US Sen. Dick Durbin will decline award

"US Sen. Dick Durbin will not accept a Catholic award recognizing his immigration work, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago said Tuesday (Sept. 30)."

ttps://www.ncronline.org/news/sen-durbin-declines-catholic-award-amid-dispute-over-stance-abortion-rights

I was not very familiar with Senator Durbin, other than recognizing his name, and so was surprised at the controversy over him receiving this award for longtime service and contribution to immigration reform.

I felt that it was a classy action on his part to withdraw from receiving the award; sparing the archdiocese and Cardinal Cupich from some ugly infighting in the bishops' conference.  I was not surprised, however, at the 10 or so names who objected to the award being given to Durbin.

From the article:

Christianity in America today

 

At this point, it seems that traditional understandings of the Bible, especially of the gospels, and right- wing understandings are so different that people who call themselves Christian actually seem to be in two very different religions. The diffences are far greater than those from different translations.  I read two articles this week touching on this.  I hope the gift links work as I would like to know your reactions to these articles.  What does being Christian in America actually signify these days? 

https://wapo.st/4nXZZLr

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/charlie-kirk-christian-trump/684394/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Gospel of Luke: The Greek Word for Riches

The Greek Word (plusios) which Luke uses in his Gospel is NOT present in the OT, NOR the Gospel of John and rare in Mark and Matthew. From the list of verses below it can be seen that Luke portrays that difficulty of the rich entering the Kingdom of Heaven, the one verse from Mark that is common to Matthew and Luke. 

One might say that Luke illustrates that nothing is impossible with God in the story of Zacheus. Luke also transmits Mark's story about the poor woman in the Temple which Matthew does not. However, neither Mark nor Luke have Matthew's story about Joseph of Arimathea. 

Because of the presence of "camel" metaphor, I think we can say that Luke's teaching was in the mainstream of early Christianity. However, his repeated emphasis upon this teaching suggests that he wrote in a time and place where "riches" and/or its inverse, "the poor" might have been a more important topic than for Mark, Matthew, John.

You cannot serve God and mammon

In my opinion, the first step in reading any Gospel text is to situate the text within the context of the organization of the Gospels. Most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke had before them the Gospel of Mark and another source Q.  The only evidence that we have for Q are the common passages in both Matthew and Luke. Both Mark and Luke draw on sources which are unique to each of them.

All the material in last week's parable on the Master and Steward and this week's parable on the Rich man and the Poor Man are from Luke's sources.  Nothing from Mark at all! However, there is one very significant passage from Q: 

 Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

If we look at where this passage occurs in Matthew (below the break) we see that it occurs in a whole series of Q passages in Matthew. We know they are Q because Luke has brought them all into different places in his Gospel.  It is likely that Matthew just copied Q, while Luke used the passages in various places to shape his Gospel 

When we study or preach upon the Gospels for last week or this week it should be within the context of them being interpreted in the light of Q presented likely in its original form in Matthew, i.e. the contrast between Heavenly Treasures and Early Treasures.

In last week's Gospel the steward was so concerned for his self-interest and earthy treasures that he was criticized for neglecting his master's interests. In this week's Gospel the rich man is so concerned with his earthly treasures that he neglects storing up heavenly treasure in the form of taking care of the poor on his doorstep.

I would begin preaching this week's Gospel with the Luke 16:13 that ends last week's Gospel and then articulate simple lifestyles that focus upon placing the heart where true lasting treasure abides in contrast to those of the rich and famous.  

Podcast, "Mysticism is for everyone"

I don't know who, besides me, needs a break from politics. I came across this episode of Father Jim Martin's podcast on America Media. In this one he talks with Mirabai Starr, who is the author of several books. She discusses mysticism as something which is attainable by everyone. It is interesting that she comes from a secular Jewish background, but has explored the mysticism of many religions, and was particularly drawn to the Catholic mystics such as John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x0bNQiLE7jg&list=PLFA_2Z1L-3tq0x873_jc5I9lDhuC3V9P4&index=1&pp=iAQB0gcJCesJAYcqIYzv

I found it interesting, maybe you will too.

White Christian Nationalism

 Charlie Kirk has now been turned into a national hero, given what amounted to a state funeral, and has also been effectively canonized by Bishops Barron and Doyle.  He was racist, misogynist, and an open white Christian nationalist who opposed separation of church and state. He felt the Constitution could be disregarded when needed.  He was often anti- Jewish (in spite of supporting Israel - I guess for him Israel was the lesser of the evils) and anti- Muslim in his rhetoric. All in all, he did not promote Jesus’s teachings in the gospels. Where is our country headed now?  Are we reliving in our own country the events that took place in Europe in the 1930s?  How will Americans respond?

A homily on that puzzling Gospel parable

I dug into my archives and found that I had preached once on Luke 16:1-13, the parable of the dishonest steward which we're discussing in another thread.  This homily is from 2010, when I had been ordained about six years. I don't think I've looked at it since I gave it back then.

 In its basic themes, the 2010 homily touches on some of the same ideas I've been sharing in our other thread.  So it's a little surprising to me how little my thought has changed in the last 15 years :-).  The other thing that struck me is: it's a really long homily!  This would have taken at least 20 minutes to preach.  I can't imagine what people were thinking, other than, "I hope he finishes soon!"  

Take it for what it's worth, it's below the break.