Our friend Anthony Sacramone of Strange Herring posted a rare serious article today, expressing his dismay over recent statements by Father Benedict Groeschel, with whom he’s personally acquainted. Father Groeschel told the National Catholic Register that victims of child sexual abuse—as young as 14—are often “the seducer.”

Mr. Sacramone says:

I have no great need to defend Catholic clergy or (heaven help up) the bishops (whose skulls, as John Chrysostom stated, pave the floor of hell). I’m not on the road to Rome, despite the best efforts of some very smart, devout, and good men. Nor do I think the sheer awfulness of what Groeschel said in this one interview should be defended in any way, shape, or form. But the man is 79 years old. Take the “excuse” about his recently hitting his head for what it’s worth (I do wonder why he would agree to an interview at all if he was not himself). About eight years ago, he was hit by a car and almost died; before that, he suffered a serious heart attack. In other words, this is a man no longer playing at the top of his game.

I don’t have anything more to add on that subject. But I note that one of Father Groeschel’s lifelong vocations has been counseling. That’s a valuable calling, but it seems to me it has its inherent dangers. The French proverb, “To understand all is to forgive all,” may work very well in ordinary situations. But not in every situation. Christians need to understand that there is such a thing as evil. Continue reading “Forgive us our boo-boos” →

“Card Players,” by Theodoor Rombouts (1597-1637)

One reason why my job is better than yours is that when we have meetings I sometimes come away with spiritual insights. When we got together yesterday, for instance, somebody (I actually forget who) said something (I actually forget precisely what) about living by faith, and it sparked the following thought in me.

I’ve always been a little troubled by the resemblance between faith and gambling. I’ve been uncomfortable with the fact that (generally) we condemn gambling, while we encourage people to act in a very gambling-like way in their Christian lives—“Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Luke 17:33).

In fact, I understand a movie was made on that very subject some years back. It was about some kind of pastor, a missionary, I think, who plays cards all the time and justifies it on the grounds that gambling is just part of the life of faith.

He’s right in terms of analogy. But I think I see the difference.

Gambling as we think of it—games of chance—involves risking those things that a) are least significant in the spiritual life, and b) we are obligated to husband responsibly, remembering to assist the poor and the Lord’s work. I think if the Lord were to speak to that gambling pastor, He’d tell him that there’s a better way to throw his wealth away—give it directly to the poor. That would free him from greedy motives, benefit people who really need his money, and permit him to trust the Lord for his daily bread.

The problem with gambling for money, I think, is that it’s not risky enough. Gamblers are really playing for matchsticks, even when great sums change hands. Those who walk with Christ risk their very lives, and all the false gods that provide security in ordinary life go into the pot.

My thoughts, for some reason, wandered to the apostle Thomas today, a guy who’s had the bad luck to be remembered primarily for the weakest moment of his life. Hence his lasting nickname, “Doubting Thomas.”

If you’re one of our younger readers, it’s fairly likely you don’t know who I’m talking about. So I’ll share a short passage from the Gospel of John, just after the resurrected Jesus has appeared to His apostles (John 20:24-29):

Now Thomas (called Dydymus¹), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Countless preachers have railed about Thomas’s doubting, but what’s impressed me about the story has always been Jesus’s graciousness. I have the feeling that if a medieval writer had composed the story, he’d have had Jesus appear in a blast of lightning, striking Thomas deaf, dumb and blind. Then he’d have Jesus declare, “Woe to him that doubteth. Those carnal senses in which he trusted, behold, they shall be taken from him forever, and he himself shall abide in eternal fire.” Continue reading Stand-up Thomas →

Today, by coincidence, is my birthday. Oddly enough, it fell on the exact same date last year. I wonder if that qualifies me for a Guinness World Record.

A dear friend bought me a steak dinner after work. Unfortunately, that dear friend was myself, but we didn’t let that spoil the festivities.

I came up with a question in my Bible reading the other day, and wondered if any of our erudite readers know the answer to it.

I was reading the account of the Resurrection in Luke 24:10, where it talks about the women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning, found it empty, and reported it to the disciples. “It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.”

There’s a parallel passage in Mark 16:1: “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.”

There’s also an earlier reference to this woman in Mark 15:40: “Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.”

So here’s what I’m wondering. Scholars have pondered this previously unmentioned Mary, one among so many Marys who keep popping up in the gospels. Has it ever occurred to anybody to argue that this Mary might actually be Mary the mother of the Lord?

We know that the Lord had a brother named James, who became the head of the Jerusalem church. And an otherwise unmentioned brother named Joses (perhaps named after his father Joseph) isn’t unthinkable. If you’re Catholic you’d insist that the Virgin Mary wasn’t the mother of James, but the stepmother. But she could still be called his mother informally.

Why doesn’t it say, “Mary, the mother of the Lord?” I don’t know. Modesty? Fear of the authorities?

Another objection would be that James, the Lord’s brother, has traditionally been called James the Elder (I think) rather than James the Younger. My theory would require that tradition to be wrong.

Catholics probably wouldn’t take to this idea, though I might point out that it would give a biblical foundation to all those “Pieta” statues.

But my main question is, has anyone suggested this before? Or is it too dumb for anyone to have suggested before?

Because I know so many of you have this on your bucket lists, I offer the video below. It’s film of me doing a reading of one of my Norwegian translations for a meeting of the Georg Sverdrup Society, last winter.

The Willmar Meeting and Lay Activity – Georg Sverdrup Translation from Tim Larson on Vimeo.

A couple cautions are in order. It’s a big file, and may take a while to load. Also the sound level is low. Also I have an irritating mannerism which looks as if I’m trying to suck popcorn husks out of my teeth (I believe I had a cough drop in my mouth).

And finally, for my high church Lutheran friends, you may find the subject matter blood pressure-raising.

Have a good weekend.