My Take: Not In Defense of Martha’s Activity

No doubt, ahem, if you went to Mass this past weekend, you heard a homily on the very powerful Gospel that was proclaimed–the story of Jesus’ visit to the home of Martha and Mary. In the gospel, Martha complains to Jesus that Mary basically is doing nothing and leaving all the work to her–something evidently we all feel is our lot in the world (although I’ve known a ton of “Mary’s”, I’ve never heard of anyone who actually relates to her in this gospel passage). Which is why, I predict that you heard preached, something that is nowhere to be found in the gospel you heard–a defense of Martha.

Now what makes the Good News (the meaning of the word “gospel”), good news is that it is the message from the king (as Pope Benedict so eloquently brings out in his Jesus of Nazareth), yet when we hear the good news, I find that we almost always want to explain it away, rather than deal with the message being proclaimed. Martha is one of the best examples of this in the Gospels.

She raises her “works” issue with Jesus against the contemplative (listening to what Jesus is saying) Mary and she is essentially rebuked for it–with no apologies. So what are we to take from this?

That when it comes right down to it there is only one thing necessary. We clutter our lives with all kinds of activities that we think our necessary, but in fact as Jesus points out to Martha there is only one think necessary–to listen to God. Now What do you think Martha did when she heard this? Better, what do you do when you hear it?

Evidently when most of us hear it, we think it unjust and immediately go into defending Martha rather than imitating Mary and listening to Jesus–the “one thing necessary.” In other words we reject the good news–the invitation to the kingdom and go back to our own little kingdoms where we rule and will our own lives. But such a rejection does not lead to eternal life.

It is ironic that this message of “listening to Jesus” above everything else is so soundly rejected in modern preaching. If I were to presume to guess what Martha’s reaction to Jesus’ word was–I would presume that she sat down and imitated Mary at that moment, because she knew the Lord loved her and if he was telling her this was what was really necessary, then she had better pay attention.

Hopefully that is what you and I will do also.

2007 Political Activity Guidelines for Catholic Organizations

From the USCCB, here is a sampling:

Columnists. Generally, the statements of columnists appearing in a Catholic organization periodical are attributable to the organization. Catholic organizations typically pay for columns that appear in their publications, either through salary or syndication payments. Even if a columnist is unpaid, the opinion expressed may nonetheless be attributed to the Catholic organization, especially if the columnist is a Church official, because the periodical constitutes an official publication of the Catholic organization and the organization exercises editorial control over its columnists. Opinion columns are not analogous to unsolicited letters to the editor (see below). Accordingly, prudence dictates that Catholic periodicals reject columns that endorse, support, or oppose candidates.

Photo Ops. It is not unusual, during the heat of a campaign, for a candidate or campaign organization to contact a Catholic organization requesting some accommodation, which might range from a photo opportunity at a Catholic school, health care facility or homeless shelter, a “meet and greet” with the bishop or pastor, an appearance at a sponsored event, to other forms of access to Catholic populations. It is difficult to generalize about the appropriateness of such requests from a section 501(c)(3) perspective. In addition, (arch)dioceses may have local policies regulating such access. A Catholic organization receiving an accommodation request should inform the candidate immediately of its status as a section 501(c)(3) organization, the limitations imposed by the political campaign intervention prohibition, and the need for further consultation. The organization should then contact the (arch)diocese concerning the existence of any local policy governing the request. If no local policy would bar the request, local legal counsel should be consulted to evaluate the applicability of the political campaign intervention prohibition.

Voter Guides — Candidate Questionnaires. Candidate Questionnaires. Polling candidates or asking candidates to complete questionnaires designed to elicit their positions on various issues is a neutral activity, assuming that the questions themselves do not exhibit bias. It is only when the results are disseminated during an election campaign that the political campaign activity prohibition becomes a potential issue. IRS has identified the following criteria for determining whether publication or distribution of candidate questionnaire results violates the political campaign activity prohibition: (a) whether the questionnaire is sent to all candidates; (b) whether candidates are given a reasonable period of time to respond; (c) if given a limited choice of responses, whether candidates are also given a reasonable opportunity to offer explanations that are included in the voter guide; (d) whether all responses are published; (e) whether the questions indicate bias toward the sponsoring organization’s preferred answer; (f) whether the responses are compared to the sponsoring organization’s positions on the issues; (g) whether the responses are published as received, without editing by the sponsoring organization; and (h) whether a wide range of issues of interest to voters is covered. The range of issues criterion is contextual; it depends on the particular office being sought. Thus, candidates for local school board need not be queried on foreign policy. Rather, they can be questioned on a broad range of education issues relevant to school board office. [See: Rev. Rul. 2007-41 at 1421; Election Year Issues at 371-2; Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154, Situation 4.]

Cardinal Levada on Document and Motu Proprio

From The Weekly San Francisco:

During a July 17 interview while visiting the San Francisco Bay Area, Cardinal Levada commented on his congregation’s work, Pope Benedict XVI’s recent instruction on the Tridentine Latin Mass, themes of the young papacy, and challenges facing the universal Church today.

The cardinal was quick to describe as “purely coincidental” the fact that his congregation’s document on the nature of the Church was made public only three days after the pope’s announcement of his decision to allow broader use of the Tridentine liturgical rite.

Many commentaries have linked the two. “Many have tried to see it as some kind of one – two punch,” Cardinal Levada laughed, “but the truth is that it is simply a coincidence that they were published in such proximity.”

In restoring easier access “to the principal way of worship in the Church for more than 400 years,” the pontiff “expressed a great generosity” toward persons intensely devoted to the Tridentine Latin Mass, the cardinal said.

The papal directive “was not primarily aimed at the United States,” he said, adding that he feels it will have more impact in France, Germany and Switzerland and little effect in Latin America or Italy.

Turning to the doctrinal congregation’s recent commentary, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” the cardinal said it grew out of extensive conversation and collaboration with theological consultants to the CDF and others, as well as a broad review of published materials.

The document addresses five questions about the nature of the Church “and all five are a commentary on Vatican II documents,” the cardinal said, adding, “It has the advantage of collecting all that has happened since Vatican II up to the present time” and explaining how Church articulation of its own nature as well as its views of other Christian communities have developed.

He said he has been “somewhat surprised” at the amount of “ecumenical commentary” the document has generated. “It is primarily a document addressed to Catholics as believers and teachers and is intended to clarify the teachings of the Second Vatican Council,” he said, “especially the teaching on the nature of the Church.”

That teaching, he said, has been skewed by those who argue “that the Church of Christ can subsist in churches outside the Catholic Church, but that is not the case.”

Cardinal Zen Warns Against Confusion

Surrounding Pope’s Letter to the Chinese Catholics, from Asia News Italy:

It is not true that the letter Pope Benedict XVI wrote to Chinese Catholics says that bishops from the underground Church can concelebrate services with “all” bishops from the official Church. It is not correct to claim that the letter says that there are no more reasons for the existence of the underground Church or that “underground” bishops are urged to seek recognition of state authorities. It is not true that there are no more canonical sanctions against unlawfully ordained bishops. This in a nutshell is the reply Card Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, bishop of Hong Kong, delivered to a July 6 article by Fr Jeroom Heyndrickx, head of the Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation at Leuven’s Catholic University (Belgium), that appeared in the UCA News agency (the cardinal’s reply was published on July 18 and Father Heyndrickx’s counter-reply on the 20).

Cardinal Zen does acknowledge that the Belgian sinologist loves China and “has done a lot of work” to bring together “the Chinese Catholic community with the universal Church.” However, he is concerned that the latter’s “every initiative needs the approval of Mr. Liu (Banian) of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA), and has to be carried out according to conditions imposed by him.” This is the same Mr Liu who is the CCPA deputy chairman and whose “enormous power . . . has allowed him to oppress and humiliate our bishops.