http://blog.adw.org/2014/07/the-famine-of-the-word-of-god-a-meditation-on-a-teaching-from-amos/
Hear ya'll tonight at 7:11!
Here is a copy and paste of the article by Msgr Charles Pope:
Last
week we read from the book of the prophet Amos. And something profound
yet rather subtle was taught by Amos in the selection from Friday’s
Mass. After warning of many sins such as the trampling the needy,
putting profit over Sabbath observances, cheating by altering scales and
so forth; after also warning of sexual and many other sins, Amos says
this:
Days are coming
when the Lord God will send a famine upon the land: not a famine of
bread, or thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the word of the
Lord. Then shall they wander from sea to sea and from the north to the
east in search of the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it (Amos 8:11–12).
Thus, among the ills of a society or
culture mired in injustice, sexual confusion, and misplaced priorities
is an absence of the Word of God. How does this happen? It happens on
several different levels, one of them rather subtle.
I.
First of all, when many people insist on sinful, unjust, and evil
practices, the Word of the Lord begins to sound obnoxious and they
refuse to read or hear it. No one likes to be
convicted for their sinfulness or to be confronted with the fact that
they are wrong, and the Word of the Lord has a way of calling us to
account. Many resist this, and such a problem is epidemic in our current
culture.
People do not like to be reminded
that they have no business defrauding the poor, lying and cheating,
engaging in greedy or covetous practices, indulging in illicit sexual
union, or cultivating lust. In avoidance and anger they set aside the
Word of God, and when they cannot reasonably do so, they attack those
who still speak of it. They issue condemnations that those who do so are
judgmental, intolerant, bigoted, unenlightened, homophobic, etc.
But of course the problem isn’t the Word of God
or those who announce it. The problem is sin. And thus we see a kind of
self-induced famine of the Word of God. Many starve themselves from the
Word because it is no longer a food that is palatable to them. They
would rather dine on the strong wine of this world that numbs them from
the pangs of their own consciences. Or perhaps they would rather eat the
Twinkies and other junk food of pop culture, which excuses and even
celebrates bad behavior.
Here is a famine—of the Word of God.
II.
Second, we see a kind of induced famine caused by those who
collectively work to eliminate the Word of God from the public square.
Perhaps it is those who seek to banish any form of prayer or reference
to Scripture in public schools, public gatherings, school graduations,
or any other gathering outside the walls of the church.
We live in a culture in which the First Amendment’s promise of freedom of religion has become freedom from
religion. And thus there is a kind of famine of the Word of God imposed
by a small number of people who dislike religious influence, who seek
to eliminate any religious expression in the public square. Almost anything can be taught, celebrated, and advanced in public schools—anything except Jesus Christ and His gospel.
It is a strange, highly selective, and intense famine of the Word of God.
III. The third form of famine, though, is more subtle and it occurs even in the Church.
Indeed, many who write in the combox of this blog complain of it quite
frequently. This is the famine of the Word of God that occurs on account
of silence from the pulpits.
The one
place where one would think that the Word of God would be clearly and
even boldly proclaimed would be in the pulpit of the Catholic Church or any Christian denomination. And yet even here, there is a strange famine.
But why is this?
The mechanisms here are a bit more subtle, but come down essentially
to one word: fear. The subtlety comes from the fact that while it is
clear that many clergy fear to speak the truth boldly from their
pulpits, there is another side to the equation.
Many clergy know instinctively
that even in the theoretically safer environment of the Church, if one
speaks boldly on moral issues, one can often expect backlash and letters
of protest, whether delivered directly or to the bishop. There are
dissenters who do this, and even some of the faithful.
One might wish the clergy were brave enough and
bold enough to be unconcerned and still speak unambiguously to moral
issues of the day. But the reality is that clergy are drawn from the
stock of human beings. Some are brave, but many are not. Some are
willing to endure trouble, pushback, criticism, and being misunderstood,
but some are not. Some clergy today are willing to accept that many
modern listeners cannot distinguish between hyperbole, analogy, and
straightforward discourse, let alone make subtle distinctions, but many
clergy are not willing to accept this.
Yes, a poisonous climate exists
even in many parishes. Surely there are dissenters, but even among the
faithful there are those who would criticize a priest who tries to speak
the truth but does not say it exactly the way that they want him to say
it. Perhaps he should have quoted St. Thomas Aquinas rather than Thomas
Merton. Perhaps he should have made more distinctions, but given the
insistence that homilies last little more than ten minutes, was unable
to do so.
Some priests are able to navigate the complexities of the modern parish setting creatively and courageously. But many cannot
and draw back to uttering safe bromides, contenting themselves with
abstractions and generalities. They play it safe in what is often a
hostile environment. Dissenters with poisonous looks are lurking in the
pews. But even among the hard-core faithful there is sometimes a
“particularism” that renders bold prophecy a very dangerous thing.
Parents, too, struggle
in preaching boldly to their kids, who are not taught by this culture
to respect their parents or to revere sacred tradition and teaching.
Thus parents, too, often exhibit the “silent pulpit syndrome,” and
teaching in the domestic church of the home is often silent, uncertain,
and compromised.
A hostile environment does lead to silence.
Perhaps it should not, but in the aggregate it does. And therefore
there is a famine of the Word of God that Amos addresses. Hostility
tends to breed silence and conformity. Maybe it shouldn’t, but overall
it does. At some level when a culture turns hostile, stubborn,
hypersensitive, and just plain mean there sets up a famine of the Word
of God. While there will always be the courageous, like Amos, in the big
picture, the Word of God will suffer famine when the soil resists or
even refuses the seed of the Word.
St Gregory once
reproached silent clergy, but he also warned the faithful that they too
have a role in ensuring the proper climate for the Word of God to
flourish:
The Lord reproaches (silent pastors) through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark (Is 56:10). On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord (Ez 13:15). To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right. When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel … Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9). For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts (Mal 2:7).And thus today Amos’ warning of a famine of the Word of God extends even to the Church. As clergy and laity, we have every reason to encourage bold preaching and to preserve a climate in which God’s Word is still revered and respected. We ought to work to surround clergy and parents with support and a hedge of protection from dissenters even as we also work to avoid the hypercriticism and “particularism” that can discourage priests, deacons, and parents who are trying to make a good effort to reach the lost and confused. Otherwise the famine of the Word of God of which Amos warns will surely exist even in our parishes and homes. A proper harvest of the Word requires the support and action of all.
Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows … Beloved brothers, consider what has been said: Pray the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into his harvest (Matt 9:38). Pray for us so that we may have the strength to work on your behalf, that our tongue may not grow weary of exhortation, and that after we have accepted the office of preaching, our silence may not condemn us before the just judge.For frequently the preacher’s tongue is bound fast on account of his own wickedness; while on the other hand it sometimes happens that because of the people’s sins, the word of preaching is withdrawn from those who preside over the assembly. With reference to the wickedness of the preacher, the psalmist says: But God asks the sinner: Why do you recite my commandments? (Psalm 50:16) And with reference to the latter, the Lord tells Ezekiel: I will make your tongue cleave to the roof of your mouth, so that you shall be dumb and unable to reprove them, for they are a rebellious house (Ez 3:26). He clearly means this: the word of preaching will be taken away from you because as long as this people irritates me by their deeds, they are unworthy to hear the exhortation of truth.
These condemnations seem to usually be based on lop sided judgements. Declaring guilt or innocence without hearing the side of the accused, comparable to a court which hears that the prosecutor has alleged guilt and; without hearing the prosecutor’s evidence or the accused one’s defense; declares the (erstwhile) defendant to be guilty because they are charged.
For instance, when Christians disagree but, tolerate, we are called intolerant. Such absurd statements can only be propagated with the lynch mob approach that is increasingly supported by a, seemingly growing, segment of the media.
In the last few decades there have been complaints of “media convictions” prejudicing an upcoming court case. Have the media and popular lobby groups, now, effectively replaced the courts in matters of deciding who’s guilty of religious persecution – all based on lop sided judgements?
The sad part of this hypothetical question of mine is; if it be true; then the media groups (and those who accept the falsly alleged “proofs” that they purvey) which have participated in this have cut themselves off from a set of information which is needed to find freedom through truth. Chaining themselves to the obsessive/compulsive behaviour (which is necessary for, & inevitable to, living in un-truth) that’s a manifestation of the inevitable self destruction of all positive feedback (like holding a microphone in front of a connected speaker until something explodes)?
God bless and The Word of God , our Lord , have mercy on all !
Because without the Tree of the Cross, there is no redemption, the gates of Heaven will not open and there is no resurrection. The Tree of the Cross is the Tree of Life!
First is confusion, the enemy’s prime weapon. One cannot say anything these days without some or all assuming you mean something other than what you said plainly. This can demoralize a priest as he will spend as much or more time trying to clarify “his position” when in fact it could be a simple truth of the Church.
Second is a love for the truth and beauty of the Church. Why do we take such joy and why is it worth it to be upright and honest with ourselves and others? Why struggle to be better with such opposition all around us? Most priests spend all their time dealing with the confusion to ever be able to include a love of the Church and how she uplifts us.
Third, every successful squad or action has a leader. Respect is built and a comradery gained by interaction and trust. Soldiers know they will be backed up, team members know that area is covered. A mission or game plan is laid out by the leader, all know the role they will play and all know they have support. We have not been too keen on this in the church, mainly relying on “you know your job, go do it”. With that however, we have lost support so many priests feel like they are somewhere close to a minefield and not quite sure which direction it will come from.
My hat’s off to all you good priests. I don’t think much of the laity understand all you deal with.