Home | Contact Us | Subscribe/Renew | Register | Search | Site Map
By Carmen Mele, O.P
Knowing what we do about Scripture, we can no longer say that Jesus uttered all of the so-called seven last words from the cross. These sentences reflect such different situations and sentiments that it is, in a literal sense, incredible to imagine that all of them were emitted during the same historical event.
Nevertheless, some parishes retain the custom of a service featuring commentaries on all seven of Jesus' last words. Certainly the material is significant. Although the evangelists treat every word attributed to Jesus with care, they surely give particular attention to his final pronouncements. As the Deuteronomic author highlights Moses' exhortation to ''choose life'' in his final discourse to the Israelites, the evangelists undoubtedly want to emphasize Jesus' words before His death.
I believe that the Good Friday service of preaching the ''Seven Last Words'' still has currency. Although it might be done at another time during the final weeks of Lent, it serves to deepen the genuine Christian spirituality of the cross. Catholics especially are being called to live with sacrifice which finds its most relevant parallel in Jesus' crucifixion.
Where ''choosing the lesser of two evils'' describes the typical moral concern today, Catholics are instructed to only and always do what is good -- an option that typically requires significant sacrifice. We can and should refer to Jesus on the cross as our model.
Still, preaching the ''Seven Last Words'' needs to conform to biblical study. We should acknowledge differences among evangelical viewpoints and explain how each gives us a different glimpse of the divine mystery whom we know as Jesus Christ.
For example, the context of the crucifixion in Mark's Gospel -- Jesus' torturous hanging without any moral support whatsoever -- needs to be distinguished from that of John's where he is enthroned upon the cross with those whom we might call the two ideal disciples at his side.
What follows is a text-sensitive reflection for priests on the ''Seven Last Words.'' The insights into the passion narratives come almost exclusively from Sulpician Father Raymond Brown's magisterial The Death of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1994).
The observations on priestly ministry have been gathered over the past 25 years in the United States, in Latin America, and briefly in Italy. What is said here about priestly spirituality may be adapted without much difficulty for lay people in a parochial service.
''My God, my God, why [to what purpose (Mt), for what reason(Mk)] have you forsaken me?''(Mt 27.46b; Mk 15:34b)1
Let us begin with Jesus' only statement in the passion accounts of Matthew and Mark, the first of the seven found in the traditional ordering of the Gospels. Most students of Scripture are aware that Matthew quotes Jesus in the vernacular using Hebrew while Mark has Him speaking Aramaic. But the difference between the two extends farther.
The Greek translation that either evangelist supplies differs slightly from the other. Matthew has Jesus requesting from God the end or purpose of His silence. Was it to teach Him obedience (as the Letter to the Hebrews claims) or, possibly, to pacify the Father's anger as some notions of redemption have it?
Mark, by contrast, quotes Jesus as asking God for an exterior reason to explain His being left forlorn. A possible answer would be that His suffering was required as an example of selfless love for the people.
The difference of intent between the two questions appears very subtle to English speakers, but it is more obvious in Spanish where the ''why'' of Matthew should be translated as ''¿para qué?'' and the ''why'' of Mark ''¿por qué?'' The query, mostly rhetorical anyway, goes unanswered in the texts.
Some preachers, perhaps embarrassed by the negativity of the question on Jesus' lips, point out that it begins Psalm 22 which ends on a strikingly positive note. Could it be, then, that the first two evangelists only mean to indicate that Jesus is praying a very traditional prayer to God which is actually meant to convey trust?
This is not likely for two reasons. First, both Matthew's and Mark's Greek readers would not likely have recognized the phrase as part of a psalm prayer. Also, even if they did recognize the psalm, they probably would not have recalled the victorious note on which it ends given the preponderance of verses in which the psalm tells of danger and defeat.
Second, Jesus' using the general name ''God'' and not the intimate appellation ''Father'' with which he prayed in Gethsemane bespeaks the evangelists' understanding of a felt distance between the son Jesus and God at this moment.
Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that Jesus is praying here. He is not despairing of God or, what would be much worse, cursing God's name. He is only expressing profound discouragement that God has not come to His rescue in this life.
The words correspond to the somber scene that the evangelists describe: mockeries on every side and even the sun losing its light. Still, Jesus adheres to His mission in the gloom of defeat which is what the Letter to the Hebrews claims when it says that Jesus ''learned obedience through suffering.'' Despite the lack of a response to His agony, Jesus trusts in God.
It is also significant that Jesus utters His enigmatic ''why...?'' with a cry and not a whimper. The evangelists are telling us that this is a kairotic moment. The howl along with the loss of sunlight, the rending of the Temple veil, and (in Matthew) the shaking of the earth indicates that the proverbial ''Day of the Lord'' has arrived. That is, the final battle with evil is taking place and being won. The Father has not really abandoned Jesus but is about to vindicate His suffering with flourish.
Perhaps at no time in American history have priests been persecuted as much as at the present. All of us know of other priests who are being literally marginalized for an indiscreet act done many years ago and long repented of. Even more disturbing is the fact that some priests are being accused of fictitious abuse. No doubt these good men pray daily with Jesus on the cross, ''My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?''
There is a much larger segment of priests, however, who feel abandoned without many people knowing it. I dare say that it is an almost universal sentiment among priests. It is, after all, very difficult to live as a chaste celibate in a culture that exalts sexual ecstasy.
We feel lonely without anyone to hold and caress. The trouble may be compounded when another person has left us the impression of a desire for intimacy and we feel unsure how to respond. Jesus' cry then becomes even more our own.
Just as there is no use in running from such situations, no good is done by allowing them to overwhelm us. We not only have taken a vow of celibacy, we have also received God's grace to remain chaste. Like Jesus we suffer loneliness, and like Him we pray.
In this situation it is very helpful to recall the reasons and purpose (the ¿por qué? and¿para qué?) of celibacy. Celibacy serves the Church well as a countersign to a culture obsessed with sex and egocentrism. Further, it frees priests to render service to the People of God without the preoccupation of supporting a family.
The purpose of celibacy, however, (its para que) is really to facilitate priests' greater conformity to Christ. It moves us to more frequent prayer, to deeper ecclesial commitment, and to greater personal oblation. Celibacy may sometimes feel like a great burden. Properly viewed, however, it affords us the greatest gift -- a profoundly intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.
Why then do priests continue to leave the active ministry? It may be that a few were not properly prepared to live a celibate life or have not received the charism of celibacy. I think that there is usually another, simpler reason that determines even more departures.
Priests leave because they lose focus of their purpose. They confuse results with mission and become preoccupied with activities and under-concerned about their conformity to Christ. When I was a young priest, Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza in the Diocese of San Angelo (Texas) exhorted his presbytery to say the Office of Readings daily.
Now, I do not see strict attention paid even to Morning and Evening Prayer. Some of us have likewise abandoned the unfailing practice of daily Mass. Without taking to heart the Prayer of the Church we can expect our devotion to Christ to diminish.
''Father, forgive them, they know not what they do''(Lk 23:34a).
The ''them'' in Jesus' prayer for forgiveness is ambiguous. Luke never mentions Roman soldiers crucifying Jesus, but surely they were so much a part of the communal memory of the event that he envisions troopers on the scene. Also, Luke clearly holds that the Jewish leaders and, indeed, all the people were responsible for the death of Jesus. So Jesus' plea is made on behalf of both Romans and Jews who collaborated to put Jesus to death.
Students of Scripture are aware that the statement under consideration here, which Raymond Brown calls ''perhaps the most beautiful sentence in the passion narratives,''2 is absent from some important New Testament manuscripts. Yet it is still probable that it was part of Luke's original text since it conforms to the ever-compassionate God that Jesus proclaims in Luke.
Furthermore, we note a parallel between this prayer and the ''Lord's Prayer'' where Jesus also joins ''Father'' (in Luke he does not prefix the salutation with ''our'') with the need to forgive. Also, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus exhorts His disciples to ''pray for those who maltreat you'' (6:29).
Finally, we can point to a plausible motive for the exclusion of the statement in certain manuscripts. In the second century after the Jewish persecution of the Church when Christian scribes were busy copying the original text, it might have seemed to these copyists too much of a concession to say that the Jewish leaders did not know what they were doing when they conspired to execute Jesus.
We might think that the statement under consideration should be connected with our ministry of reconciliation. But we should recognize that in it Jesus is not forgiving His executioners but praying that God forgives them. Therefore, it is more logical to associate ''Father, forgive them...'' with the critical need that we priests be people of prayer as discussed above.
However, more than either forgiveness or prayer, it is Jesus' sublime graciousness that radiates here like the heat of a wood-burning stove on a freezing day. He benignly beseeches forgiveness as He is being cruelly tortured! It is becoming of priests as evangelizers to emulate this good-heartedness.
Regrettably, priests are as likely to mimic the contrariness of our adversarial society. We often feel resentful of the many demands on our time and energy. New rubrics can challenge our sense of proprietorship of the sacraments. Critical parishioners may undermine our authority. Bishops may seem aloof and unable to ''get it'' (i.e., whatever priests see as critical to pastoral ministry). Somehow we have to transcend these obstacles to find peace of heart.
Years ago when I was studying for the priesthood in Washington, I read a pamphlet by Henri Nouwen that changed my life. Entitled From Resentment to Gratitude, the short work analyzes the sense of resentment that seemed to pervade many seminarians and priests at the time and that persists today.
Nouwen writes, ''It has become clear how resentment makes us men of little faith, little hope and little charity.'' He goes on to prescribe confessing our tendency to give in to resentment so that ''we can create space for forgiveness and allow God's grace to make us new men.''
Nouwen states the purpose of seminary education (and he might as well have said a chief goal of life as well) as the making of rivals into friends and revengeful competitors into thankful receivers. ''This might sound pious,'' he writes, ''but it really asks for the humble recognition that our life is not an inalienable property to be defended but a gift to be shared. All we have is given to us. The only thing we can give is thanks.''3
Then he goes on to remind the reader that ''Eucharist'' means ''thanksgiving.'' If what we should be doing every day is efficacious at all, it should make us gracious in face of all the bitterness that surrounds us.
''Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise''(Lk 23:43).
These words of Jesus are directed, of course, to the so-called good thief, although Luke never calls him anything but a ''wrongdoer.'' This latter term is still a more favorable designation than ''revolutionaries'' which Mark and Matthew use to describe the two men crucified with Jesus. We should keep in mind that this man is crucified for a serious crime as he himself admits. Obviously, though, he appears repentant (although, again, Luke does not say so) as he acknowledges the justice of his punishment.
Revelatory of Jesus' mission of divine mercy, Luke quotes Him as making a solemn reply to the criminal begging a favor. Where Mark and Matthew put the stately ''Amen, I say to you...'' on Jesus' lips to introduce the prophecy of Peter's denial, Luke transfers it to this pronouncement of a blessing. Jesus then promises the dying man more than he would have dared to imagine.
''Today'' or, better, ''this day'' refers to the same day but also has an eschatological tone. Since it is the day in which the ultimate battle with evil is being won, the wrongdoer will now enter paradise in full glory. Likewise, ''...with me'' has a significant second meaning. It indicates that Jesus has in mind not only a heavenly reward but also intimacy with himself.
This is the reward of discipleship which the culprit implicitly requests when he calls Jesus by name, without any honorific (the only instance in all the Gospels), and asks to be remembered. At the Last Supper Jesus tells His disciples that those who remain with Him in His trials will receive the reward of His kingdom (Lk 22:28-30). Now, at the hour of the definitive in-breaking of the Kingdom, He reissues His promise to one who is indeed at His side during His final ordeal.
The vignette regarding the ''good thief'' demonstrates once again God's unconditional love for sinners exercised through Jesus. It is not only this one criminal who receives salvation, but all sinners are redeemed through Jesus' sacrifice. We should also note how Jesus' promise to the wrongdoer culminates a series of mercies extended throughout Luke's passion narrative.
First, Jesus heals the severed ear of the servant in the garden; then He shows concern for the women of Jerusalem as He carries His cross to His own death, and then He prays for His executioners. We could say that this is not so much the story of the ''good thief'' as it is of the ''good Jesus.''
Similar to Jesus, we priests should be people of blessing. This means, of course, that we do more than bless people, although praying thoughtfully over others can bring great solace. We should also strive to meet other human needs.
Author Jan Karon has written a series of novels featuring an Episcopalian priest named Father Tim Kavanaugh. The hero is described as praying every morning, ''Father, make me a blessing to someone today.'' Taking care with the weekday homily, providing encouraging words along with a sandwich to a local drunkard, and phoning parishioners on their birthdays are tangible ways to be a blessing to others.
The Catechism says that in His incarnate Word God ''fills us with his blessings'' (no. 1082). Christ is not only our greatest blessing but the greatest blessing imaginable. We bless others when we do good things for them in Christ's name. Indeed, we priests are blessed just to have so many opportunities every day to do good for others.
''Father, into your hands I commend my spirit''(Lk 23:46a).
Jesus' death cry in Luke is not as violent as its counterparts in Matthew and Mark. The Greek here speaks only of a crying out in contrast to the original words of the first two Gospels indicating a scream. Also, Luke records Jesus' crying out only once where the other Synoptic writers mention two such outbursts. Nevertheless, Luke means to convey the same sense of apocalyptic end-time with its concomitant judgment upon those who mock Jesus.
Of course, Jesus' final words in Luke contrast dramatically from those in Mark and Matthew. Bespeaking composure, these words characterize the prayerful trust that Jesus has displayed throughout the Lucan passion narrative. In Gethsemane Luke shows Jesus on his knees praying confidently to his Father and receiving the help he requests. By contrast, in the first two gospels where Jesus' words are more desperate and his posture more suppliant, his plea apparently goes unheeded. Luke again softens the scene at the cross by changing the troubled question, '''My God, my God, why ...?''' to the tranquil declaration, '''Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.''' In both cases, God is addressed, but in Luke Jesus calls God by his emblematic ''Father.'' In both cases once more, the evangelists use a verse from a psalm of deliverance, but here again the difference is telling. Where Mark and Matthew cite the most desperate verse of Psalm 22, Luke employs the most reassuring verse from Psalm 31.
We also find these last words of Jesus in Luke as part of a significant inclusion. The first words spoken by Jesus in this gospel were a reference to his Father in the enigmatic question to Mary and Joseph, ''Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?'' In his final words also Jesus mentions his Father.
The obvious intent of these last words in Luke is to indicate how Jesus trusted in divine Providence. Priestly spirituality calls us to do no less. We must be willing to rejoice over goodness and to bear with evil as signs of God's care for us. In our time when entire dioceses and religious provinces are staring bankruptcy in the face, priests' talking about Providence transcends the theoretical. Trusting in God, we always should act ethically and simplify our lives just as we imagine Jesus would do.
Just as critical, we have to be ready to explain to others the strange ways in which the Father sometimes acts. This is no easy task since it involves illuminating the somber problem of evil. How can we call God good with so much evil lurking in the world? In the wake of the 2004 Christmas tsunami, David Hart, a contemporary Orthodox theologian, wrote that the Thomistic answer -- that God will ultimately justify all the evil which humans experience -- leads us to an un-Christian-like complacency about evil. His solution to the dilemma is to take an intermediate stand between the traditional position and that of process theology which sees humans as joining forces with God in the struggle. The victory has been won, he assures us, but it is still to come. Do we not have a skip of logic here?
We really cannot resolve the problem of evil by doing any better than interpreting God's answer to Job for contemporary times. A generation ago Karl Rahner did just that by postulating that God will always remain a mystery to us and that human suffering, the outcome of evil permitted by God who might work His gracious end in other ways, only reflects that mystery. If we could somehow deduce the necessity of suffering, then we would think that we understood God which would compromise His sovereignty. Rahner goes on to claim that in accepting suffering, humans surrender themselves in love for God and thereby find God.
''Woman, behold, your son.''...''Behold, your mother''(Jn 19:26).
John is unique among the evangelists in showing disciples at the cross. As a matter of fact, Mark depicts all the disciples scattering when Jesus is arrested with only Peter making a halfhearted attempt to follow Jesus during his trials.
Who is the ''beloved disciple'' that stands with Jesus here? We do not know exactly although we can say that it is not likely John, the son of Zebedee, and that he presumably bears this Gospel tradition which John the evangelist eventually records. We can also add that according to the fourth Gospel itself, this ''beloved disciple'' is the model devotee who follows Jesus first to the interrogation at the house of Annas, where Peter denies him, and then to Calvary.
This is only the second appearance of the mother of Jesus in John's Gospel. At Cana Jesus indicates that He and His mother have nothing in common. Here, in contrast, He implies that they share the same spiritual concern. Both son and mother are interested in discipleship. A true follower, Mary stands with Jesus at His death. Knowing the needs of the human condition, Jesus provides for her support along with that of His other exemplary disciple.
Although it is appealing to hear these words of Jesus as solicitude on behalf of His widowed mother, such an interpretation would betray the thrust of the fourth Gospel. The evangelist shows no interest in Jesus' human origins but at almost every turn presents Jesus as God's son. By saying to Mary, ''... behold, your son,'' Jesus is adopting her into His spiritual family of disciples. And by telling His beloved disciple to ''behold your mother,'' He is recognizing that His disciple has become His true brother.
Raymond Brown believes that this interpretation of the interactions between Jesus and His mother corresponds with the dynamic development found in the Synoptics. In Mark when Jesus' mother and brothers come looking for Him, Jesus rejects them, calling His disciples His ''brother, sister, and mother'' (Mk 3:35). This rejection resembles Jesus' distancing himself from His mother's concern at Cana.
Writing significantly later than Mark, but approximately at the same time as John, Luke has a very different view of the confrontation of Jesus by His family. He cites Jesus as saying, ''My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it'' (Lk 8:21). From the beginning of the third Gospel, Mary not only heeds God's word but acts on it (cf., Lk 1:39). This implied inclusion of Mary as a disciple corresponds with Jesus' associating her with His beloved disciple at the cross in the fourth Gospel.
We priests must consider ourselves primarily as Jesus' disciples. True, all Christians can and should claim to follow Jesus, but even in Jesus' company some disciples enjoyed a closer relationship with Him than others. Reflecting on His words daily and being commonly held accountable to His ways, we justly regard ourselves among His more intimate companions. This means that we need to practice discipline which has its root in the word ''disciple.'' But what forms should our discipline take?
I remember a religious priest administering a parish who actually boasted of how he greeted parishioners before Mass with a cup of coffee in his hands. When they asked about the need to fast for an hour before Communion, he foolishly said that he followed God's, not human, law! Our discipline, of course, begins with prudently observing all the laws of God and of the Church, even the pesky rubrics!
In Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey reminds us of the importance of daily exercise. Perhaps our concern is to be faithful, not effective, yet it seems naturally virtuous that we exercise regularly, avoid over-stimulation from watching more than a little television and too many movies, refrain from eating and drinking to excess, and get the rest we need. After all, we have heard in theological primers how grace does not destroy nature but builds upon it.
There are three other disciplines that appear critical for priests to cultivate. Two of these are traditional and universal; the other has arisen in contemporary American culture. First, we should develop the habit of preparing homilies. Not long ago a friendly pilot conversed with me during a layover on his airliner. He said that the first question parishioners have of a new priest is, ''Does he preach well?'' We can all preach better on Sunday, as Bishop Ken Untener constantly reminded us, if we take a few hours to prepare beginning early in the week.
Second, we need to avail ourselves for confession regularly and generously. Having only face-to-face confession may deter some sensitive penitents from approaching the sacrament, but having confessions only by appointment will likely keep away all but a few of the faithful. If our work is to facilitate human reconciliation with God, it seems that Penance should have a unique priority in our schedules.
Finally, we have to develop a certain acceptance of meetings. The contemporary model of pastor is more and more that of a facilitator of ministries. This means that we have to meet with people both one-on-one and in groups to enable them to assist others. But we must not let meetings undermine the other essentials of priestly ministry. I have a motto: as many meetings as necessary, as few as possible.
''I thirst''(Jn 19:28).
The evangelist writes that Jesus utters these words ''having known that already all was finished, in order that the Scripture may be completed.'' We would like to know exactly what Scripture John is referring to here. Since ''I thirst'' does not appear by itself in the Bible, the words might refer obliquely to the same Psalm 22 that Mark and Matthew quote.
John, the evangelist, could not directly state, ''My God, my God, why...,'' without vitiating the subtext of the Father always being with Jesus so evident in the fourth Gospel. Therefore, John may be thinking of another verse of the same psalm as his reference, such as, ''My throat is dried up like baked clay, my tongue cleaves to my jaws'' (Ps 22:16).
Another possibility is that he has Psalm 69 in mind where the psalmist laments, ''...and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink'' (Ps 69:22). Jesus' words evidently move the people to offer Him a swallow of vinegar. In any case, Jesus here expresses the same determination to drink the cup of suffering that He shows at the beginning of John's passion account when He asks, '''Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?''' (Jn 18:11). Significantly, only in John's Gospel does Jesus actually drink the wine offered to Him on the cross.
An old tradition sees Jesus' concern here as a ''thirst for souls,'' i.e., a desire for additional converts. Although this language may still have effect and the goal legitimacy, a more contemporary interpretation of this longing is the thirst for justice or, in other words, the desire to see the coming of God's Kingdom in its fullness.
Gaudium et Spes is quite specific on the relationship between social progress and the Kingdom of God. The two should not be equated, it says, but the first contributes to the second and in the end will be transformed into the fullness of God's reign. Participating in community organizing projects, like those which the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has long sponsored, seems an excellent way for the parish to thirst for God's Kingdom.
Yet this need not be considered the only means of doing so. Pastors promote this longing, also, by assisting the laity in its commission to transform the world. Catholic social teaching -- both the more general encyclicals and the more timely statements of the USCCB -- should be consulted for preaching and appropriated for adult formation.
Non-partisan conferences on political concerns highlighting themes treated in Church teachings might take place in the parish center. Pastors should also oversee the formation of social outreach to the poor as perhaps the most palpable means of demonstrating the Church's anticipation of the coming Kingdom.
''It is finished''(Jn 19:30).
In John's Gospel, these final words of Jesus before He dies refer to His mission. At the beginning of the Gospel, John the Baptist recognizes Him as the ''lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world'' (Jn 1:29). Now that work is completed.
The words are also connected to Jesus' previous statement in the idea expressed and in the symbol implied. As we have seen, when Jesus says, ''I thirst,'' the evangelist comments that he knew ''that everything was now finished.'' Here Jesus reiterates that expression of finality.
More importantly, ''I thirst'' produces the offering of a wine-soaked sponge on a sprig of hyssop. This incongruous image (hyssop shrub cannot support such a weight) is meant to recall the Israelites' sprinkling their doorposts with lamb's blood on hyssop as a way of exempting themselves from the angel of death on the night of the Passover in Egypt. Thus, the offering of wine, now related to the Passover blood, symbolizes the Holy Eucharist.
A final observation needs to be made. John's Gospel pictures Jesus as perennially in control of the action. As Jesus says in the Good Shepherd discourse, ''... I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own'' (Jn 10:17-18). This sovereignty over the course of events is demonstrated again here. Jesus' penultimate words move others to offer Him the symbol-laden wine, and His final words indicate that He is returning to His Father as He has completed His work.
The Eucharist anchors any worthy
(Continued on page 48)
LAST WORDS (from page 43)
priestly spirituality. After all, we are ordained first and foremost to re-present the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross for the salvation of the world. In saying, ''It is finished,'' Jesus indicates that his high-priestly mission has ended.
The words remind us of ours (or the deacon's) at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy: ''The Mass is ended; ...'' Furthermore, seen in relation to ''I thirst'' provoking the symbol of blood, these words point toward the purpose of the Eucharistic sacrifice which is to give the Christian life a heavenly destination. Participating in this sacrifice, Christians follow Jesus to God the Father.
In his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia Pope John Paul II calls the Eucharist ''the center and root of the whole priestly life.'' He acknowledges that priests pursue many kinds of pastoral activities -- so varied that we might lose our focus if the Eucharist did not concentrate our attention on Christ's love. Of course, we take the role of Christ in the Eucharist which should fortify us psychologically as well as spiritually. As Christ, we must see ourselves as called to serve others. And as Christ, we harbor the hope of being destined to eternal glory.
We have pointed out several elements of priestly spirituality gleaned from a study of the final words of Jesus in the various Gospel traditions. No doubt, other connections can be made. Nevertheless, our task is not only to name these elements but to integrate them into our lives. This may sound like a daunting challenge and may even give rise to guilt when we fall short of expectations. But we should neither see it as impossible nor fret desperately if we fail, for these same words provide us assurance of fortification and forgiveness.
''My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?'' reminds us that although we at times appear to be alone in our struggle to be worthy priests, God is actually with us and will vindicate our efforts. ''Father, forgive them; they know not what they do'' may serve as a source of hope for ourselves as well as the worst sinners. Jesus is ready to intercede for His followers even though we may fail Him repeatedly. Finally, ''It is finished,'' tells us that this same Jesus is in charge of every situation and has completed the work of salvation that He came to do.
2 Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, New York: Doubleday, 1994, Vol. 2, 980.
3 Henri J.M. Nouwen, From Resentment to Gratitude, Synthesis Series pamphlet (1974), p. 24 (emphasis in the original).
4 David Hart, ''Tsunami and Theodicy,'' First Things (March 2005, No. 151), pp. 6-9.
5 Karl Rahner, ''Why Does God Allow Us to Suffer?'' in Theological Investigations, Vol. XIX, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 206-7. TP
FATHER MELE, O.P., is parochial vicar at St. Dominic Parish in Benicia, Calif.
OSV4Me | Parish | Retail Search | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Offering Envelopes | About Us | Contact Us Send comments regarding this site to webmaster@osv.com Click here for our site map. Copyright © 2008, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.