Jesus was born in a stable because there was no vacancy at the inn, not because his family could not afford to pay for a room. Had Holy Family been indigent, they would have been homeless and Jesus would have been born on the street. Had that been the case, then this pope would have been correct, that Jesus was "'born into poverty of this world.'" [3]
For the Holy Family to agree to stay in the stable means only that they were humble, not that they were poor. The Catholic church seems to thrive on poverty and not on humility.
It is true that the Holy Family was not affluent. They could not afford the the kind of wealth that the pope has chosen to surround himself with at the Vatican. If the pope truly wants to, he could choose to move out of the Vatican and live in a one-bedroom pensione with shared restroom and shower, to come close to being like Christ. That he has not done and likely will not do.
For the Holy Family to agree to stay in the stable means only that they were humble, not that they were poor. The Catholic church seems to thrive on poverty and not on humility.
It is true that the Holy Family was not affluent. They could not afford the the kind of wealth that the pope has chosen to surround himself with at the Vatican. If the pope truly wants to, he could choose to move out of the Vatican and live in a one-bedroom pensione with shared restroom and shower, to come close to being like Christ. That he has not done and likely will not do.
The reason that God had arranged to have Jesus born in a stable surrounded by farm animals is symbolic because like a farm animal, Jesus had to give up his life so that man can be nourished, spiritually, because man without God is spiritually starved. God is concerned with man's spiritual bankruptcy, not man's financial position. God did not send Jesus to make man money, to give man real property and chattels but to save man's soul. Why is the pope and the entire Catholic church are obsessed with money never ceases to amaze this blogger ("irritate" is probably a better word). [4]
What would this pope, who had named himself Francis after Saint Francis of Assisi, do if he had met the mendicant Francis who chose to be poor? Throw money at him? Force him to go back to his family and live his comfortable wealthy life once more? Is that not what pope Frank wants to see the poor of the world to have, a comfortable life? Does he even care about their souls? If he does, he has not said so repeatedly with emphasis, as far as this blogger knows. He wanted man to judge, to be "'capable of seeing and doing what is essential'" [5] rather than to love purely, unconditionally and perhaps even blindly.
This pope does not seem to like to talk much about love, perhaps love is absent from his heart. In contrast to Pope Benedict XVI, who is not perfect by any means, he, at least, spoke of love [6], in his own unique vernacular that is intellectual, emotionally detached and difficult to grasp.
This pope also wanted man to "'cultivate a strong sense of justice'" [7] apparently to right what he perceived to be wrong, by punishing the wrongdoers (that is what justice tends to do, punish) rather than forgiving, as Jesus did the sinful woman "for she loved much." [7]
Love is simple. It does not require an explanation in the form of a treatise. Anyone who does not understand love is not human. Even wild animals understand love and they do not have a written language. They breed and raise their young otherwise they would have been extinct. Certainly, the farm animals in the stable where Jesus was born understood love.
Joseph and Mary understood love. After all, they were chosen by God, and God is love. Jesus, the Son of God, was the true image of love in the flesh -- inn or no inn, money or no money -- it did not matter to Him. His love for His Father sustained Him from Satan's temptations; His love for man sustained Him throughout His Passion beginning with His agony in the garden to His death on the cross.
Joseph and Mary understood love. After all, they were chosen by God, and God is love. Jesus, the Son of God, was the true image of love in the flesh -- inn or no inn, money or no money -- it did not matter to Him. His love for His Father sustained Him from Satan's temptations; His love for man sustained Him throughout His Passion beginning with His agony in the garden to His death on the cross.
But tonight is not about the death of Jesus but His birth that brought love to man, but man has rejected His love by allowing everything else except the love of Christ to occupy his entire being, with no room left in his heart and in his mind for the Savior of souls, relegating Jesus Christ and His love to a handful of caretakers in the barn [9] some distance away, paying a visit once or twice a year, if that often.
[5] http://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-contrasts-jesus-birth-excess-in-christmas-eve-homily-1450999881
[7] http://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-contrasts-jesus-birth-excess-in-christmas-eve-homily-1450999881
[9] The "barn" is concept, not a place, certainly not the Vatican and not the unholy churches around the world; the "caretakers" are not the political popes, priests and other religious, but the humble sinners whom God forgives and loves and who love God in return; and the "paying of a visit" is not a physical journey to a place, but an act of supplication.
No comments:
Post a Comment