St. Charles Borromeo (1538-1584)

The name of St. Charles Borromeo is associated with reform. He lived during the time of the Protestant Reformation, and had a hand in the reform of the whole Church during the final years of the Council of Trent. Although he belonged to Milanese nobility and was related to the powerful Medici family, he desired to devote himself to the Church. When his uncle, Cardinal de Medici, was elected pope in 1559 as Pius IV, he made Charles cardinal-deacon and administrator of the Archdiocese of Milan while he was still a layman and a young student. Because of his intellectual qualities he was entrusted with several important offices connected with the Vatican and later appointed secretary of state with responsibility for the papal states. The untimely death of his elder brother brought Charles to a definite decision to be ordained a priest, despite relatives’ insistence that he marry. Soon after he was ordained a priest at the age of 25, he was consecrated bishop of Milan. Because of his work at the Council of Trent, he was not allowed to take up residence in Milan until the Council was over. Charles had encouraged the pope to renew the Council in 1562 after it had been suspended for 10 years. Working behind the scenes, St. Charles deserves the credit for keeping the Council in session when at several points it was on the verge of breaking up. He took upon himself the task of the entire correspondence during the final phase. Eventually Charles was allowed to devote his time to the Archdiocese of Milan, where the religious and moral picture was far from bright. The reform needed in every phase of Catholic life among both clergy and laity was initiated at a provincial council of all the bishops under him. Specific regulations were drawn up for bishops and other clergy: If the people were to be converted to a better life, the had to be the first to give a good example and renew their apostolic spirit. Charles took the initiative in giving good example. He allotted most of his income to charity, forbade himself all luxury and imposed severe penances upon himself. He sacrificed wealth, high honours, esteem and influence to become poor. During the plague and famine of 1576, he tried to feed 60,000 to 70,000 people daily. To do this he borrowed large sums of money that required years to repay. Whereas the civil authorities fled at the height of the plague, he stayed in the city, where he ministered to the sick and the dying, helping those in want. Work and the heavy burdens of his high office began to affect his health. He died at the age of 46.


The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke (14.25-33)

Large crowds were travelling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters— yes, even his own life— he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14: 25-33)


Discipleship
(Homily by Father E. J. Tyler)

Eudemus of Rhodes was one of Aristotle’s pupils. He edited his famous teacher’s work and made it more easily accessible. Living from 370 BC until about 300 BC, he was a philosopher and historian of science. He collaborated so closely with his master that he was regularly called Aristotle's "companion" rather than his "disciple." Discipleship is part of human history, for there have always been masters with their disciples. During the second decade of the nineteenth century in England, John Henry Newman was changing from Evangelicalism to High Church Anglicanism. But a new stage in his life was reached when Hurrell Froude drew him to John Keble. In a sense Newman then became a disciple of Keble’s, while in time outclassing his one-time master in the power and depth of his thought. Newman himself became a master with many ardent disciples, and the driving force of the Oxford Movement. As I say, it is a feature of the history of mankind that there have been numerous masters with their disciples and we see it also in the history of God’s chosen people. The prophet Isaiah (spanning the late eighth and early seventh century B.C) had disciples. We read in Isaiah 8:16-18 the prophet directing: “Bind up the testimony and seal up the law among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob.” Some scholars propose that the disciples of Isaiah formed an Isaian school. Presumably most of the prophets had their disciples and those disciples had influence on those around them. John the Baptist had many disciples. Our Lord’s first and most important disciples were drawn from some of John’s, and others of John’s disciples were encountered by the infant Church in its missionary work far and wide. Our Lord had very many disciples. Some were Apostles, many followed him to the end, and some fell away. There is, however, at least one feature of what Christ expected of his disciples that absolutely distinguishes him from other masters. What is this feature to which am I referring?

Aristotle had been a disciple of Plato - though he moved away from his master in his thought. But Plato would never have expected unqualified devotion to his own person from his disciples. Nor did Aristotle expect this of his disciples. Nor, of course, did Keble expect this of Newman - such an expectation would have been preposterous. Isaiah would have expected from his disciples a heart open to the word of God and a readiness to follow his - Isaiah’s - guidance. So would have John the Baptist of his disciples. But neither would have expected an ardent devotion to his own person. This was understood to be reserved for God. The prophet merely pointed to God and announced his word. John described himself as being merely a voice crying in the wilderness. The case is altogether different with Jesus Christ. He expected of his disciples a total devotion both to his word and to his person. In this he claimed a status altogether unique, transcending all other masters before and after him. We read that “Large crowds were travelling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters— yes, even his own life— he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14: 25-33). Our Lord puts his point graphically - his disciple must act as if he were “hating” his closest relatives, which is to say placing devotion to himself far ahead of devotion to any other. His interests are to dwarf in importance the interests of all others, were they to be in conflict. If this is not the case, a person cannot be counted as his disciple. Moreover, “anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” This is a remarkable statement, for it alludes to crucifixion. Our Lord did refer to his crucifixion with his close disciples during his public ministry and his allusions were often not understood. In our passage today our Lord alludes to the cross even before the crowds. Anyone who wishes to be his disciple must be prepared to follow him, carrying his cross, even to the point of crucifixion. It is a serious business being a disciple of Christ.

All this is to say that we must enter into the Christian life with a lot of deliberation and be as cognisant as possible of its demands. Our Lord asks for a total love and a full-hearted obedience. He is expecting us to love and serve him as we would God - and for this simple reason that he, our brother and redeemer, is God. Let us deliberate carefully, then. “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him.” Let us resolve to give all it takes. It will mean giving our all. Ah! It is worth it!

Discipleship (Luke 14, 25-33) B9

Christ speaks of the totality of dedication to him that he expects of his disciples (Wednesday of the thirty first week in Ordinary Time B9, Luke 14, 25-33)

Caritas in Veritate (4) - Chapter 1, numbers 9, 10, 11

A reading of Benedict XVI's Encyclical Letter on integral social and human development, Caritas in Veritate, no. 9, 10, 11.

9. Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized. The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties.

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11] She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations[12].


CHAPTER ONE

THE MESSAGE
OF POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

10. A fresh reading of Populorum Progressio, more than forty years after its publication, invites us to remain faithful to its message of charity and truth, viewed within the overall context of Paul VI's specific magisterium and, more generally, within the tradition of the Church's social doctrine. Moreover, an evaluation is needed of the different terms in which the problem of development is presented today, as compared with forty years ago. The correct viewpoint, then, is that of the Tradition of the apostolic faith[13], a patrimony both ancient and new, outside of which Populorum Progressio would be a document without roots — and issues concerning development would be reduced to merely sociological data.

11. The publication of Populorum Progressio occurred immediately after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and in its opening paragraphs it clearly indicates its close connection with the Council[14]. Twenty years later, in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, John Paul II, in his turn, emphasized the earlier Encyclical's fruitful relationship with the Council, and especially with the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes[15]. I too wish to recall here the importance of the Second Vatican Council for Paul VI's Encyclical and for the whole of the subsequent social Magisterium of the Popes. The Council probed more deeply what had always belonged to the truth of the faith, namely that the Church, being at God's service, is at the service of the world in terms of love and truth. Paul VI set out from this vision in order to convey two important truths. The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting — when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity — is engaged in promoting integral human development. She has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities: all the energy she brings to the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom. In not a few cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and persecutions, or it is limited when the Church's public presence is reduced to her charitable activities alone. The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension[16]. Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space. Enclosed within history, it runs the risk of being reduced to the mere accumulation of wealth; humanity thus loses the courage to be at the service of higher goods, at the service of the great and disinterested initiatives called forth by universal charity. Man does not develop through his own powers, nor can development simply be handed to him. In the course of history, it was often maintained that the creation of institutions was sufficient to guarantee the fulfilment of humanity's right to development. Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone. Moreover, such development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development. Only through an encounter with God are we able to see in the other something more than just another creature[17], to recognize the divine image in the other, thus truly coming to discover him or her and to mature in a love that “becomes concern and care for the other.”[18]

The grand invitation (Luke 14, 15-24) B9

Christ speaks of the invitation to the banquet of heaven and of each person's responsibility to accept the invitation (Tuesday of the thirty-first week in Ordinary Time B9, Luke 14, 15-24)