Life in a Catholic Seminary 1961

Recently, I’ve been re-reading James Carroll’s book Practicing Catholic. I had read it earlier and thought he provided some very interesting historical information about the Catholic Church and his own perspective of why he continues to be a “practicing Catholic”. James Carroll was a Paulist priest for five years (1969-1974). In the part of the book I have been reading, he writes about his experience in the seminary at the time of the Second Vatican Council. Reading about it reminded me of the time I spent in the seminary and prompted me to write about some of my experiences there.

James Carroll writes about that time being one of change in the Church and it certainly was. I entered St. Charles College minor seminary as a freshman high school student in the fall of 1961. The seminary I entered reflected the beliefs and values of the pre-Vatican II Church. During my first year, all the freshmen were separated from the upper classes (sophomores, juniors, seniors and those in the first two years of college). The exception to that was that about 20 second-year high schools students also lived with us. I’m sure the idea was that they would be our mentors as we began this new experience and would help ease us into our new life. But, human nature being what it is, the initiation wasn’t always supportive. They were the “big men on campus” in our little section of the seminary and some of them reveled in that role. At times, some of them were bossy and sometimes genuinely mean. They might take over a pool table or ping pong table because they were second-year men. Or, a freshman might be “jaked” (have his head pushed into a toilet while the toilet was being flushed – always clean water).

But let me back up a little and describe the situation we lived in. We basically had five areas in which we spent time. First, a sort of living area, with pool tables and ping pong tables and a trunk room (where our foot lockers were stored). Second, a sleeping area. This was a very large room on the fourth floor of the building; each of the 102 freshmen had a bed with a chair next to it. There was also a locker room, with sinks and toilets, attached to the dorm. This large, drafty dormitory room was (not affectionately) known as “Pneumonia Hall”. Third, a chapel in which the freshmen and the 20 sophomores attended morning prayers and Mass and evening prayers. Fourth, a study hall; and lastly, a locker room and showers where we could change into our “slop clothes” for leisure or sports activities.

Our day began at 5:40 am, when a bell rang to let us know it was time to get up. We would then get dressed and head off to chapel. The “Grand Silence” began after evening prayers and did not end until after morning Mass, so this all happened without any of us speaking. Our chapel was in the basement below the main chapel, close to where our recreation area was. After morning prayers there would be a period of meditation, led by one of the priests. And then, Mass.

After Mass, we went to the Refectory (Dining Hall) for breakfast. We had our meals with all of the seminarians, not just our little group. We sat at a table with students from each of the high school grades. One or two seniors were in charge of each table. Each meal we sat at the same table with the same students at our assigned seat. I think that table assignments may have changed each quarter. At breakfast, two priests joined us: one was in charge of our area and the other was the disciplinarian for the older students. At lunch, one of the college students read to us, while the rest of us ate in silence. Sometimes they read from religious books; sometimes from secular books. One of the non-religious books was about the Cocoanut Grove fire and some of the descriptions of burn injuries from the fire were not very good for the digestion. (In 1942, 492 people died in a fire in the Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Boston.)

After breakfast, we would return to the dorm to brush teeth and get ready for classes. (We would not return again to the dorm until after evening prayers.) We all took the same classes (Latin, Math, History, English, Science and, of course, Religion). In our junior year, we got to choose between French and German; but we had to take one. After morning classes, we would return to the Refectory for lunch. And, after lunch, we had a study hall. After study hall, another class or two. Then, we had time for recreation. Sports were intramural and there were different leagues for kids of different skill levels. Sports leagues followed the seasons: football in the fall, basketball in the winter, baseball in the spring. We also had track and field one day in October and one in May. During my freshman year, each of our teams was captained by a sophomore. After recreation time came showers and dinner.

Every day we would have time to pray the Rosary. I can’t remember whether this occurred before or after dinner. But, I can clearly picture many young men walking outside during the good weather, silently fingering their Rosary beads. In inclement weather, we would walk through the halls of the seminary building, completing the same ritual.

In the evening, we would return to Study Hall for "Spiritual Reading", a brief period of instruction by the priest in charge of our area. Sometimes the topic would be spiritual. Sometimes it would be about study habits. One time, I remember the priest reaching into some pockets on the inside of his cassock (the long black robe he wore) and bringing out a complete meal place setting, putting it down on his desk at the front of the Study Hall and giving us a lesson in table etiquette. After this period of instruction, we would have the evening Study Hall to do our homework. Finally, we would head off to the chapel again for evening prayers. After that, 120 of us would walk to the other end of the building and walk from the basement up five flights of stairs to our fourth floor dorm, get ready for bed and wait for “lights out” (9 pm if I remember correctly).

St. Charles College opened in 1848 in Ellicott City, MD. In 1911, a fire completely destroyed the school and it was rebuilt in Catonsville, MD. St. Charles was a minor seminary (4 years of high school and 2 years of college). The main building was U shaped and made of stone with classrooms, administrative offices and the refectory in the center. The chapel was on one end and the dormitory rooms were on the other end. Ironically, St. Charles was located on Maiden Choice Lane.

In 1961, there were many seminaries for high school students; a quick look on-line leads me to believe there are very few today. In 1961, entering a seminary at that early age (14 years old for me) was an accepted practice and boys were encouraged by parish priests to enter then. In elementary school, I wanted to be a priest. My parents were devout Catholics and I was an altar boy. The parish priest was someone who was respected and looked up to.  In addition, the priests and the nuns who taught us in Catholic school told us that becoming a priest was a special calling.

 I think my going away to the seminary was probably difficult for my parents, since I was an only child. But being good Catholics, they accepted my decision. For me, it was somewhat exciting to be leaving home at such an early age. I enjoyed the camaraderie of my fellow seminarians but also missed my parents. We got to go home for vacations at Christmas and Easter and for the summer. But it was a long time to be away from home.

Nowadays, individuals interested in the priesthood are encouraged to finish high school and even college before entering a seminary. This provides them with more of an experience of what we used to call “the world” and the people in it, to whom they will be ministering. This can probably be attributed to a great extent to the Second Vatican Council and the changes that have occurred in the Church because of the Council. It’s a different world these days and the idea of sheltering young men from “the world” has been replaced by an emphasis on being in the world and being of service to the men and women who live in it.

Chris Christie for President?

Get ready, America. Here comes Chris Christie.

I started writing this blog back in November after Christie was re-elected Governor. It was delayed because the hard-drive on my laptop had to be replaced and that took a few weeks to get accomplished. Then, information about an issue involving the George Washington Bridge and one of Christie’s political allies hit the local papers. I included that and was ready to publish the blog just before Christmas, but it didn’t seem to be an appropriate holiday subject. So I delayed it again. Now, information has surfaced linking Christie’s office to the scandal involving the bridge; so I’ve added a little more. To keep things clear, I’m breaking it down into 3 parts.

Part 1: Chris Christie, Governor

On November 5, Christie won re-election as Governor of New Jersey by a wide margin (61% - 38%). The popular wisdom seems to be that this puts him in a great position to run for President in 2016. The high percentage of votes that he received, his high profile around the country and his claim that he has worked across the aisle with Democrats in NJ paints a rosy picture of his chances of winning at least the Republican nomination, if not the Presidency itself.

I don’t get it. If you look at the details behind the headlines, you get a different picture. Look at the endorsement he received from the Star Ledger Editorial Board (the largest New Jersey newspaper). Although the Board endorsed Christie, the endorsement pointed out many problems it saw with his performance as Governor. These included: continued growth of property taxes, his hostility to low-income families, the downgrading of the State’s credit rating, his removing two Supreme Court justices with no good cause. It also stated that he has been “a catastrophe on the environment”, draining money from the clean energy fund and moving away from efforts to address climate change. One of the things that helped his approval rating among New Jerseyans is his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. But the Star Ledger Editorial Board stated that he has a mixed record in that area. In the endorsement, the Board says that he is “better at politics than he is at governing” and “Our view is that Christie is overrated.”

So, why endorse him? Basically, the Board determined that he was a better choice than his Democratic opponent, Barbara Buono.  She is a State senator and was the only Democrat willing to take a chance running against Christie. Even though the Board agreed with her on a number of issues, it felt that she was too supportive of unions and would stand in the way of some reforms that have been put in place during Christie’s first term. One of the big problems that Buono faced was lack of any significant support from the State Democratic party. In fact, 50 elected officials who are Democrats endorsed Christie. From what I can gather, Buono has for a while been out of favor with the majority of Democrats in the NJ legislature. In her campaign, she emphasized that her priorities were to govern in a way that would benefit the working people of New Jersey.

In addition to the items listed above, I would point out that Christie: vetoed a minimum wage hike, cut funding for women’s health services and opposed the extension of a tax on millionaires. Also, fearing that Democrats might turn out in large numbers to vote for Democrat Cory Booker in a special election to fill Frank Lautenberg’s seat, Christie ordered the special election not be held on the regular Election Day in November, when NJ voters were voting for Governor. Instead, it was held in October and on a Wednesday. Holding this special election cost the taxpayers at least $12 million dollars (Christie’s estimate), and maybe up to $24 million dollars (estimates from other sources). This ploy most likely helped increase Christie’s margin of victory in the November election. In evaluating the strength of his victory in that election, we should note that the election set a record for the lowest turnout of NJ voters in a general election (only 38% of registered voters turned out).

Finally, Christie touts himself as a straight-talker. But some would call him a bully. This article by Richard Eskow on Huffington Post, provides a number of examples about his bullying behavior. The incident that I recall most vividly is one where Christie responds to a question from a reporter about his confrontational tone. Here's a YouTube video of the incident. The thing that strikes me most about the video is the reaction of the young man standing behind Christie to his right. I assume he is a Christie aide. He snickers and laughs at Christie’s response to the reporter. I found his reaction very disrespectful and demeaning to the reporter, who was asking a legitimate question. I think that’s the thing that bothers me the most about Christie – his lack of respect for people who have opinions differing from his.

Part 2: The Bridge Scandal

That was going to be the end of my comments. But, a situation involving the entrance to the George Washington Bridge from Fort Lee, NJ, broke into the news. Apparently, a high school buddy of Christie’s, whom he appointed to the NY/NJ Port Authority, ordered the entrance to the bridge from Fort Lee cut from 3 lanes to 1 in early September. The result was a massive traffic jam in Fort Lee. The lane shutdown went on for 4 days. Allegedly, this was done for a traffic study, but later disclosures showed that explanation to be questionable. Christie’s pal resigned from the Port Authority and later his boss also resigned. One alleged cause for the shutdown of the 2 lanes is that the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee was asked to endorse Christie for the November election and declined to do so. Two weeks later, the lane shutdown occurred. (The story has been reported in the Wall Street Journal and Rachel Maddow has done a number of segments about this situation on her show on MSNBC.) I’m not suggesting that Christie had anything directly to do with this situation. But, I think that indirectly his bullying behavior may influence those who work with him and support him. This column by Tom Moran in the Star Ledger includes some related comments about the two officials who resigned.

Part 3: Link to the Governor’s Office

At this point, the story has gone national. Over the last week, emails have indicated that Bridget Anne Kelly, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor, was involved in orchestrating the closure of the 2 lanes on the bridge. According to a Star Ledger article, an email from her to David Wildstein, who ordered the closures, states: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” Wildstein replies: “Got it.” Chris Christie has apologized to the citizens of NJ and Fort Lee, asserting that he was not aware of any of these activities of his staff. He has fired Kelly, the Deputy Chief of Staff. David Wildstein has pleaded the Fifth Amendment in his testimony before a NJ Senate committee investigating the situation. Loretta Weinberg, the Democratic leader in the State Senate, said on the Rachel Maddow Show on Jan. 9 that it seems that Christie “has created a culture that somehow made many of the people who work for him think this kind of behavior is appropriate.” (This relates to my comments at the end of the last paragraph in Part 2 above.) Here’s a recent story in the Star Ledger about this culture and actions Christie has taken in the past in retaliation against others.

Final Thoughts:

At this point the Bridgegate story has gone national and you may have seen in your local media. I’m hoping Christie does not win the presidency. His “straight-talking” (or bullying) behavior may play well in New Jersey. But I can’t imagine it being an asset in the presidency. I believe diplomacy is a vital trait for a president to have and I don’t see him doing well in that area.

The Good Pope

I just finished reading the book The Good Pope by Greg Tobin. It is subtitled “John XXIII and Vatican II – the Making of a Saint and the Remaking of the Church”. A number of the actions and character traits portrayed in the book reminded me of our current Pope, Francis.

Angelo Roncalli, who later became Pope John XXIII, was born in 1881, in a town in northern Italy to a peasant farming family. Tobin writes “The Roncallis seldom even had bread, but made do with polenta (a dish made from corn meal). Despite this, they always had room at the table for one more.” As a boy, Angelo worked in the fields with his father. He went to the Bergamo junior seminary when he was 11 years old and, later in his seminary training studied at the Pontifical Roman Seminary. While still in the seminary, he and many of his classmates were drafted into the Italian army. After a year, he returned to the seminary. After his ordination, he returned to the Pontifical Roman Seminary to study Canon Law.

Later, he returned to Bergamo as secretary to the new bishop, Giacomo Radini-Tedeschi. Bishop Radini-Tedeschi had been involved with the Opera dei Congressi, an organization for social action groups. The bishop was a “firm believer in social justice and Catholicism as a spiritual force that could change the lives of the poor and less fortunate”. Radini-Tedeschi became Roncalli’s mentor.

In May1915, Italy declared war on Austria and Father Roncalli was once again called up to serve in the Italian military as a medical corpsman. He did both hospital orderly work and tended to the patients as a priest. In March 1916, all priests in the Italian army were made chaplains. He continued to serve in that capacity for the next 3 years.

In January 1921, he was appointed by Pope Benedict XV to oversee missionary work for the Vatican. In 1925, he was appointed apostolic delegate to Bulgaria and made a bishop. This was followed by diplomatic assignments in Turkey and Greece in 1934 and France in 1944. During these appointments, his diplomatic skills were very successful, probably because of his willingness to reach out and talk with the political and religious leaders of those countries, even those of different faiths. His efforts in this regard were not always in accord with the views of the Vatican, but he pursued them anyway. He also was very involved in charitable relief efforts in response to different situations in those countries.

In 1953, he was named the patriarch of Venice and made a Cardinal. Tobin writes: “The administration of a diocese and the thousands of demands on his time and attention were, to him, secondary to the primary task of tending to the spiritual needs of the people, ‘into which he flung himself with all the energy and ardor of his nature. He was, in fact, joyfully fulfilling a spiritual need of his own.’” Tobin also writes that “As in Paris, he did not shut himself away in his magnificent marble residence. Instead he spent a good deal of time in public, where he enjoyed traveling on the vaporetto, the water bus, rather than the Fiat provided him by the diocese.” And “He sold the patriarch’s summer palace to pay for a new seminary and used personal funds to support charities for the poor.”

John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). His intention was that the Council would address how the Church should interact with the modern world. Tobin writes: “The repository of belief that all Catholics shared, the pope said, ‘should be studied and expounded according to the methods of research and literary forms of modern thought.’” Although some previous popes had criticized “modernism”, John supported the humanistic values involved in modernism. Tobin continues: “This meant that historical and scientific studies of the Church and the Bible, in particular were welcome in John’s world; he wasn’t afraid to shed rational light on the mysteries of faith.  … the updating John had in mind was not merely window dressing or a useful slogan but a profound change in the way Catholics practiced their religion and viewed themselves and their Church.” Even though he died before the second of four Vatican II sessions, the Council he convened significantly changed the Church.

To me, John XXIII stands out from other recent popes because of his emphasis on people rather than on the rules and the institution of the Church. There were times before he was Pope when he acted in ways the Vatican powers would not have approved. And he used the resources of the Church to help people in need (e.g., those affected by natural catastrophes or war, Jews escaping from the Nazi regime). He also interacted with and reached out to religious leaders of different faiths and political leaders of different political views. He believed that we are all God’s children and was a big supporter of ecumenism. Pope Francis reminds me of Pope John XXIII in his emphasis on people, especially those who are in need, and his not embracing the finer things that usually come along with being a bishop, cardinal or pope. I remember reading in The Good Pope about John XXIII leaving the Vatican to visit people who were ill and in prison (although I was unable to find that specific passage in preparing this blog). I did find a reference in Wikipedia to his making visits to children with polio in some nearby hospitals and visiting a reformatory school for juvenile delinquents. He also visited the Regina Coeli prison. Here is a youtube video about that visit. The Wikipedia entry also refers to his “frequent habit of sneaking out of the Vatican late at night to walk the streets of the city of Rome.” Regarding Pope Francis, we have seen stories of him visiting the poor, ill and those in prison; even washing the feet of young people in a detention center during Holy Week. On his birthday, he had breakfast with 3 homeless men who live on the streets near the Vatican. It has also been reported that he will sneak out of the Vatican at night to visit homeless people. Just as John XXIII had a profound affect on the Church, it seems possible that Francis will “shake up” the Church with his emphasis on caring for the poor, ill, disabled, imprisoned, homeless, etc.

During this Christmas season, let us be thankful for the Good Pope, John, for his efforts to modernize the Church and his concern about people of all faiths and nationalities. And let us pray that our new Pope, Francis, will continue to direct the Church toward brotherly love for all people, especially those in need.

As I end this blog, my wish for all of you echoes the words the angels sang at that first Christmas and John XXIII used as the title of his last encyclical  – Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth)!

The Art of Bernard Langlais

If you drive from Thomaston, Maine, down River Road toward Cushing, you will very likely see this large (my guess is around 10-15 feet high) horse on the side of the road. It’s a sculpture by Bernard Langlais, who lived on the property where the horse stands.

I first became aware of the artist Bernard Langlais around 40 years ago, when I worked at the Bancroft School, in its residential program for children and adults with developmental disabilities. One of the advantages of working at Bancroft was spending summers at the camp the school owned in Owls Head, Maine. Sometimes on a day off we would ride by Langlais’ home in Cushing. His front yard held a number of large wooden sculptures that always fascinated us. Sometimes we would ride past very slowly, to better enjoy those works of art, unaware that we could have stopped and gotten a closer look at not only the ones we could see from the road, but others that were located on the property. During one of those summers, my wife, Pat, and I purchased a small print done by Langlais that hung in our home for many years. It now hangs in the room of one of our grandchildren.  Here’s a photo of it.

During our most recent trip to Maine this summer, we visited the Langlais property again. Our friends, Jeff and Linda, whom we were visiting, told us that they had read that the property was open to the public. We learned that the property and his works had been donated to Colby College by his widow. Colby College donated 3,000 of his works to the Kohler Foundation, which is working on restoring some of the pieces. (Yes, this Foundation is related to the Kohler company that makes bathroom fixtures and faucets, etc.) During a discussion with a Maine artist who is assisting in the project, we learned that many of the works will be given to facilities within the State of Maine (e.g., museums, colleges, high schools) at no cost to them. One stipulation is that, if the facility no longer wants the piece, it must be returned to the Kohler Foundation, which will find a new home for it.

Many of the larger outdoor sculptures will remain on the Cushing property, which will be turned over to the Georges River Land Trust of Rockland, Maine. The Land Trust will maintain the property as a sculpture park, which will be accessible to the public. During our visit in August, we were able to walk the trail and see the outdoor sculptures, as well as some smaller pieces which are kept indoors. Here are three pictures from that tour. You can see more pictures on my Facebook page.

I’ve been wondering why I like the Langlais sculptures.  One reason, I think, is that they are unexpected. You’re driving down a country road past houses, barns and fields and, all of a sudden, here are these large sculptures. Currently, from the road, you can see the horse and the football players pictured above.  Some of the other sculptures that were visible from the road forty years ago are now hidden by trees that have grown up.  Another reason I like the sculptures is their simplicity and accessibility. Their subject matter is frequently things we don’t come into contact with in our daily lives (e.g., elephants, bears, lions) but the finished pieces seem very down-to-earth. A description of Langlais’ work for an exhibit at the AlexandreGallery in NYC earlier this year referred to his “rough, folk-inspired animal carvings”. An article in the Portland Press Herald in March 2013 described his “oversized, whimsical wooden sculptures". I think the whimsicality of his work is another aspect that makes me appreciate his pieces. (If you look at the photos on my Facebook page, you’ll see the outstretched arms of Richard Nixon, making the victory/peace sign with his fingers. The sculpture is from the torso up and grass has grown up around him, like he has sunken into the swamp.)

You can learn more about Bernard Langlais from the links in this blog and from googling his name. Enjoy the experience!

Big Brother Is Watching

When I was a 22-year-old, involved in protests against the Vietnam War and in meetings of the local Vietnam Moratorium group in Trenton, NJ, I wondered whether I had my own FBI file. There was talk about the FBI keeping files on Vietnam War protestors. We later found out that these rumors were true. The fact that I obtained conscientious objector status from my draft board probably increased the likelihood that there was an FBI file on me. However, I thought at the time that I was not important enough to warrant one. I’ll probably never know if I had one.

But that seems like small potatoes compared to what we’re hearing now about U.S. government surveillance of its citizens. Our home phone provider is Verizon, so information about all our phone calls is being collected.  Through the government’s Prism program, information is being collected from what we do on Google, Facebook and Skype and through our use of Microsoft products.

On the Common Dreams website, I just read an article by Alfred W. McCoy, entitled SurveillanceBlowback: The Making of the U. S. Surveillance State, 1898 -2020. It’s a long article but I think worth the read.  It’s scary to think about the amount of information being monitored and collected, the large number of government employees involved in this activity and the advances in technology that make it easier and easier for information about us to be collected and analyzed.

There seems to be increased attention in the media to all this surveillance. And, in a poll conducted by The Guardian newspaper, 66% thought that the NSA’s activities need to reviewed by Congress and 56% agreed that the NSA needs more Congressional oversight. Also, 50% of those polled disagreed with the government collecting metadata (e.g., date of a phone call, duration, phone numbers of two parties involved). The poll numbers seem to show a majority opposition to the continuing collection of such data.  However, we’ve seen many instances where the President and/or Congress ignored the popular will of the people. I’m inclined to believe that the people’s outrage will die out over time and the extensive surveillance will continue (and likely increase).  Maybe it’s time to break out that dog-earred copy of Orwell’s 1984 – as a reminder of what could happen.

New Year's Eve - 2012

Last night we celebrated New Year’s Eve by going to New Year’s by the Bay in Belfast, Maine.  I remember when I was in my early 20’s spending some New Year’s Eves alone and doing thought-provoking reading.  In preparation for the New Year, reading these things encouraged me to ponder what life was all about and how I might approach the New Year.  Many of the things I read had a spiritual slant, such as the writings of Thomas Merton.

I was reminded of this last night, as we began the evening listening to Hawk Henries play his wooden flutes.  I thought this was a great way to begin the preparation for the New Year.  Hawk Henries is a member of an Algonquin tribe called Nipmuc.  He has been making and playing flutes for over 20 years.

I appreciated being able to close my eyes, clear my mind and listen to the beautiful, mellow sounds coming from his flutes.  It was a meditative experience.  Mystics, including Merton, talk about contemplation as being open to God and experiencing the Divine presence without words.  It seems to me that music is a similar experience.  The right music, that is.  And to me, Hawk Henries’ flute music is the right music.  Here’s a sample of it.  This YouTube clip includes some pictures that complement the wonderful sound of the flute.  The shoreline pictures appeared to me to be from Mid-Coast Maine.

Enjoy the YouTube clip and have a wonderful New Year!

Putting Christ in Christmas - 2012

If you were to ask me “What was your favorite month of Epistle readings at Sunday Mass?”, I would immediately answer that it was September 2012.  During that month, the second readings at Sunday Mass were from the Epistle of St. James.  Here are some samples:

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

“Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him?”

“Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries.  Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire.  You have stored up treasure for the last days.  Behold the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.”

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith but does not have works. … If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, eat well,’ but do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?  So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

The second readings at Sunday Mass usually don’t get a lot of attention during the homilies.  Typically, the first reading (Old Testament) and the Gospel reading share a common theme and it’s easier to focus on them in preparing a cohesive homily.  But I think the readings from St. James include very important messages.

During the Christmas season, we focus on God taking on human form, in the person of Jesus.  We celebrate that the Almighty came to earth and lived among us.  But, we can also look beyond that to a key theme of Jesus’s life.  God could have chosen to come among us in glory and majesty, born into a wealthy and influential family.  But he did not.  He was born in a manger, to a carpenter and his young wife.  The Holy Family fled to Egypt, to avoid the wrath of Herod.  During his public ministry, Jesus reached out to the poor and needy, healing the sick, the blind, the lame, the lepers.  He preached about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison and said that, when we have done this for the least of his brethren, we have done it for him.  He told the wealthy young man that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.  Certainly, as God and as a charismatic preacher, Jesus could have built an earthly empire and acquired much wealth, influence and power.  Instead he chose to give his life for us, dying on a cross between two common criminals.  He was a King, but his Kingdom was “not of this earth”.

At a time when the income gap between rich and poor keeps widening, when politicians argue about whether to cut social safety net programs that needy folks rely on (unemployment, Medicaid, heating assistance, the Women, Infants and Children program, etc.), let’s remember how our Savior lived his life and the things he preached about.  In thinking about how we deal with the problems of our society, let’s ask ourselves “What Would Jesus Do?”.

Have a very merry and blessed Christmas!