This is my homily for today, Sunday, August 15, 2021, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Today's readings are here.
The great feast we’re celebrating today, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, recalls what happened to Mary at the end of her life here on earth, when, in the words of Pius XII, she “was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Today we celebrate the end of Mary’s earthly journey, and her transition to the blessed life to come – the same destination we all hope to reach some day, even though our route to get there presumably won’t be precisely the same as Mary’s.
So while today is a day to reflect on what happened at the end of Mary’s life, and perhaps also what happens at the end of our lives, it's worth noting that the Gospel passage the church offers us today is not about endings, but about the beginning of things. We heard today about an occasion when Mary’s son Jesus was still a baby not even emerged from the womb, and Mary herself was still a very young woman. Far from being the exalted Queen of Heaven, in today’s Gospel passage Mary is a teen who is pregnant out of wedlock, with every reason to expect that, when her betrothed finds out, he will toss her to the curb, and her family may well do the same. Mary’s in a fix.
And yet, whatever hardships and tribulations are in the future for this girl who is too young to deal with all this, and for her kinswoman who is too old to go through a pregnancy and childbirth – whatever awaits them, their meeting today is an occasion overflowing with joy. These two humble, pregnant women are seeing that God has given them a chance to play an important role in his plans for them, for us, and for all humankind – and in that, they find reason to rejoice.
At this remarkable meeting, Elizabeth somehow discerns, somehow susses out, that Mary is with child – and not just any child. How did Elizabeth know? Mary has just arrived, so Mary could not have told her. Elizabeth provides the solution to that riddle herself: the child in her own womb told her. That little leap seemingly told Elizabeth a lot: that Mary was expecting; that her child was none other than the Lord himself; and that this wonder had come about because Mary believed that what was spoken to her by the Lord would be fulfilled. One might note that Elizabeth’s baby, who would become John the Baptist, has delivered his first prophecy, before he was even born. His leap for joy has given his mother Elizabeth this flash of insight that Mary is cooperating in God’s plan.
Mary is cooperating with God.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about cooperation. Cooperation is one of the mysteries of God and his plan for us. There is a lot that is wrong with us human beings and our unjust, corrupt societies here on earth. God certainly is powerful enough to simply fix everything that is wrong, and make everything right. Some of us may have fantasized about God doing just that: what if God would just snap his fingers, or speak a word, to make all the evil in the world disappear in an instant? We should be careful what we wish for: God actually did that once before, in an earlier age – and the result was a flood which destroyed everyone except for Noah and his family.
But God is done with pressing the reset button and starting again from scratch. Instead, God treats us with love and mercy, by asking us to cooperate with him. The story of Noah should help us understand that God doesn’t seek our cooperation because he is weak. God works through our cooperation because he is merciful. We may deserve the fate of Noah’s contemporaries, but instead, God gives us a chance to take part in his holy work here. God sent his Son to redeem us, but Jesus was on earth only a little while. His work continues here today because he sent his Spirit so that we could continue his ministry – the Church would say, we are now his body. We’re the body of Christ. As the great St. Teresa of Avila wrote, “Christ has no body now but yours. No hands, no feet on earth but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses all the world.” St. Teresa understood that following Jesus means cooperating with God and his plan.
When we see Mary and Elizabeth together in today’s Gospel, we see two women cooperating in God’s plan. They are taking on all the risks that come with a pregnancy, not to mention the pains of childbirth, in order to cooperate with God.
We may pause here and ask ourselves: would we do that for God? Would we take on an unforeseen, unplanned pregnancy, in order to cooperate with God? If not that, then – what? How much, or how little, are we willing to do to cooperate with God?
So this great ending for Mary we’re celebrating today had a beginning. God brought his plan from the beginning to the end through Mary’s cooperation.
I happen to think we live in a world that could badly use some merciful intervention by a good and loving God. Not only could that happen, it absolutely will – if we cooperate with him. Just imagine, if we cooperated with God, what might be accomplished. Perhaps some of the things Mary sang about today: wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if we could fill the hungry with good things? Well, of course, we can: all we have to do is do it. As you probably know, there are folks here at St. Edna who are doing this already. We’d love to have your help.
Cooperation should be more than just an occasional activity – it’s a way of life. In our family life, our work life, our school life, our parish life, the public square: cooperation, not conflict, should be our approach. All of us working together to fulfill God’s plan.
God had a plan for Mary, and a plan for Elizabeth. God has a plan for me, too. And he has a plan for you. He has a plan for all of us. All we have to do is figure out what the plan is, and cooperate with it – cooperate with him. How do we figure out his plan? He’ll tell us – if we’re willing to listen and discuss with him. That means prayer. Conversation and careful listening - that’s the heart of prayer. But before we ask God what his plan is for us, we might with to fasten our seatbelts, because he may not tell us, “You don’t need to change a thing; everything about you is perfect just as it is.” He may ask us to leave some habits behind, and leave our comfort zone. He may ask us to do things that stretch us. He doesn’t do this because he likes to stress us out. He does this because that is what it means to cooperate with him. Cooperating with him may take us to some strange and unexpected places. Yes, that ‘s a little daunting. To be sure, none of us have to cooperate. And if we don’t want to cooperate, we can keep what we have – for a little while.
But look where cooperation took Mary: to heaven. That’s one very good reason to think that cooperation may take us there, too.
While the general theme of cooperation is important, it is especially important in situations in which one is asked to do things that are marginal and atypical, e.g. the unusual pregnancies of Mary and Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteWhen I retired at age sixty, I knew that it was to have more opportunities for voluntary leadership in church and society. But I knew that I was not expected to do this alone. That God would provide the other people and the opportunities.
That was in January of 2003. I had only vaguely followed the sexual abuse scandal, since my father had died six months earlier and I was busy wrapping up my work activities so that I could retire. I had registered my interest in Voice of the Faithful and had received a couple of e-mails about local organizing activities. However it was January in the snow belt so I was not exactly eager to travel very far. Finally the diocesan organizer gave me a call. After asking me a few questions about my interests he said that he thought the group could benefit from my talents and asked me to come to the next meeting.
There were about thirty people arranged in a circle in a large church hall. We were asked, as was customary in VOTF organizing meetings, to state what we had envisioned for the organization.
About five to ten of these people were from FutureChurch, a prominent national organization that had started here in Cleveland. It had been organized by a priest and a woman religious (Christine Schenk) over concern for declining vocations. It initially advocated married priests, and over the years had expanded that to include women priests. I had been at their first organizational meeting and many subsequent ones since they brought many outstanding speakers to Cleveland. But I had never officially become a dues paying member although I was on their mailing list. While the National VOTF had refused to endorse the FutureChurch agenda, they did say that local chapters could. If VOTF had endorsed their agenda, we would likely have been banned from meetings on parish property as was FutureChurch.
When it came to me to speak, I said the Voice that I wanted was to be able as Catholics to speak about issues in church and society with other Catholics without chaperones. (While most people thought correctly that I meant without clerical supervision, I also meant without supervision by agendas such those of FutureChurch). I told them that I thought that symbolic voting on issues like clerical celibacy in a voluntary organization was futile. If ninety people voted for married priests but did nothing else about it, while ten people voted to support sexual abuse victims and did things to support them, then the ten people won. I told them FutureChurch already existed for those who wanted to pursue their issues, I thought we should focus upon VOTF national goals of supporting victims, priests of integrity, and structural reform in the church.
No votes were taken, the FutureChurch people never came back, and I was invited to join the local VOTF leadership group.
So when one is called upon to do the atypical, it is important to seek out and have the support of other people with the same call and not try to fit oneself into thinking of other people. As it happened the bishop honored our decision not to deviate from VOTF's national goals and said it was up to pastors to decide whether or not they would welcome us. Many did and we were able to do many things for about five years within that framework.
Unfortunately the national VOTF organization eventually endorsed the FutureChurch agenda, and largely abandoned supporting victims. VOTF nationally did not support Statute of Limitations reforms and other efforts to compensate victims. It was all unfortunate since the sexual abuse issue has not gone away. Also their vague "structure reforms of the church" which largely focused upon transparency and implementing parish and financial councils would have worked very well now with Francis emphasis upon listening and synods.
But look where cooperation took Mary: to heaven. That’s one very good reason to think that cooperation may take us there, too.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. That doesn’t really sound like unconditional love of God for human beings. It sounds transactional -“ if you do X, i will let you go to heaven when you die.,”
Good point. Obviously Mary and Elizabeth did not think of their pregnancies as "tickets to heaven."
DeleteWhile we must affirm that all of God's gifts are free without merit, whether of pregnancy or life eternal, it has also been the tradition of the church that we should not underestimate the importance of our cooperation in the divine economy, e.g. pray as if everything depended upon God but act as if everything depended upon us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGod had a plan for both Mary and Elizabeth. That plan included that they would be with him in paradise - but it also took their human freedom into account. Either or both of them could have told God to get lost. What would God have done then? Only he knows.
DeleteGod loves everyone unconditionally, and offers salvation to all. But each of us is free to reject what is on offer, so salvation is not guaranteed to everyone.
Please note that God's plan for our salvation incorporates our cooperation. The best way to assure someone's salvation is to baptize that person. Baptism requires human cooperation.
Salvation is ambiguous (to say the least!) for those who are not baptized - a status which always has described most of the human race. At a practical level, cooperating with God and his plan means offering baptism to everyone. Those grandparents aren't wrong who are upset that their children aren't getting the grandchildren baptized!
Jim, could you explain exactly what you mean when you say” “He has a plan for all of us.” For each person.
ReplyDeleteAnne - I don't mean to be flippant in pasting this:
Delete-----
6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.
-----
Don't you think that is a succinct summary of his plan for each of us?
We could say much more about God's plan. Obviously, he had - still has - a plan to reconcile humanity with him, and to save us; it involved his son coming to us as a human being, dying, rising, et al. Naturally, the mystery of the Assumption touches on this plan tangentially.
As the Baltimore Catechism illustrates, his plan extends to each of us. We all have the opportunity to cooperate.
Gosh, Jim. You take me back to my childhood when I had to memorize the entire Baltimore catechism.
DeleteOk - that’s a sufficiently vague “ plan” that covers pretty much anyone, including non-christians. I feared you meant that from the beginning of eternity, God had decided that Jim should be a business manager and a deacon and through prayerful discernment you figured this out and cooperated with the “ plan” for your life. At least some people think that’s the way it works. Jim shall be a business person and deacon, Anne will be an economist and dissenter from orthodox RC thinking. Jack will be a social scientist and lover of chant. But that’s not what you meant, luckily. Glad you don’t think God is a micromanager.
I prefer the quote from Theresa of Avila. As you know, I don’t believe Jesus came because he had to suffer and die to atone for human sin so that God would forgive humans their sins - a blood sacrifice, a human blood sacrifice.
And since, according to Christian teachings, Jesus is God and Jesus never seemed to have a vindictive, punitive, unforgiving nature then God did not demand that Jesus suffer and die. That wasn’t Jesus’ mission. Jesus came to “save” us by teaching us how to live. He taught love. And he taught through his suffering and death that living the truth, speaking “ truth to power”, might cost us dearly. Even our lives.
The “ plan” is for us to learn to love, and if we succeed at that, then we become practical, material instruments of divine love to others - as Theresa explained so very eloquently.
Either or both of them [Mary and Elizabeth] could have told God to get lost. What would God have done then? Only he knows.
ReplyDeleteJim,
There seems to be a problem here in that Mary was conceived "immaculately" (without original sin) in anticipation of what she would do in her lifetime. It is always tricky talking about time and God, since according to classical theism, God is said to be outside of time. So the fact that God knows what we are going to do "before" we do it does not (it is argued) predetermine what we are going to do. But the Immaculate Conception has God rewarding Mary with freedom from original sin before she even has a chance to do anything to merit that reward. If Mary was truly free to reject God's plans for her, then it is curious to claim she was rewarded for acquiescing when in fact she might not have acquiesced. One might speculate that being born without original sin might predispose one to always acquiesce with God's will. But then would not an immaculate conception basically have guaranteed Mary would make the choice she did? This would seem to be a more complex issue than the usual questions about God's foreknowledge causing one to question free will.
Yep, these are difficult questions. Perhaps God arranged that Mary would be conceived immaculately because, with his perfect knowledge, he had already foreseen her cooperation. I.e. the immaculate conception was contingent upon her cooperation.
DeleteJust speculating on my part! Any heresies, dissents, etc. are unintended!
Actually, it would be that her cooperation was contingent on her “ immaculate conception” - which was a theological concept with no basis in scripture, developed to try to tie up some loose ends, and not declared as dogma until the 19th century after earlier centuries of shifting opinions.
Delete"Actually, it would be that her cooperation was contingent on her “ immaculate conception"
DeleteHow so? I try to cooperate, but if I was immaculately conceived, it is news to me :-) I think we can choose to cooperate regardless of the "mode" of our conception.
Well, Jim, you are right that imperfect people can seek to "cooperate" with God. I think that all babies are innocent of sin. So Mary was also.
DeleteBut the theologians decided that if Mary was the mother of God (the Theotokos) then she had to be perfect - an imperfect woman (one with original sin) would not be worthy of being the God bearer.
The theology circles around on itself in a rather tortured way to reach the conclusions they needed, in spite of there being no support for the immaculate conception in scripture. I gather that the Orthodox have gone round and round on the subject also. The Orthodox don't believe in "original sin", another theological concept based on an unfortunate literal reading of Genesis in the 4th century. They don't accept Augustine's views and the notion of hereditary guilt.
I may be more Orthodox than RC in my views actually, since they reject the notion of original sin (so also the doctrine of the immaculate conception), but I could not handle their weekly Sunday liturgies.
It makes more sense to me that Mary being free of original sin was a gift freely given by God, without any strings attached. She won the lottery, so to speak, and what she did with the prize was up to her.
DeleteI have my theories about original sin but that is a subject for another day.
Thanks, David. Your comment touches on several issues that have long bothered me.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the question of God’s relationship to time, there is also the question of whether time is only one directional.
ReplyDeleteObviously our past experiences affect our future experiences. Also we reinterpret our past experiences in light of later experiences, so that later experiences have an effect on past experiences.
But I wonder sometimes if our future experiences actually shape our past experiences at the time that those past experiences happened.
For example when I was a second year Jesuit novice I gave a survey questionnaire to the eighth grade class that I taught on Thursdays in a Catholic grade school. It asked questions about their favorite TV programs, etc. How did I ever get that idea? I had not had any sociology courses, or read books on sociology. And the boldness to do it? I could have gotten into a lot of trouble. I did get a summons from the Novice Master to explain my behavior.
Another example was when as a college student I approached a priest who was a counselor to a fellow student and told him that I thought the student had symptoms of mental illness. Now I really had not taken that many psychology courses. What gave me that authority and the boldness to make that intervention? It turned out that I was right. The student left Saint John’s to continue his education in Minneapolis where he could be with his parents and close to his psychiatrist.
Now in both of these examples there may have been some effect of future experiences interpreting my past but it is difficult for me to understand how and why they occurred at the time. It is like my future influenced my past before the future occurred.
While professionally I have been responsible for planning, I also seem to have a sense of the shape of the future in my personal life as well as professional life. Not in detail but often when I get there I am only surprised by how it happened. For example I have long expected that the last decade of my life would be strongly influenced by the Divine Office; I did not anticipate the pandemic would be the vehicle to make that happen. But when the pandemic happened I knew immediately how I should respond.
So I am not convinced that Mary’s future did not influence her past. The early church had elaborate legends about Mary being educated and living in the Temple as a child. Theologians today admit these are mostly fabrications about how the early Church thought things should have happened. But the theological speculations may have a reality of their own that we should not ignore.
When it comes to time as a dimension, I guess I am not a pure materialist even though I have spent much of my professional life studying the past, present and future of persons and and organizations.
A few hints of the principle of karma and rebirth in Jack's theory. I have found more than one parallel between Christian theology and eastern religious thought.
DeleteJack, love the way your mind works. :-) Don't know if you've ever watched the Dr. Who series on BBC America (I admit it may be a bit of an acquired taste, and I don't think I've *quite* acquired it yet, but my wife is an enthusiast). You could be a writer for that series!
DeleteMy prosaic, time-linear and time-uni-directional explanation for those prophetic revelations of your future is that, in a sense, you already were a sociologist and/or a psychologist; you just hadn't received the training and certifications yet to confirm what already was true about you and your talents (and, perhaps, your nature).
It may not be much of a stretch to note that, in following those career / vocation paths for which you obviously had talents and predilections, you were cooperating with God's plan for you.
I don't know whether you've ever dived into the Harry Potter series. Near the beginning of the first book, the Sorcerer's Stone, Harry is stunned to learn that he is a wizard, with wizard parents. Because of his circumstances (he's an adopted child), he didn't know anything about his family history. But strange and inexplicable things kept happening to him and people around him. The explanation: he was a wizard already, but needed the proper training (and maturity) to be fully accredited and permitted to use his powers. Rowling can be a pretty brilliant and insightful writer.
Sorry no Dr. Who or Harry Potter in my watching or reading. Nor any interest in karma or rebirth. I am just trying to be open minded about the nature of time as a dimension.
DeleteAs for plans, whether God's or our own, I have pretty much accepted Merton's notion that we all have our own unique sanctity which we have to discover, and that we can have false ideas about ourselves as well as about God.
Merton was interested in notions of personal integration as well as person identity. I think my early notion that I would spend my life as a Jesuit scientist while counseling college students was a much poorer personal integration than serving mentally ill people as a scientist. One can see life as a succession of visions (theories) both about oneself and the world. That also owes much to Merton's Seeds of Contemplation.
One can also see personal identity as not static but in fact an unfolding of charisms some obviously religious (e.g. the Divine Office) some spiritual (e.g. contemplation) and some secular (being a social psychologist).
However in the midst of all this we must accept our freedom and well as the freedom of everyone else that brings a great deal of randomness and chaos into life.
Jack,I'll take Merton over Dr. Who and Harry Potter any day. ;)
DeleteHave you read any of Henri Nouwen's books? His journey included working in Latin America, the academic life at Yale, and, eventually, living and working at l'Arche in Canada. Throughout this journey to discern his true vocation as a priest, he struggled with deep depression.
Besides Dr. Who and Harry Potter, I am have also not read any of Henri Noumen's books. So much to read. I have read a lot of Merton however.
Delete