TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Christianity

    Faith & Culture

    Joseph Pearce, Editor of Faith & Culture magazine, has weekly interviews with well-known Catholic authors, speakers, and academics on a variety of topics related to Catholicism.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Luke 16:19–20 with St. Bonaventure Aug 03, 2020
    Show notes

    “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores.”

    In this powerful parable, Jesus draws a distressing contrast between an unnamed rich man and the poor Lazarus, who sat by the rich man’s gate begging daily. St. Bonaventure, who himself lived out the practice of poverty in his Franciscan vocation, meditates on this scene to reveal its spiritual lessons: that in possessing many things we can come to be possessed by them and that we can find true freedom in embracing the spirit of poverty.

    He describes how the rich man is called “rich” not just because he had many possessions, “but also because of his love of them.” His love for things entraps him in the lure of riches which in themselves cannot satisfy our deepest longings. As Bonaventure puts it, “For through its love for earthly things the spirit grows fat and is weighed down, so that it cannot travel into the higher realms of heaven.” False love for money, possessions, comfort and security prevent us from rising to the true love of God. We end up being owned by the things we own.

    The rich man wore fancy clothing and feasted every day. His sin of greed was thus accompanied by gluttony, which led to his lack of mercy for the poor man at his gate. It is hard to understand hunger when our bellies are always full. While Bonaventure rejects gluttony of the flesh, he commends us to a different sort of enjoyment: “Note that there is a splendid nature to spiritual feasting, which produces wisdom.” He warns us against the dangers of over-indulging our bodily appetites, but directs us toward the satisfaction of our spiritual hunger in word and sacrament.

    Bonaventure regards the rich man’s lack of mercy as particularly egregious given that Lazarus was not only poor, but lonely, sick and hungry; “these circumstances show that the poor man was worthy of mercy and consequently that the rich man was merciless and impious.” The rich man was “more generous to the dogs than to the poor man, and the dogs were more tender to the poor man than the rich man was” since they licked his sores. The contrast between the poor man’s desperate need and the rich man’s sumptuous lifestyle reveal his hardness of heart. He could have easily helped this man whose need was so obvious and so extreme.

    In the end, the poor man was welcomed into glory while the rich man was condemned. The poor man was truly free, while the rich man was burdened by his many possessions. Their story serves as a warning to us not to give in to selfish desires which leave us cold toward the needs of others, but to give generously to those and in need and so feast at the table of Wisdom that we might be welcomed “into the eternal dwellings” (Lk. 16:9) by the righteous poor.[1]

    [1] Summary by Mark Giszczak with the use of Bonaventure, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: Chapters 9–16, 1516–26.


    The Revelation of God’s Face Jul 31, 2020
    Show notes

    Faith&Culture offers this selection from Benedict XVI’s General Audience Address of January 16, 2013 as part of its ongoing reflection on the nobility of the human face.[*]

    I would like to dwell on the phrase: “reveals God’s face”. In this regard St. John records for us a significant event. When he was approaching the Passion, Jesus reassured his disciples, asking them not to be afraid and to have faith; he then begins a conversation with them in which he talks about God the Father (cf. Jn 14:2-9). At a certain point the Apostle Philip asked Jesus: “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied” (Jn 14:8). Philip was very practical and prosaic, he even said what we ourselves would like to say: “we want to see him, show us the Father.” He asks to “see” the Father, to see his face. Jesus’ answer is a reply not only to Philip but also to us and it ushers us into the heart of Christological faith. The Lord affirmed: “he who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). These words sum up the newness of the New Testament, that newness which appeared in the Bethlehem Grotto: God can be seen, God has shown his face, he is visible in Jesus Christ.

    The theme of the “quest for God’s face”, the desire to know this face, the desire to see God as he is, is clearly present throughout the Old Testament, to the extent that the Hebrew term pānîm, which means “face”, recurs 400 times, and refers to God 100 times. One hundred times it refers to God. The wish to see God’s face is expressed 100 times. Yet the Jewish religion absolutely forbids images, for God cannot be portrayed as, on the contrary, he was portrayed by the neighboring peoples who worshipped idols. Therefore, with this prohibition of images, the Old Testament seems totally to exclude any “seeing” from worship and from devotion. Yet what did seeking God’s face mean to the devout Israelite, who knew that there could be no depiction of it? The question is important. There was a wish on the one hand to say that God cannot be reduced to an object, like an image that can be held in the hand, nor can anything be put in God’s place. On the other, it was affirmed that God has a face — meaning he is a “you” who can enter into a relationship — and who has not withdrawn into his heavenly dwelling place, looking down at humanity from on high. God is certainly above all things, but he addresses us, he listens to us, he sees us, he speaks to us, he makes a covenant, he is capable of love. The history of salvation is the history of God with humanity, it is the history of this relationship of God who gradually reveals himself to man, who makes himself, his face, known.

    At the very beginning of the year, on 1 January, we heard in the liturgy the most beautiful prayer of blessing upon the people: “May the Lord Bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you. May the Lord uncover his face to you and bring you peace (Num 6:24-26). The splendor of the divine face is the source of life, it is what makes it possible to see reality; the light of his face is guidance for life. In the Old Testament there is a figure with whom the theme of “the face of God” is connected in a special way: Moses. The man whom God chose to set his people free from slavery in Egypt, giving him the Law of the Covenant and leading him to the Promised Land. Well, in Chapter 33 of the Book of Exodus it says that Moses had a close and confidential relationship with God: “The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (v. 11). By virtue of this trust, Moses was able to ask God: “show me your glory”, and God’s response was clear: “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name”…. But he said “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.… There is a place by me.... You shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen” (vv. 18-23). Thus, on the one hand, there was the face-to-face conversation as between friends, but on the other, the impossibility in this life of seeing the face of God which remained hidden; sight is restricted. The Fathers said that these words, “you shall see my back”, meant you can only follow Christ and in following him you see the mystery of God from behind. God can be followed by seeing his back.

    Something completely new happened, however, with the Incarnation. The search for God’s face was given an unimaginable turning-point, because this time this face could be seen: it is the face of Jesus, of the Son of God who became man. In him the process of the Revelation of God, which began with Abraham’s call, finds fulfilment in the One who is the fullness of this Revelation, because he is the Son of God, he is both “the mediator and the sum total of Revelation” (Dei Verbum, 2), the content of Revelation and the Revealer coincide in him. Jesus shows us God’s face and makes God’s name known to us. In the Priestly Prayer at the Last Supper he says to the Father: “I have manifested your name to the men... I made known to them your name” (cf. Jn 17:6; 6, 26). The phrase: “name of God”, means God as the One who is present among men and women. God had revealed his name to Moses by the burning bush, that is, he had made it possible to call on him, had given a tangible sign of his “being” among human beings. All this found fulfilment and completion in Jesus: he inaugurated God’s presence in history in a new way, because whoever sees him, sees the Father, as he said to Philip (cf. Jn 14:9). . . .

    The desire to know God truly, that is, to see God’s face, is innate in every human being, even in atheists. And perhaps we unconsciously have this wish simply to see who he is, what he is, who he is for us. However, this desire is fulfilled in following Christ, in this way we see his back and, in the end, we see God too as a friend, in Christ’s face we see his face. The important thing is that we not only follow Christ in our needy moments or when we find a slot in our daily occupations, but in our life as such. The whole of our life must be oriented to meeting Jesus Christ, to loving him; and, in our life we must allocate a central place to loving our neighbor, that love which, in the light of the Crucified One, enables us to recognize the face of Jesus in the poor, in the weak and in the suffering. This is only possible if the true face of Jesus has become familiar to us through listening to his word, in an inner conversation with him, in entering this word so that we truly meet him, and of course, in the Mystery of the Eucharist. In the Gospel of St Luke the passage about the two disciples of Emmaus recognize Jesus in the breaking of bread is important; prepared by the journey with him, by the invitation to stay with them that they had addressed to him and by the conversation that made their hearts burn within them, in the end they saw Jesus. For us too the Eucharist is the great school in which we learn to see God’s face, we enter into a close relationship with him; and at the same time we learn to turn our gaze to the final moment of history when he will satisfy us with the light of his face.

    [*] http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130116.html


    Matthew 17:19–20 with St. Thérèse of Lisieux Jul 29, 2020
    Show notes

    “Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, ‘Why could we not cast it out?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.’”

    St. Thérèse of Lisieux interprets this saying of the Lord in a surprising way. In the gospel, the disciples have just failed to perform a healing, and they are asking Jesus why they failed. It would seem that, at least at some level, Jesus is telling his disciples that they need only a little faith to do great things. But Thérèse wonders what the verse might tell us about those with great faith, and about the times when Jesus seems to deny us even the little things. She has cause to reflect on the meaning of this verse when God refuses her something that she wanted, and which she believed she would receive with ardent faith.

    Thérèse says that this verse reveals that miracles are often granted to those of little faith, in order to strengthen them and to help them to grow. However, in order to perfect the faith of those who are not beginners, Jesus does not always work signs as readily: “for his intimate friends, and for his mother, he works no miracles before having tried their faith. Did he not allow Lazarus to die even after Martha and Mary told him he was sick?” Thérèse also gives the example of Mary at the wedding at Cana (Jn. 3): “when the Blessed Virgin asked Jesus to come to the help of the head of the house, didn’t He answer her that His hour had not yet come?”

    The sisters at Bethany and the virgin Mary had great faith, but they had to wait on Christ. After the testing of their faith, however, they were rewarded: Lazarus was raised from the dead and water was turned into wine. Thérèse tells us, therefore, that although mustard seed faith may be rewarded with a sign, deeper intimacy with Christ requires even greater faith still; “thus Jesus acted towards his little Thérèse: after having tried her for a long time, he granted all the desires of her heart.”[1]

    [1] Summary by Elizabeth Klein with the use of Thérèse of Lisieux, Story of a Soul, trans. John Clarke (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1996),142.


    Luke 10:2 with St. Bonaventure Jul 27, 2020
    Show notes

    “And he said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.’”

    Jesus launches his disciples on a mission with an encouragement to pray that even more laborers be sent out to reap the harvest of souls. It is telling that the harvest begins with prayer, not work, because prayer is the foundation of the harvest. In commenting on this verse, St. Bonaventure highlights the need not just for laborers, but for good ones. He says, “Those who practice what they preach are laborers and are to be rewarded by the Lord.” Hypocrites are not eligible. To be the true laborers for which Jesus urges us to pray, we must be sincere. Our conduct must reflect the principles that we proclaim.

    Bonaventure presses the point, and reports on the state of things among the workers: “few are industrious laborers, but many are malicious.” Even more, “many are slothful.” We should never discount the danger of laziness and selfish intent invading our spiritual life and ministry efforts. Rather, we must be on guard against such temptations in order that we might be good, industrious laborers in the harvest.

    Bonaventure identifies the means of harvesting as “the sword of the divine word,” as if the proclamation of the gospel were a sickle by which grain could be cut down. He explains that a sword, “unless it is held in the hand, does not strike fear in the adversary.” We must be ready for spiritual combat. He aligns this idea with Nehemiah’s contested rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, where the Jewish workmen were under such threat that they had to work with one hand and hold a sword with the other.

    Despite all the warnings he offers, Bonaventure acknowledges that God does grant us laborers—saints, priests, sisters, evangelists, witnesses. So we pray. We pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life. We pray for God to grant authentic witnesses to the gospel, industrious laborers in the harvest of souls who are truly devoted to him and who hold the sword of the Word at the ready.[1]

    [1] Summary by Mark Giszczak with the use of Bonaventure, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: Chapters 9–16, trans. and ed. Robert J. Karris, Works of St. Bonaventure, vol. VIII, Part II (Saint Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2003), 927–928.


    A Face to Contemplate Jul 24, 2020
    Show notes

    Faith&Culture offers this selection from St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte (January 6, 2001) as part of its ongoing reflection on the nobility of the human face.

    “Your face, O Lord, I seek” (Ps 27:8). The ancient longing of the Psalmist could receive no fulfilment greater and more surprising than the contemplation of the face of Christ. God has truly blessed us in him and has made “his face to shine upon us” (Ps 67:1). At the same time, God and man that he is, he reveals to us also the true face of man, “fully revealing man to man himself” (Gaudium et spes, 22).

    Jesus is “the new man” (cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10) who calls redeemed humanity to share in his divine life. The mystery of the Incarnation lays the foundations for an anthropology which, reaching beyond its own limitations and contradictions, moves towards God himself, indeed towards the goal of divinization. . . . The Church has no doubt that the Evangelists in their accounts, and inspired from on high, have correctly understood in the words which Jesus spoke the truth about his person and his awareness of it. Is this not what Luke wishes to tell us when he recounts Jesus’ first recorded words, spoken in the Temple in Jerusalem when he was barely twelve years old? Already at that time he shows that he is aware of a unique relationship with God, a relationship which properly belongs to a “son.” When his mother tells him how anxiously she and Joseph had been searching for him, Jesus replies without hesitation: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s affairs?” (Lk 2:49). It is no wonder therefore that later as a grown man his language authoritatively expresses the depth of his own mystery, as is abundantly clear both in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22) and above all in the Gospel of John. In his self-awareness, Jesus has no doubts: “The Father is in me and I am in the Father” (Jn 10:38).

    However valid it may be to maintain that, because of the human condition which made him grow “in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man” (Lk 2:52), his human awareness of his own mystery would also have progressed to its fullest expression in his glorified humanity, there is no doubt that already in his historical existence Jesus was aware of his identity as the Son of God. John emphasizes this to the point of affirming that it was ultimately because of this awareness that Jesus was rejected and condemned: they sought to kill him “because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God” (Jn 5:18). In Gethsemane and on Golgotha Jesus’ human awareness will be put to the supreme test. But not even the drama of his Passion and Death will be able to shake his serene certainty of being the Son of the heavenly Father.

    In contemplating Christ’s face, we confront the most paradoxical aspect of his mystery, as it emerges in his last hour, on the Cross. The mystery within the mystery, before which we cannot but prostrate ourselves in adoration.

    The intensity of the episode of the agony in the Garden of Olives passes before our eyes. Oppressed by foreknowledge of the trials that await him, and alone before the Father, Jesus cries out to him in his habitual and affectionate expression of trust: “Abba, Father.” He asks him to take away, if possible, the cup of suffering (cf. Mk 14:36). But the Father seems not to want to heed the Son’s cry. In order to bring man back to the Father’s face, Jesus not only had to take on the face of man, but he had to burden himself with the “face” of sin. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).

    We shall never exhaust the depths of this mystery. All the harshness of the paradox can be heard in Jesus’ seemingly desperate cry of pain on the Cross: “‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Mk 15:34). Is it possible to imagine a greater agony, a more impenetrable darkness? In reality, the anguished “why” addressed to the Father in the opening words of the Twenty-second Psalm expresses all the realism of unspeakable pain; but it is also illumined by the meaning of that entire prayer, in which the Psalmist brings together suffering and trust, in a moving blend of emotions. In fact, the Psalm continues: “In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you set them free ... Do not leave me alone in my distress, come close, there is none else to help” (Ps 22:5,12).

    Jesus’ cry on the Cross, dear Brothers and Sisters, is not the cry of anguish of a man without hope, but the prayer of the Son who offers his life to the Father in love, for the salvation of all. At the very moment when he identifies with our sin, “abandoned” by the Father, he “abandons” himself into the hands of the Father. His eyes remain fixed on the Father. Precisely because of the knowledge and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness he sees clearly the gravity of sin and suffers because of it. He alone, who sees the Father and rejoices fully in him, can understand completely what it means to resist the Father’s love by sin. More than an experience of physical pain, his Passion is an agonizing suffering of the soul. Theological tradition has not failed to ask how Jesus could possibly experience at one and the same time his profound unity with the Father, by its very nature a source of joy and happiness, and an agony that goes all the way to his final cry of abandonment. The simultaneous presence of these two seemingly irreconcilable aspects is rooted in the fathomless depths of the hypostatic union. . . .

    As on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, the Church pauses in contemplation of this bleeding face, which conceals the life of God and offers salvation to the world. But her contemplation of Christ’s face cannot stop at the image of the Crucified One. He is the Risen One! Were this not so, our preaching would be in vain and our faith empty (cf. 1 Cor 15:14). The Resurrection was the Father’s response to Christ’s obedience, as we learn from the Letter to the Hebrews: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Son though he was, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (5:7-9).

    It is the Risen Christ to whom the Church now looks. And she does so in the footsteps of Peter, who wept for his denial and started out again by confessing, with understandable trepidation, his love of Christ: “You know that I love you” (Jn 21:15-17). She does so in the company of Paul, who encountered the Lord on the road to Damascus and was overwhelmed: “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21).

    Two thousand years after these events, the Church relives them as if they had happened today. Gazing on the face of Christ, the Bride contemplates her treasure and her joy. “Dulcis Iesus memoria, dans vera cordis gaudia”: how sweet is the memory of Jesus, the source of the heart’s true joy! Heartened by this experience, the Church today sets out once more on her journey, in order to proclaim Christ to the world at the dawn of the Third Millennium: he “is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8).


    Luke 2:25–29 with Origen of Alexandria Jul 22, 2020
    Show notes

    “Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, ‘Lord now you are letting your servant depart in peace…’”

    Men and women who have grown old in friendship with the Lord sometimes say that they are ready to “go home.” We might be reminded of St. Paul who “would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). Such eagerness for death would be perverse were it not for “the Lord’s Christ,” who is “the consolation of Israel.” Why is it, Origen wonders, that Simeon “held [Jesus] in his arms, and kept rejoicing and exulting”? Because Simeon knew that “the little child he was carrying had come to release captives and to free Simeon from the bonds of the body,” and Jesus alone could do this “with hope of life to come.”

    Origen goes further. We are all, he suggests, Simeon. Death comes for us all. But, says Origen, if someone wishes “to go forth and reign” after this life, he too “should enfold [Jesus] in his arms, and fully grasp him in his bosom. Then he will be able to go in joy where he longs to go.” But how can we hold Jesus like Simeon? The same way as Simeon did: by following the Spirit into the temple. The temple, Origen explains, is the Church. But just coming physically to church is not enough. We must walk by the Spirit so that our way of life becomes “worthy of the title ‘church.’” Origen concludes the homily with the first known prayer to the infant Christ: “let us pray to Jesus himself, the little child. We long to speak to him and hold him in our arms, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen.”[1]

    [1] Summary by John Sehorn with the use of Origen, Homily 15 on Luke, in Homilies on Luke, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J., Fathers of the Church 94 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 62–64.


    Americanism and America Jul 20, 2020
    Show notes

    In 1899, Pope Leo XIII issued an apostolic letter, Testem benevolentiae, in which he expressed concern regarding the development of “those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some ‘Americanism.’”[1] The issue was complicated, but at its root was Leo’s concern that certain American cultural norms—in particular the Protestant privileging of the authority of private judgment and of equality over hierarchy—were infiltrating and corrupting the Church in America. The recent celebration of Independence Day gave occasion to reflect on this issue. Over Fourth of July weekend, I experienced two very different patriotic sermons: one that nearly presented the Founding Fathers as crypto-Catholics, the other that reminded us that while love of country is a virtue, Catholic patriotism must be tempered by the acknowledgment that America was founded on the Enlightenment principle of autonomous reason. Historically, the second view is undeniably the accurate one: “Nature’s God” is not the Triune God of Christianity. This should not trouble us. The Church has a long history of Christianizing pagan political structures; think no further than the Roman Empire and Germanic feudalism. Our unique challenge today is the inability of many American Catholics to see that our political structures and traditions need Catholicizing—either due to a misguided understanding of disestablishment or, worse, a misguided belief that they are in some sense already Catholic. Leo’s fears of American cultural norms corrupting the Church may have been unwarranted in the late nineteenth century but proved prophetic of what was to come.

    The struggle over Americanism in the late nineteenth century actually revealed the strength of a distinctly Catholic life within America. The Protestant and egalitarian influences that Leo feared were at most the dalliance of a small elite; the real battle lines of Americanism were drawn in the areas of ethnicity and parochial schools. “Americanist” bishops such as John Ireland of St. Paul feared that the persistence of ethnic cultures among Catholics in America and the maintenance of a separate parochial school system set Catholics apart from mainstream America, marking them as foreign, subversive, un-American. These bishops were in some sense correct, but most Catholics preferred to be American on their own terms rather than have those terms dictated to them by anti-Catholic bigots.[2] The passage of immigration restriction in the 1920s dealt a blow to ethnic Catholicism, yet parochial schools continued to sustain a distinct subculture: patriotic, within the limits of Catholicism. This subculture found its greatest support in the simple geographic fact of Catholics living together in tight-knit, urban parishes. The Catholic politics of this period had very little to do with The Spirit of ’76 and everything to do with political “machines” distributing patronage and other material benefits that often stood as the only difference between mere working-class poverty and life-threatening destitution. This type of local city politics only reaffirmed the sense among non-Catholics that Catholics were a people apart, not to be trusted.

    Post-World War II Catholics aspiring to national political power sought to move beyond this local model by appealing broader political principles. Two strategies converged by about the year 1960: in We Hold These Truths, the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray argued that American political traditions are compatible with Catholicism because they are rooted in natural law; in the same year, the Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy assured the nation that his Catholicism would have nothing to do with how he conducted himself as president.[3] These two somewhat contradictory principles—America is pretty close to Catholic on its own terms or has nothing to do with Catholicism at all—have set the boundaries for most mainstream Catholic engagement with American politics. Kennedy’s strong words—striking for the sharpness of their separation of private faith and public life—were perhaps even more significant for the lack of controversy they generated among most American Catholics in 1960. Catholics at the time were too caught up in the thrill of seeing one of their own elected as president. Kennedy’s assassination three years later seemed to seal the deal: a martyrdom that forever put to rest all the old doubts about the rightful place of Catholics in America. Two years later, the Vatican itself seemed to confirm this victory with the guarded endorsement of religious liberty expressed in the Vatican II document Dignitatis humanae (drafted in large part by none other than John Courtney Murray himself).[4]

    This marriage turned out to be no more than a honeymoon—and a short-lived one at that. For a hundred years, America deemed the Church un-American due to its failure to endorse democracy; following St. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968, America would once again judge the Church deficient, this time for its failure to approve of artificial contraception and, by implication, abortion. This time, however, the assault on Catholicism came as much from within the Church as from outside it. American Catholics overwhelmingly rejected Humanae vitae and sided with the external critics of the Church. Certain Catholic theologians invoked the theological principle of conscience as justification for their dissent from the encyclical. Most Catholics never ventured into theological abstractions; their visceral rejection instead grew out of their prior embrace of a middle-class family ideal predicated on small families, the aberration of the Baby Boom notwithstanding. Theologians tend to view the battle over Humanae vitae as one between orthodoxy and heresy; this historian views it more as the first post-Kennedy test-case as to how Catholics would deal with a conflict between Catholic faith and American culture. On the issue of birth control, American Catholics sided overwhelmingly with American culture. It was a harbinger of things to come, not only in private faith but in public life.

    The decades following Humanae vitae would see Leo XIII’s fears of “Americanism” realized, though on terms he could not have anticipated. Democracy did not re-make the Church in the image of congregationalism, but American politics succeeded in making American Catholics indistinguishable from other Americans. Liberal Catholics follow liberal non-Catholics in promoting social justice in the name of the common good while supporting abortion and a radically privatized understanding of sexual freedom that undermines the common good; conservative Catholics follow conservative non-Catholics by opposing abortion yet promote a radically privatized understanding of economic freedom that likewise undermines the common good. Liberal and conservative Catholics differ on specific issues but share the same tendency to view their faith through their politics. It is by now a commonplace that the social teachings of the Church are, by American political standards, economically “liberal” and culturally “conservative.” American Catholics have failed to promote this unified vision in mainstream American politics for fear of seeming un-American—in the sense of failing to conform to the prevailing ideological alignments of mainstream American politics.

    Efforts to unify Catholics through the metaphor of the “seamless garment” of Catholic social teaching have only met with partisan responses. Liberal Catholics interpret the unity in terms of equivalency, as if caring for the poor absolved one of responsibility to defend the un-born; conservative Catholics interpret the unity in terms of hierarchy, as if defending the unborn absolves them of the “lesser” good of caring for the poor. Efforts to close these loopholes through the idea of a “consistent life ethic” have failed to correct liberal and conservative inconsistencies.[5] Perhaps Leo was more prophetic than he knew: this partisan, politicized Catholicism reflects nothing if not the triumph of “private judgment,” the freedom to fashion a Catholicism to suit our own personal preferences. This is the triumph of Americanism in our own time.

    So what, to the Catholic, is the Fourth of July? Looking back, it is a day of gratitude to a country that provided a home for millions of uprooted immigrants and enabled them, for a time, to recreate authentic Catholic communities in America. Looking forward, it is gratitude for the freedom to recreate communities of faith once again—different communities under different circumstances, but part of a tradition of Catholic life ever recreating itself in continuity with the enduring truths of the faith. In America, this recreation will inevitably be, in part, a political task, for communities are never purely private. The forces undermining Catholic culture have never been only cultural, but always also political, social and economic; they must be met with appropriate counterforce. Catholics capable of seeing beyond our current political polarization should also be able to see that if American political freedom means anything it means the ability to envision and enact political alternatives, even alternative political parties. As we contemplate the Fourth of July, it is time for Catholics once more to declare their independence.

    [1] Pope Leo XIII, “Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae: Concerning New Opinions, Virtue, Nature and Grace, with Regard to Americanism, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13teste.htm.

    [2] For an excellent account of the complicated twists and turns of this controversy, see Charles R. Morris, American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Built America’s Most Powerful Church (New York: Vintage Books, 1997), especially Chapter 4, “The Grand American Catholic Compromise.”

    [3] See John Courtney Murray, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960); John F. Kennedy, “Address to the Houston Ministerial Association, September, 1960” in Steven M. Avella and Elizabeth McKeown, eds., Public Voices: Catholics in the American Context (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), 361-364.

    [4] For the text of Dignitatis Humanae, see http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

    [5] For a good account of these concepts, see John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003), 285-87.


    I am a Christian Jul 17, 2020
    Show notes

    Our earliest literary record of Christianity in North Africa is a court record. It is very short and straightforward. On July 17, 180, Publius Vigellius Saturninus, the proconsul of Africa, was saddled with the irksome duty of interrogating a group of seven men and five women from the obscure town of Scilli. They stood before him in Carthage accused of “living as Christians”—literally, “living by the Christian rite” (ritu Christiano…vivere). According to policy set by the Emperor Trajan in 112, this was a capital offense, and the twelve Scillitan martyrs—Speratus (the Christians’ spokesman, perhaps a member of the clergy), Nartzalus, Cittinus, Veturius, Felix, Aquilinus, Laetantius, Januaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata, and Secunda—were all summarily beheaded.

    It did not have to end that way. Trajan had also stipulated that Christians who recanted their Christianity and proved it “by praying to our gods” (supplicando dis nostris) could be granted “pardon for their repentance” (veniam ex paenitentia). Saturninus was quick to remind the Scillitans of this: “You can gain the indulgence of our lord the emperor if you come back to your senses.” Saturninus even seemed open to glossing over the bit about renouncing Christ. All Speratus and his companions had to do was to swear an oath by the emperor’s genius (his personal divinity) and pray for his wellbeing. Saturninus was prepared to wink at the rest. But the recalcitrant bumpkins refused to budge.

    Saturninus was obviously annoyed with the whole proceeding. The gesture of goodwill toward the emperor that he demanded was a very small thing, an everyday thing, routine as purchasing wares or paying taxes—which the Christians admitted they did. These obnoxious people were also strangely inconsistent. One of them, Donata, openly said that they paid “honor to Caesar as Caesar, but fear to God” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:17). Well, that is really all Saturninus was asking for: a simple token of honor to Caesar. Surely there was some misunderstanding. These folks were worked up, maybe overexcited by their ordeal in the big city. They needed time to cool off and get a grip. But they just kept saying, again and again, “I am a Christian.” Saturninus tried to give them a thirty-day grace period to think things over. Speratus repeated, “I am a Christian,” and all the rest agreed.

    Reluctantly, Saturninus passed his sentence. Absurdly, the Christians reacted with joy: “We give thanks to God!” “Today we are martyrs in heaven! Thanks be to God!”

    Parts of Tertullian’s Apology, written within two decades of the Scillitans’ martyrdom, read almost like a theological commentary on these events. A Carthaginian who had likely trained in law, Tertullian was surely aware of the Scillitans’ appearance before Saturninus, whom Tertullian identifies as the first Roman official to put Christians to the sword in North Africa (To Scapula 3). Tertullian explains that Christians refuse to swear oaths by the emperor’s genius not because they wish the emperor harm but because the genii are in fact demons (Apology 32). Christians do pray for the emperor’s welfare, as well as for imperial security, for the emperor’s household, for a valiant military, for a loyal senate, for an upstanding citizenry, for world peace—only they offer such prayers to the one true God who providentially appointed the emperor (Apology 30, 33).

    Tertullian’s assertion that Christians recognize the divinely ordained legitimacy of the emperor seems at loggerheads with Speratus’s protestation, “I do not acknowledge the Empire of this world … I acknowledge my Lord, the Emperor of kings and of all nations [cf. Rev. 1:5].” But the context is one in which Saturninus has insistently equated honoring Caesar with swearing by his genius. He has rejected the distinction Tertullian and other Christians observed between the emperor and the demon to whom pagans sacrificed on his behalf. In the person of its proconsular representative, the Roman Empire has thus aligned itself with “the Empire of this world [huius seculi]”—that is, of “the world” whose prince is the evil one (2 Cor. 4:4) and which is at enmity with God (Jas. 4:4).

    All this, naturally, was lost on the inconvenienced Saturninus, who was not interested in being lectured by rural religious fanatics. To him, this was madness. He referred to it, literally, as dementia. So it would have appeared to most Romans. With the eyes of faith, the martyrs and their Christian brothers and sisters could recognize martyrdom as a glorious victory over the power of darkness. Sometimes the martyrs’ comportment was an occasion of grace leading to the conversion of onlookers. But most of the time non-Christians simply found the martyrs pathetically obstinate. Pliny observed to Trajan that, even if the fantastic rumors of Christians committing horrible crimes were false, their uncivil stubbornness was reason enough to eliminate them from society. Many who watched martyrdoms taunted and jeered. Others must have just shaken their heads at such tragic folly. They did not see praiseworthy heroism but foolish, unnecessary suffering.

    I do not know whether Christians in the West will be faced with state-sanctioned red martyrdom in the future. What I do know is that when Christians are called upon either to betray their Master or to give up their reputation, liberty, property, or life, they should not expect to be applauded by neutral public observers. They should not expect to be widely congratulated on social media for their unwavering adherence to principle. They should not seek praise from men (John 5:41, 44). They should expect to be reviled and mocked. That is what the Lord himself promised.

    There is an opposite danger as well. Some zealous believers might take the lesson of the Scillitan martyrs and others as an invitation to make themselves a nuisance. This too is a mistake. St. Paul taught us to pray “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). Early martyrdom accounts condemn the theatrics of hotheads like a certain Quintus, who turned himself in voluntarily, thinking to make himself a hero, then buckled under the pressure and apostatized (Martyrdom of Polycarp 4). Jesus blesses, not self-righteous provocateurs, but whose who are slandered falsely on his account (Matt. 5:11).

    May the holy Scillitan martyrs pray for us, that we might serve our Lord, “the Emperor of kings and of all nations,” with undivided hearts, so that we can announce with them, in all our words and deeds, with simplicity and humility, “I am a Christian.” If we do, when we are called upon to suffer for the Name, we, like the Scillitan martyrs, will rejoice and be glad (Matt. 5:12).


    Courtesy Jul 16, 2020
    Show notes

    With this lovely poem by Belloc in honor of Our Lady, Faith&Culture begins a series of reflections upon the nobility of the human face.

    Of Courtesy, it is much less

    Than Courage of Heart or Holiness,

    Yet in my Walks it seems to me

    That the Grace of God is in Courtesy.

    On Monks I did in Storrington fall,

    They took me straight into their Hall;

    I saw Three Pictures on a wall,

    And Courtesy was in them all.

    The first the Annunciation;

    The second the Visitation;

    The third the Consolation,

    Of God that was Our Lady’s Son.

    The first was of Saint Gabriel;

    On Wings a-flame from Heaven he fell;

    And as he went upon one knee

    He shone with Heavenly Courtesy.

    Our Lady out of Nazareth rode—

    It was Her month of heavy load;

    Yet was Her face both great and kind,

    For Courtesy was in Her Mind.

    The third it was our Little Lord,

    Whom all the Kings in arms adored;

    He was so small you could not see

    His large intent of Courtesy.

    Our Lord, that was Our Lady’s Son,

    Go bless you, People, one by one;

    My Rhyme is written, my work is done.


    Luke 1:28–29 with St. Bonaventure Jul 15, 2020
    Show notes

    “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you!’ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be.”

    In reflecting on Gabriel’s salutation to the Virgin Mary, St. Bonaventure, the Franciscan Doctor of the Church, explains how the angel’s message reveals her “threefold excellence” and how her response displays her commendable nature.

    First, the angel’s greeting shows her “dignity, virtue and charity.” Bonaventure teaches us that the angel “shows her to be commendable because of the fullness of goodness, and therefore lovable; to be commendable because of her great dignity, and therefore venerable; to be commendable because of the grandeur of her praise, and therefore honorable.” The angel, who speaks as a messenger of God, shows to us that Mary is lovable, venerable and honorable. Bonaventure shows how she is implicitly compared with Esther in her “incredible beauty,” and how she is worthy of veneration because the Lord dwells within her. Indeed, the Virgin Mary, who carries the Christ child in her womb, is foreshadowed by the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple, where the presence of God dwelt in a special way. Bonaventure also compares her to the heroines of the Old Testament—Abigail, Jael and Judith, who are all called “blessed” and who thus prefigure Mary in her blessedness.

    Second, Bonaventure reflects on the Virgin’s response, commenting that she is “triply commendable, namely, in hearing, affection, and thought.” She listens to the message from the Lord with docility and silence, demonstrating a prompt obedience. Her affective response of being troubled by the angel’s words reveals her modesty. Her thinking on the message shows her sound judgment—the Seat of Wisdom herself thinking about Wisdom.

    In these two short verses, we find so much to reflect on. The character of the Virgin Mary is shown to us. Her virtues are made manifest and we begin to see how God prepared her for this heroic moment for which she was destined. This scene should console us when the world seems to be spinning out of control, that the Lord is sovereign over history. He has a plan even when we do not. In addition, the Virgin Mary shines through in this moment as worthy of our veneration and imitation. We ought to imitate her dignity, virtue and charity in the moral life and her hearing, affection and thought in the spiritual life. [1]

    [1] Summary by Mark Giszczak with the use of Bonaventure, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: Chapters 1–8, trans. and ed. Robert J. Karris, Works of St. Bonaventure, vol. VIII, Part I (Saint Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2001) 64–68. Text of Lk. 1:28 ESVCE modified slightly to reflect Bonaventure’s commentary.


    Previous 1 2 3 4 10 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Joel Osteen Podcast

    1

    Joel Osteen Podcast Christianity
    Joel Osteen Podcast

    2

    Joel Osteen Podcast Christianity
    The Bible For Normal People

    3

    The Bible For Normal People Christianity
    The Liturgists Podcast

    4

    The Liturgists Podcast Christianity
    Firestarters

    5

    Firestarters Christianity
    Elevation with Steven Furtick

    6

    Elevation with Steven Furtick Christianity
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights