Not getting the point

Last Sunday, I walked out of Mass.
It was at St. Suburbia’s in the next town, where Fr. Leo preached an inoffensive little talk with at least some connection to the Gospel reading. That was the end of the “Bread of Life discourse” in John 6. Fr. was saying that the Eucharist is part of God’s ongoing message to humanity: “Do not fear: I am with you.” And that was OK. If only he’d known when to shut up!
The ad-hoc lector had read the “short form” of the Epistle text from St Paul to “the Christian community at Ephesus”. And so he had not read us the passage (is it chapter 5?) that feminists don’t like: “Submit yourselves to one another, out of reverence for Christ”: wives, “be subservient” to your husbands [ooh, that’s bad], and husbands, love your bride and lay down your life for her.
Since that part of the text had not been read to us, there wasn’t any urgent need for Fr. Leo to speak about it, but he couldn’t leave well enough alone: yes, he went back and read it. He opined that “women have a problem” with it, and declared that that passage was the best proof there is that St. Paul hadn’t written Ephesians.
Fr. Leo just didn’t seem to have gotten the point of the Gospel pericope that he had also read to us.
Now, I’m not shocked to hear that some Scripture scholars say that Ephesians differs in vocabulary and structure from other letters of St. Paul, and they think that it may have been put together by a follower of St. Paul as a summary of his teaching. As a theory, I’ve no problem with that: but the homily is not intended as an opportunity for a priest to attack the teachings of Scripture that we find hard.
That very Gospel passage from St. John had focused on the problem of a “hard teaching”: on the break between (on one hand) Jesus, who taught that he was going to give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink, and (OTOH) those disciples who decided they didn’t believe any more, and left him.
A “hard teaching”, when it comes, is a challenge to me, and it’s a mistake to write it off as inauthentic — when more often it is I who am inauthentic!
The Spirit sent me out into the wilderness, so to speak, and so I left.
There was still plenty of time to get to St. Devotio’s, and it was worth it: Fr. Daniel Dharmu, SMA, a young Indian-born missionary, just five years a priest, was visiting, and spoke about his work in East Africa. He’s doing evangelization on the front line, bringing the Gospel to people who haven’t heard it before, and performing about 250 adult baptisms a year. His 40-mile-by-20-mile mission zone has so many mission stations that he can only say Mass at each one monthly. Now, that is doing the work of God. That is a faith response to the Gospel.
Update: That other priest must be getting around!

9 comments

  1. Fr. Leo sounds like he wants to play both sides and the middle on the scriptures. You just cannot make everybody happy all of the time. You’ll go crazy trying. Sometimes you’ve just got to grit your teeth and delve into the tough stuff.

  2. Too many Catholics take as their personal motto, “More Christian than St. Paul, more merciful than Jesus Christ.”
    What’s an “ad-hoc lector”? (And before Nihil Obstat says anything, I should note that since classical Latin didn’t employ hyphens, it should probably read ad hoc.)

  3. I wavered about whether to treat the ad hoc as Latin or adopt it into English and use the hyphen.
    By “ad hoc” here, I mean: not having received the ministry of Reader, but fulfilling the function of a reader.

  4. This could be a show on EWTN: Scripture Scholarship Gone Bad. Should the average congregant be subjected to historical and theological speculation on the part of Scripture scholars? The answer is no. It just confuses the real issue and obscures the message.

  5. I have been posting a lot on Ephesians 5 myself. When we were planning our Nuptial Mass some 30 years ago, we decided to go with another epistle choice, mainly because I didn’t want a fight to break out among my non-Catholic fervently feminist relatives. I have spent a lot of time regretting that decision.
    There is a right order to things, and agreeing to subordinate some decision-making is not the same as becoming a doormat.

  6. I don’t get the point of the authorship question. Whether written by Paul or one of his students, its part of inspired scripture. If that part can be excised, then what else can. Either you accept it all, or none of it is trustworthy.
    I noticed our celebrant used the PC version as well; not even a dishonorable mention in the homily (I guess that’s just as well).

  7. Did you really walk out during the Homily? I have actually dreamed that I did that during a heretical homily.
    I’ve always wondered (in my dream) if that was the right thing to do. Should I have stayed – afterall, the priest is a fallible sinner like me. Should I leave – with the sense that I turned over the tables of the money changers attitude.
    What are your thoughts.

  8. Yes, I made the customary reverence and left. But anyone who did notice probably assumed I was leaving due to illness or some duty.
    To be really fair to the priest, I could have stayed through the rest of the homily so as to get his entire message. But I chose to get on with fulfilling my Sunday obligation somewhere else.

Comments are closed.