Almost Like Trying to Find a Needle in a Haystack
If you thought it was difficult to accurately quantify how many Catholic priests had committed acts of child sexual abuse, it's probably near impossible to find out how many Protestant clergy have committed such crimes.
Protestant numbers are tougher to get because cases are scattered among hundreds of denominations. Moreover, many Protestant cases aren't reported to headquarters and many local congregations are self-governing, accountable to no outside supervisors.
Besides that, abuse cases get media notice only if lawsuits are filed and James F. Cobble Jr., whose Christian Ministry Resources advises churches on legal and tax issues, says many Protestant cases never reach court.
Among the reasons: Catholic dioceses with group insurance coverage and deep pockets make inviting targets, while the typical Protestant congregation has 150 members or less, limited money and no insurance coverage for misconduct. Also, Protestants predominate in rural and small towns, where victims and lawyers prefer to settle quietly out of court.
All this "lowers the known number of Protestants dramatically" and obscures the extent of the problem, Cobble says.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Thursday, February 26, 2004
John F'n Kerry Possesses the Logic of a Tree Stump
In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.
Because I'm Cheap and I Hate Crowds
Such are the reasons why I won't be seeing The Passion for at least another week and during the day when matinee prices are in effect. As a matter of curiosity, however, I have been looking at what some of our more conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalist brethren have been saying about the film. Although most seem to have liked it, many of the comments are peppered with maddeningly ignorant and untrue remarks. Loads of it can be found in this screed that provides five "reasons" for Evangelicals and Fundamentlaists to avoid seeing The Passion (e.g., Ash Wednesday is a Catholic holy day, Mel Gibson is a devout Roman Catholic who relied on Catholic scholars for the movie, the film was endorsed by JPII, etc.). Very sad stuff, but what's even sadder is that U.S. bishops are seemingly indifferent to the opportunity that this film presents in terms of mass religious instruction and evangelization. Then again, with people like Bishop McGrath and Cardinal Mahony, maybe this isn't such a bad thing.
Such are the reasons why I won't be seeing The Passion for at least another week and during the day when matinee prices are in effect. As a matter of curiosity, however, I have been looking at what some of our more conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalist brethren have been saying about the film. Although most seem to have liked it, many of the comments are peppered with maddeningly ignorant and untrue remarks. Loads of it can be found in this screed that provides five "reasons" for Evangelicals and Fundamentlaists to avoid seeing The Passion (e.g., Ash Wednesday is a Catholic holy day, Mel Gibson is a devout Roman Catholic who relied on Catholic scholars for the movie, the film was endorsed by JPII, etc.). Very sad stuff, but what's even sadder is that U.S. bishops are seemingly indifferent to the opportunity that this film presents in terms of mass religious instruction and evangelization. Then again, with people like Bishop McGrath and Cardinal Mahony, maybe this isn't such a bad thing.
Tolerance Does Not Apply to Christianity
Despite allowing displays by the Chess Club, Hispanic Club, and Sexual Deviancy Club, a high school in Portland denies the display of a Bible by the Bible Club.
On a related note, I heard liberal pundit Lawrence O'Donnell comment on MSNBC yesterday that he has never seen any evidence of anti-Christian bias in our culture or the media, and that he has no idea why groups like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights continuously make such claims.
Talk about someone with his head up his a**.
Despite allowing displays by the Chess Club, Hispanic Club, and Sexual Deviancy Club, a high school in Portland denies the display of a Bible by the Bible Club.
On a related note, I heard liberal pundit Lawrence O'Donnell comment on MSNBC yesterday that he has never seen any evidence of anti-Christian bias in our culture or the media, and that he has no idea why groups like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights continuously make such claims.
Talk about someone with his head up his a**.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Too Violent
That's what movie critics from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times are basically saying about The Passion of the Christ. I wonder if they'd be saying this if the movie had been directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, who of course gave us the Oscar(tm) winning and critically acclaimed Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan (both of which have been shown on commercial television without editing).
That's what movie critics from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times are basically saying about The Passion of the Christ. I wonder if they'd be saying this if the movie had been directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, who of course gave us the Oscar(tm) winning and critically acclaimed Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan (both of which have been shown on commercial television without editing).
State Money and Religious Studies
The SCOTUS rules that states can withhold scholarships from students who choose to study theology.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
AP reports the Bush administration had argued the state was wrong to yank the scholarship from former student Joshua Davey. Davey initially won a state Promise Scholarship, but the award was rescinded when the state found out he would be studying theology.
Update: The majority and dissenting opinions can be read here.
The SCOTUS rules that states can withhold scholarships from students who choose to study theology.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
AP reports the Bush administration had argued the state was wrong to yank the scholarship from former student Joshua Davey. Davey initially won a state Promise Scholarship, but the award was rescinded when the state found out he would be studying theology.
Update: The majority and dissenting opinions can be read here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Sounds About Right
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Monday, February 23, 2004
Spreading Like a Hostile Viral Disease
A "gay" couple in Florida is set to challenge that state's non-recognition of same-sex "marriages" and civil unions.
A "gay" couple in Florida is set to challenge that state's non-recognition of same-sex "marriages" and civil unions.
Religious Groups Fear Potential Loss of Tax Exempt Status
A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could constitutionally strip Bob Jones University of its tax exempt status because of the fundamentalist Christian school's practice of racial discrimination. Some religious groups think the same thing might eventually happen to them if government non-recognition of same sex "marriages" is constitutionally struck down.
"The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step," said Flynn, who heads Your Catholic Voice, an activist group. "I don't think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles."
Any threat to religious marriage between a man and a woman remains hypothetical today. But even homosexuals have acknowledged that the developments in Massachusetts and San Francisco arose quicker than they anticipated.
(...)
While supporters of traditional marriage fear erosion at the religious level, Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said those fears might be exaggerated.
He said churches could raise a "significant constitutional defense" to keeping their tax-exempt status. He noted, for instance, the Catholic Church has faced criticism for years because it doesn't ordain women as priests.
"Churches, quite clearly, have the right to marry or not marry whoever they please," Volokh said. "Maybe somebody could sue them for discrimination in marriage, but the churches will certainly win."
A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could constitutionally strip Bob Jones University of its tax exempt status because of the fundamentalist Christian school's practice of racial discrimination. Some religious groups think the same thing might eventually happen to them if government non-recognition of same sex "marriages" is constitutionally struck down.
"The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step," said Flynn, who heads Your Catholic Voice, an activist group. "I don't think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles."
Any threat to religious marriage between a man and a woman remains hypothetical today. But even homosexuals have acknowledged that the developments in Massachusetts and San Francisco arose quicker than they anticipated.
(...)
While supporters of traditional marriage fear erosion at the religious level, Eugene Volokh, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said those fears might be exaggerated.
He said churches could raise a "significant constitutional defense" to keeping their tax-exempt status. He noted, for instance, the Catholic Church has faced criticism for years because it doesn't ordain women as priests.
"Churches, quite clearly, have the right to marry or not marry whoever they please," Volokh said. "Maybe somebody could sue them for discrimination in marriage, but the churches will certainly win."
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Why is This Man a Bishop?
Bishop McGrath of San Jose, CA on The Passion movie (link via Amy Welborn):
While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief.
They are not historical accounts of the historical events? Huh? Isn't that kind of like saying water isn't wet?
As we enter the season of Lent next Wednesday, Catholics and Christians are called to repentance. I call upon Catholics and all Christians in this Valley to renew the ties that bind us to our Jewish brothers and sisters, the first of God's Chosen People.
Catholics and Christians? Try inserting the word "other" after "and" Bishop. We are Christian too, you know.
If you bother to read the rest of the commentary, you'll discover it's just one big sappy preemptory apology on behalf of any Catholic (or other Christian) who is actually stupid enough to misuse the movie as a vehicle for attacking Jews. Makes you almost wonder if Bishop McGrath is sorry he's Catholic.
Bishop McGrath of San Jose, CA on The Passion movie (link via Amy Welborn):
While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief.
They are not historical accounts of the historical events? Huh? Isn't that kind of like saying water isn't wet?
As we enter the season of Lent next Wednesday, Catholics and Christians are called to repentance. I call upon Catholics and all Christians in this Valley to renew the ties that bind us to our Jewish brothers and sisters, the first of God's Chosen People.
Catholics and Christians? Try inserting the word "other" after "and" Bishop. We are Christian too, you know.
If you bother to read the rest of the commentary, you'll discover it's just one big sappy preemptory apology on behalf of any Catholic (or other Christian) who is actually stupid enough to misuse the movie as a vehicle for attacking Jews. Makes you almost wonder if Bishop McGrath is sorry he's Catholic.
Another Friedman Hit Piece
I'm starting to get the idea that Roger Friedman just doesn't like Mel very much. As you read the article, bear in mind that Friedman previously told an untruth about where Gibson wanted The Passion to be shown.
I'm starting to get the idea that Roger Friedman just doesn't like Mel very much. As you read the article, bear in mind that Friedman previously told an untruth about where Gibson wanted The Passion to be shown.
Will Mel's Passion be "Too Catholic" for Protestants?
A few weejs ago, Terry Mattingly at GetReligion quipped:
I have been fascinated by the lack of critical voices among conservative Protestants. At some point, the overwhelming Catholic symbolism is going to tick off a really conservative Reformed Protestant and the fur will fly somewhere online. I would keep an eye on the letters pages of World magazine and its blog.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'll be watching.
A few weejs ago, Terry Mattingly at GetReligion quipped:
I have been fascinated by the lack of critical voices among conservative Protestants. At some point, the overwhelming Catholic symbolism is going to tick off a really conservative Reformed Protestant and the fur will fly somewhere online. I would keep an eye on the letters pages of World magazine and its blog.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'll be watching.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Good Move
Bush makes a recess appointment of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The only bad news about the appointment is that only lasts for two years. Such is the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in Congress.
Bush makes a recess appointment of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The only bad news about the appointment is that only lasts for two years. Such is the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in Congress.
Hope for a Legitimate Alternative to the Hopelessly Liberal SF Chronicle
Philip Anschutz, whom the Chronicle somewhat pejoratively describes as a conservative Christian, purchases the historic, but fading, San Francisco Examiner newspaper.
"Today we are announcing a seismic shift in Bay Area journalism," Bob Starzel, 63, a longtime Anschutz lieutenant who will be chairman of the newspapers, said Thursday at a news conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in San Francisco. "Philip Anschutz is committed to strengthening and building the Examiner newspaper."
The reclusive Anschutz amassed fortunes in oil, real estate, railroads and telecommunications in Colorado before buying sports teams and movie theaters across the nation. He had a net worth of $4.9 billion in 2003, according to Forbes.com.
Anschutz is best known in California for developing the Staples Center sports arena in downtown Los Angeles. He owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team, a 30 percent stake in the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and half of Major League Soccer, including the San Jose Earthquakes.
He also is the majority owner of the United Artists and Regal movie theater chains, which he acquired after buying the debt of those companies and other chains in 2001.
Philip Anschutz, whom the Chronicle somewhat pejoratively describes as a conservative Christian, purchases the historic, but fading, San Francisco Examiner newspaper.
"Today we are announcing a seismic shift in Bay Area journalism," Bob Starzel, 63, a longtime Anschutz lieutenant who will be chairman of the newspapers, said Thursday at a news conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in San Francisco. "Philip Anschutz is committed to strengthening and building the Examiner newspaper."
The reclusive Anschutz amassed fortunes in oil, real estate, railroads and telecommunications in Colorado before buying sports teams and movie theaters across the nation. He had a net worth of $4.9 billion in 2003, according to Forbes.com.
Anschutz is best known in California for developing the Staples Center sports arena in downtown Los Angeles. He owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team, a 30 percent stake in the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and half of Major League Soccer, including the San Jose Earthquakes.
He also is the majority owner of the United Artists and Regal movie theater chains, which he acquired after buying the debt of those companies and other chains in 2001.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Abe Foxman and the ADL are Asses
For publicly trying to drive a wedge between Mel Gibson and his misguided father, and for trying to impute the unfortunate beliefs of the latter upon the former without any sustaining proof. (Foxman apparantly doesn't think that it is possible for someone to believe something that just isn't true; like the Gospels being anti-Semitic).
It's been said several times by many people and in different quarters, but the ADL's problem truly isn't with Mel Gibson or his movie; it's with the New Testament.
For publicly trying to drive a wedge between Mel Gibson and his misguided father, and for trying to impute the unfortunate beliefs of the latter upon the former without any sustaining proof. (Foxman apparantly doesn't think that it is possible for someone to believe something that just isn't true; like the Gospels being anti-Semitic).
It's been said several times by many people and in different quarters, but the ADL's problem truly isn't with Mel Gibson or his movie; it's with the New Testament.
Press Release From the SF Archdiocese
Unsurprisingly, this appears to have evaded most of the local media.
One quibble I have with this release is its failure to attack the presumtption that personhood may be defined upon sexual preference. It also fails to address the Church's teaching that homosexual conduct is objectively disordered. Ah well.
Statements and releases
February 12, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Maurice Healy 415-614-5632
STATEMENT BY SAN FRANCISCO ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM J. LEVADA
The action taken by Mayor Gavin Newsom regarding same-sex marriages in San Francisco is counter to long-established California law, which was reaffirmed overwhelmingly by California voters just four years ago. In addition, his action is counter to the will of the majority of citizens at the state and national levels as evidenced by the fact that 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriages.
In the current national discussion of same-sex marriage, some voices define marriage only in terms of "personal choice," as if marriage were merely a design of two persons – with nothing to do with family or society. Marriage is a relationship defined by nature, a reality which takes its origin in creation itself. Society does not create marriages, even though it sets parameters protecting it – such as the ban on polygamy and an age requirement to protect a mature decision to enter marriage.
Society grants benefits to marriage for the purpose of fostering families, which in turn nurtures the future. Benefits are not primarily given to individuals who are married, but rather they are provided to establish a nurturing environment for children. Any discussion about same-sex marriage that misses this point becomes mired in confusion, for it is impossible to justify special benefits to married couples if these benefits are seen first as benefits to the spouses themselves. Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the bedrock of the family, and the family unit lies at the heart of every society. To extend the meaning of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman, their procreative capacity, and their establishment of family represents a misguided understanding of marriage itself.
It is not discriminatory to limit "marriage" to heterosexual couples, as same-sex couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. Other remedies can be found to protect the valid rights of persons in non-marital unions, for example civil rights given to individuals such as bereavement leave and inheritance rights, as well as benefits and protection for any children involved. Changing the definition of marriage to achieve benefit goals is ill-advised and harmful to society.
Some may call this age-old stance "discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. Such an interpretation is false, and offensive to people whose goodwill is clear. The Catholic Church has often spoken of the respect, compassion and sensitivity demanded in our interactions with and attitudes toward homosexual people. Withholding support for same-sex marriage should never be equated with hostility toward homosexual people.
While the Catholic Church affirms that God created marriage as a union of a man and a woman, giving them a co-responsibility to establish a family by bringing children into the world, this tenet is not solely a Catholic one. Rather, it is the result of natural reason mirrored in every culture throughout humankind’s history.
We need God’s wisdom as part of the current conversation on this subject. We need local, state and national debate conducted with respect, knowledge and understanding. Rushing to grant same-sex partners the right to "marriage" for the sake of status or benefits could not help but undermine human society’s foundational institutions of marriage and family.
Here in San Francisco, the recent election of Mayor Newsom brought with it an expectation that he would invite the participation of the entire community in seeking solutions to issues such as the homeless crisis, affordable housing, budget difficulties and other important matters.
For many of us, Mayor Newsom’s abrupt action on the issue of same-sex marriage – about which our society is so divided -- raises concern and causes disappointment. We hope the mayor’s action on behalf of one segment of the community does not signal an abandonment of his commitment to respect the views of all groups in the community – and to use his leadership to draw our city together to address the pressing issues identified in the mayoral campaign .
Unsurprisingly, this appears to have evaded most of the local media.
One quibble I have with this release is its failure to attack the presumtption that personhood may be defined upon sexual preference. It also fails to address the Church's teaching that homosexual conduct is objectively disordered. Ah well.
Statements and releases
February 12, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Maurice Healy 415-614-5632
STATEMENT BY SAN FRANCISCO ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM J. LEVADA
The action taken by Mayor Gavin Newsom regarding same-sex marriages in San Francisco is counter to long-established California law, which was reaffirmed overwhelmingly by California voters just four years ago. In addition, his action is counter to the will of the majority of citizens at the state and national levels as evidenced by the fact that 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriages.
In the current national discussion of same-sex marriage, some voices define marriage only in terms of "personal choice," as if marriage were merely a design of two persons – with nothing to do with family or society. Marriage is a relationship defined by nature, a reality which takes its origin in creation itself. Society does not create marriages, even though it sets parameters protecting it – such as the ban on polygamy and an age requirement to protect a mature decision to enter marriage.
Society grants benefits to marriage for the purpose of fostering families, which in turn nurtures the future. Benefits are not primarily given to individuals who are married, but rather they are provided to establish a nurturing environment for children. Any discussion about same-sex marriage that misses this point becomes mired in confusion, for it is impossible to justify special benefits to married couples if these benefits are seen first as benefits to the spouses themselves. Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the bedrock of the family, and the family unit lies at the heart of every society. To extend the meaning of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman, their procreative capacity, and their establishment of family represents a misguided understanding of marriage itself.
It is not discriminatory to limit "marriage" to heterosexual couples, as same-sex couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. Other remedies can be found to protect the valid rights of persons in non-marital unions, for example civil rights given to individuals such as bereavement leave and inheritance rights, as well as benefits and protection for any children involved. Changing the definition of marriage to achieve benefit goals is ill-advised and harmful to society.
Some may call this age-old stance "discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. Such an interpretation is false, and offensive to people whose goodwill is clear. The Catholic Church has often spoken of the respect, compassion and sensitivity demanded in our interactions with and attitudes toward homosexual people. Withholding support for same-sex marriage should never be equated with hostility toward homosexual people.
While the Catholic Church affirms that God created marriage as a union of a man and a woman, giving them a co-responsibility to establish a family by bringing children into the world, this tenet is not solely a Catholic one. Rather, it is the result of natural reason mirrored in every culture throughout humankind’s history.
We need God’s wisdom as part of the current conversation on this subject. We need local, state and national debate conducted with respect, knowledge and understanding. Rushing to grant same-sex partners the right to "marriage" for the sake of status or benefits could not help but undermine human society’s foundational institutions of marriage and family.
Here in San Francisco, the recent election of Mayor Newsom brought with it an expectation that he would invite the participation of the entire community in seeking solutions to issues such as the homeless crisis, affordable housing, budget difficulties and other important matters.
For many of us, Mayor Newsom’s abrupt action on the issue of same-sex marriage – about which our society is so divided -- raises concern and causes disappointment. We hope the mayor’s action on behalf of one segment of the community does not signal an abandonment of his commitment to respect the views of all groups in the community – and to use his leadership to draw our city together to address the pressing issues identified in the mayoral campaign .
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Predestined in Love to be Children of God
From today's General Audience:
Having glanced at the whole of the hymn that opens the Letter to the Ephesians, we now listen to St. John Chrysostom, extraordinary teacher and orator, fine interpreter of sacred Scripture, who lived in the fourth century and became bishop of Constantinople in the midst of difficulties of every nature, and was even subjected to the experience of being exiled twice.
In his first homily on the Letter to the Ephesians, commenting on this canticle, he reflected with gratitude on the "blessing" with which we have been blessed "in Christ": "What are you lacking, in fact? You have become immortal, free, a son, righteous, a brother, co-heir, with him you reign, with him you are glorified. Everything has been given to you and -- as it is written -- 'will he not also give us everything else along with him?' (Romans 8:32). Your first fruits (see 1 Corinthians 15:20,23) are adored by the Angels, the Cherubim, the Seraphim: what are you lacking, now?" (PG 62, 11).
God has done all this for us, Chrysostom continues, "according to the favor of his will." What does this mean? It means that God passionately desires and ardently yearns for our salvation. And why does he love us so? For what reason does he desire so much good for us? Solely because of his goodness: 'grace,' in fact, is proper to goodness" (ibid., 13).
From today's General Audience:
Having glanced at the whole of the hymn that opens the Letter to the Ephesians, we now listen to St. John Chrysostom, extraordinary teacher and orator, fine interpreter of sacred Scripture, who lived in the fourth century and became bishop of Constantinople in the midst of difficulties of every nature, and was even subjected to the experience of being exiled twice.
In his first homily on the Letter to the Ephesians, commenting on this canticle, he reflected with gratitude on the "blessing" with which we have been blessed "in Christ": "What are you lacking, in fact? You have become immortal, free, a son, righteous, a brother, co-heir, with him you reign, with him you are glorified. Everything has been given to you and -- as it is written -- 'will he not also give us everything else along with him?' (Romans 8:32). Your first fruits (see 1 Corinthians 15:20,23) are adored by the Angels, the Cherubim, the Seraphim: what are you lacking, now?" (PG 62, 11).
God has done all this for us, Chrysostom continues, "according to the favor of his will." What does this mean? It means that God passionately desires and ardently yearns for our salvation. And why does he love us so? For what reason does he desire so much good for us? Solely because of his goodness: 'grace,' in fact, is proper to goodness" (ibid., 13).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)