapists, torturers or child abusers. Unless they repent and amend their ways, they will spend all eternity separated from God.
And so, at their children’s first communion, they sit in the front pew, heart-broken that they cannot join their children in the joy of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. The church is quite certain that Jesus would not want his real presence disrespected by offering him to these sinners. The church is confident in its determination that this couple is not worthy to receive the Eucharist’s grace until they abandon their morally offensive adulterous relationship. That is what Jesus would want, no?
- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201510/when-%E2%80%98unworthy%E2%80%99-are-denied-communion-30407?utm_source=October+10%2C+2015&utm_campaign=ebulletin+October+10%2C+2015&utm_medium=email#sthash.sRargWzz.dpuf

Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time b

Image:"The Best Supper" © Jan Richardson

October 4, 2015

Click here for scripture readings

At first I wasn't going to talk about marriage and divorce today, cause every time I do I get in trouble.
But then I thought further and decided I wasn't really a coward at heart.
And besides, the only way to grow in this life is to take chances.
And we sorely need to look at this question as a community.

First, a fact of life. Very simply, marriage is a risk.
You don't need a celibate priest to tell you that; the evidence is all around you.
Sociologists say that about 50% of marriages break up;
But once I've said that, let me add this:
I am not playing a prophet of doom.
Risk—which means exposing yourself to loss or injury, to disadvantage or even destruction—risk is part of human living.
To be alive is to risk. To be single for life is a risk. To be a priest is indeed a risk.
And so I am not surprised that it is risky for a man and a woman to murmur to each other: "I take you . . . to have and to hold . . . for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."
Not every marriage that opened with those risk-laden phrases has weathered the "worse," has overpowered poverty, has survived sickness of spirit or flesh.

In any and every risk, the critical question is this: Is the risk worth taking?
Is there good reason to believe        not absolute certainty, only good reason to believe—that no matter what the years may —bring, however devastating and unexpected, your love will survive it?

Your love. Ah, there's the rub, that elusive word "love."'
Not simply the chemistry that makes for one-night stands; not only the emotion, the feelings that come and go.
Over and above these, the deliberate, ceaseless gift of each to the other, the self-giving that does not disappear when darkness clouds your sky.


You see, God did not forget about marriage once He had set it up, did not leave it to go its merry or merciless way.
Not that God guarantees success in any marriage.
God promises that He will be there—to give strength and solace, courage and constancy, generosity and gentleness.
But, for all God's powerful presence, we remain wonderfully and fearfully human, and God will always respect our freedom, will never force us, never compel us to be wise when we insist on being stupid, compassionate when we are bent on being
selfish, pliant when we are determined to be pigheaded.
And, in his infinitely wise way to ensuring our freedom to choose,  God still allows bad thinks to happen to good people
What does this mean? On the one hand, God does not promise any married couple a rose garden, a perpetual paradise of pleasure, heaven on earth.
On the other hand, God does say: "Put your hands in mine, trust me as my own Son did from Nazareth to Calvary, plan your life-together in prayerful oneness with me, and you have good reason to hope for days and years rich in laughter, a life that lends meaning to those less fortunate, a life that makes your acre of God's world Id a place of peace, of justice, of love."

My next point is a story for the ages.
It is a true story.
I first read it several years ago and it still haunts me..
The story stems from a surgeon—a doctor who weds to his scalpel an uncommon gift for what is uniquely human.
He tells of a remarkable experience soon after a delicate operation:

In his words:
I stand by the bed where a young woman lies, her face postoperative, her mouth twisted in palsy, clownish.
A tiny twig of the facial nerve, the one to the muscles of her mouth, has been severed.
She will be thus from now on.
The surgeon had followed with religious fervor the curve of' her flesh:
Nevertheless, to remove the tumor in her cheek, 1 had cut the little nerve.
Her young husband is in the room.
         He stands on the opposite side of the bed, and together they seem to dwell in the evening lamplight, isolated from me, private.
Who are they, I ask myself, he and this wry-mouth I have made, who gaze at and touch each other so generously, greedily?
The young woman speaks.
"Will my mouth always be like this?" she asks.
"Yes," I say. "it will. It is because the nerve was cut."
She nods, and is silent. But the young man smiles.
"I like it," he says. "It is kind of cute."

All at once 1 know who he is.
I understand, and I lower my gaze.
One is not bold in an encounter with a god.
Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth, and I so close I can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers to show her that their kiss still works.
I remember that the gods appeared in ancient Greece as mortals, and I hold my breath and let the wonder in.

" To accommodate to hers." to accommodate to his.
Scotch-tape that to your refrigerator.
The story is symbolic; it tells us more than the words explicitly say.
Here is the endless story of two-in-one, the sensitivity that makes for joy in the very heart of sorrow.

Good friends: I began this homily on a rather negative note— on marriage as a risk.
Let me close on a more positive note—on marriage as a challenge.
Today's celebration challenges all who are married, all who are contemplating marriage
         challenges them to live for each other, to live for the less fortunate others who surround them, to live for the Lord who alone can prosper their love.
And, as our good Pope Francis tells us,  it calls upon all of us to be compassionate to those whose marriage fails.
As a church and as a people of Christ, we must re-examine the pain that we inflict on those whose marriage has failed.
Who are we to not forgive, to condemn them to lives alone?
I ask this: in all seriousness, we must look at our church and examine whether we are welcoming and forgiving...
Or condemning and vindictive in how we treat them.

In the radiant dawn that our Lord offers all of us every day of our lives,
         I invite all of you who are married to join your own hands once again, to thank God for the pleasure and the pain you have shared, to murmur now more intensely than ever "I take you to have and to hold till death do us part."
Today we of Visitation/Francis de Sales along with our Lord invite you to love again as once you loved before,
to prove that through all the bittersweet of the years your "kiss still works.''

Go ahead, all of you who are married, join hands as the rest of us pray over you.

Lord God and Creator,
we bless and praise your name.
In the beginning you made man and woman,
so that they might enter a communion of life and love.
You likewise blessed the union of these children of yours
so that they might reflect the union of Christ with his church.
Look with kindness on them today.
Amid the joys and struggles of their life
you have preserved the union between them;
renew their marriage covenant,
increase your love in them,
and strengthen their bond of peace,
so that they may always rejoice in the gift of your blessings.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

JESUS HAS A VISION FOR YOUR LIFE.

Open up your Bible and read one of the four Gospels from start to finish. Try to do it with fresh eyes, and you will be struck by something: Jesus was a radical—and his life and teachings are a radical invitation to something beyond what most of us have set­tled for in our everyday lives.

What does radical mean? It means to get to the "root" of things.

Jesus was interested in getting deep down to the root of things. He was interested in what was essential—not the fluffy periphery, but the core, the center, the heart of things.

Jesus wasn't trapped by the notion of political correctness. He wasn't burdened with the need to be liked by people. He wasn't moved by the desire for expediency or convenience. Instead, he simply allowed truth to reign supreme.

Truth is radical.

Jesus was a radical. He reminds us at every turn that God's ways are not a slight variation of man's ways, but that they are in fact radically different. Embrace any one of Jesus' teachings seri­ously and some of the people around you are bound to think that you are taking it a little too far. His teachings don't invite us to the mediocre middle. They invite us to a radical love.

This radical love is at the heart of the Gospel. There are of course spectacular displays, but most of all Jesus invites us to pass this radical love along to others through the daily events of our lives. At every turn Jesus mentors us in this radical love.

Jesus was a radical. His life was radical. His death was radical. His teachings were radical. They got to the root of things. His love was radical. It changed the entire course of human history.

Our 15 Favorite Quotes from Pope Francis’ Visit

Pope Francis may be back in Rome, but the loving and powerful words spoken throughout his time in the United States aren’t something we’ll soon forget. Here’s a list of some of our favorite quotes from his visit:

1. “Joy springs from a grateful heart.” — Vespers, Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, New York City

2. “Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.” — Address to Congress, Washington D.C.

3. “When a country is determined to remain true to its founding principles, based on respect for human dignity, it is strengthened and renewed.” –Address at Independence Mall, Philadelphia

4. “Like happiness, holiness is always tied to little gestures.” — Mass of Canonization of Junipero Serra, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington D.C.

5. “Once we come to realize how much God has given us, a life of self-sacrifice, of working for him and for others, becomes a privileged way of responding to his great love.” — Vespers, Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, New York City

6. “We don’t want apathy to guide our lives” — Mass of Canonization of Junipero Serra, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington D.C.

7. “We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners.” — Address to Congress, Washington D.C.

8. “Love is something we learn; love is something we live; love grows as it is “forged” by the concrete situations which each particular family experiences. Love is born and constantly develops amid lights and shadows.” — Festival of Families, Philadelphia

9. “A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people.” — Address to Congress, Washington D.C.

10. “For all our differences and disagreements, we can live in a world of peace.” — Multi-religious service at 9/11 Memorial and Museum, New York City

11. “We know in faith that Jesus seeks us out. He wants to heal our wounds, to soothe our feet which hurt from traveling alone, to wash each of us clean of the dust from our journey. He doesn’t ask us where we have been, he doesn’t question us what about we have done.” — Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, Philadelphia

12. “It’s beautiful to have dreams; it is also beautiful to fight for those dreams. Today, we have to keep dreaming.” — Our Lady Queen of Angels School, East Harlem

13. “Knowing that Jesus still walks our streets, that he is part of the lives of his people, that he is involved with us in one vast history of salvation, fills us with hope. A hope which liberates us from the forces pushing us to isolation and lack of concern for the lives of others, for the life of our city.”— Mass at Madison Square Garden, New York City

14. “Together we are called to say “no” to every attempt to impose uniformity and “yes” to a diversity accepted and reconciled. This can only happen if we uproot from our hearts all feelings of hatred, vengeance and resentment.” –Multi-religious service at 9/11 Memorial and Museum, New York City

15. “In a world where various forms of modern tyranny seek to suppress religious freedom, or try to reduce it to a subculture without right to a voice in the public square, or to use religion as a pretext for hatred and brutality, it is imperative that the followers of the various religions join their voices in calling for peace, tolerance and respect for the dignity and rights of others.” — Address at Independence Mall, Philadelphia

3 Ways Catholics Can Respond to the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Mark Wilson—Getty ImagesPeople celebrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after the ruling in favor of same-sex marriage June 26, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Christopher Hale is executive director at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and the co-founder of Millennial.

'We must be a Church that listens before it speaks'

Friday’s Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage across the country presents an interesting moment for Catholics in the U.S. The church opposes gay marriage, and this likely won’t change even under Pope Francis the Troublemaker. But we also must acknowledge that this moment is a great joy for many Catholics—gay and straight. In recent history, many upstanding and faithful Catholics have said that they have heard the voice of Jesus say to them that the love between two persons of the same-sex isn’t sinful, but holy, sanctified, and blessed.

I myself struggle with this conundrum. There’s nothing more important in my life than being Catholic and a part of the universal Church of Jesus Christ. For me, it’s not just membership in a fraternal organization or civic group, but in a family that gives me my identity, my roots, and my wings. I take my faith’s teaching on every issue—including gay marriage—seriously, but I, too, can’t help but feel joy for my LGBT friends who celebrated Friday’s decision.

Many Catholics who experience these complex and conflicting feelings are wondering what the way forward could be. I think there are three important ways Catholics are called to respond to Friday’s ruling.

1. We must acknowledge God’s particular love for the LGBT community. Our faith tradition teaches that God has a preferential option for the poor and a bias for the excluded. We can’t be blind to the fact that many LGBT individuals and families have faced a culture of exclusion, hatred, and even death in our nation, around the world, and, yes, in the Church.

Jesuit Father James Martin said he thinks we have a long way to go to communicate God’s love for this community. “No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality,” Martin wrote in a Facebook post Friday. “The Catholic church must do a much better job of teaching what the Catechism says: that we should treat our LGBT brothers and sisters with ‘respect, sensitivity and compassion.’ But God wants more. God wants us to love.”

2. We must be a Church that listens before it speaks. Last year, Pope Francis said that “we must lend our ears to the beat of this era and detect the scent of people today, so as to be permeated by their joys and hopes, by their sadness and distress.” As Franciscan priest Daniel Horan noted Friday, we do this so that the “joys and hopes” and the “sadness and distress” of others becomes our own.

When we listen to each other with big hearts, we can begin to overcome the unfair stereotypes that divide us. We can put to rest the great lie that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot and that everyone who supports it is a bad Catholic. We can begin to understand and form ourselves again around the fundamental truths of our faith: that God loves us, that the Church welcomes us, and that Jesus walks with us.

3. We must work together to strengthen family life. As the Catholic Archbishop of Atlanta Wilton Gregory said so beautifully Friday, “The decision has offered all of us an opportunity to continue the vitally important dialogue of human encounter, especially between those of diametrically differing opinions regarding its outcome.”

One area where we all can work together on is building strong families, which is the fundamental cell of human society. There are many threats to family life here in the U.S. and around the globe. No matter what one thinks about gay marriage, we all can remain committed to strengthening family life against some of its greatest threats: an economy that kills, environmental exploitation, dictatorships of relativism, consumerism, superficiality, and indifference.

LGBT Catholics are a crucial part of this effort. Last year, the college of bishops gathered in Rome for the Synod on the Family and said that LGBT Catholic individuals and families have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” We’ve experienced this reality for ourselves. LGBT Catholics teach our children the faith of Jesus Christ. They serve the poor in our soup kitchens and social service agencies. They minister to the sick in our hospitals. More than anything, they’re children of God and brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. As Catholics, we must be willing to work with everyone to give every child what God desires for them: a dignified life, a family, and a future.