Was Jesus Crucified on Passover?

Reading Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI has been a wonderful experience for me. In this original work, drawing on his deep faith in Jesus, his vast scholarship and his great intellectual ability, our former Holy Father offers profound and beautiful insights into the figure and Person of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. Pope Benedict’s remarkable talent for Scripture study is marvelously evident in this three-volume book; he draws brilliant connections between various Scripture passages and truly makes the Scriptures come alive. In summary, I have been greatly enriched through my reading of Jesus of Nazareth, and I would highly recommend this book series to anyone.

In his Foreword to Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI points out that this book is not an exercise of the Church’s Magisterium but rather “my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps. 27:8).” (p. xxiii) He adds, “Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.” (p. xxiv) Having gladly given such initial goodwill, I have found very little to disagree with in the book. However, I did find one area where I respectfully disagree with the former pontiff, and that is in his discussion of the dating of the Last Supper and Christ’s crucifixion in relation to the date of the Passover feast (Jesus of Nazareth—Part Two: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), pp. 106-115).

In this discussion, Benedict XVI draws attention to the apparent contradiction between the date of Passover as recounted in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and as recounted in the Gospel of John. He observes that the Synoptics place the Last Supper “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mk. 14:12), and clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal. This meal took place on Thursday evening, which according to the Synoptic chronology was the eve of Passover. Jesus was then crucified the following day, which would have been the very day of the Passover feast. The Pope finds it improbable that Jesus would have been tried and executed on the important Jewish feast day of Passover. As evidence against this hypothesis, he points to a comment from Mark: “He tells us that two days before the feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and scribes were looking for an opportunity to bring Jesus under their control by stealth and kill him, but in this regard, they declared: ‘not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people’ (14:1-2)” (pp. 107-108).

Benedict then turns to John’s chronology and highlights the differences between it and the Synoptic chronologies. He says that John goes to great lengths to show that Jesus’ Last Supper was not a Passover meal. He also notes that “the Jewish authorities who led Jesus before Pilate’s court avoided entering the praetorium, ‘so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover’ (18:28)” (p. 108), implying—in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels—that the Passover had not yet begun at the time of Jesus’ trial. According to John’s chronology, therefore, Jesus was tried and executed on the day before Passover, not on the feast day itself. Both the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies agree that the Last Supper took place on Thursday, Jesus’ death on Friday, repose in the tomb on Saturday, and the Resurrection on Sunday. But while the Synoptic accounts explicitly have the Passover feast begin on Thursday evening, John’s gospel implies that it began on Friday evening.

Benedict remarks that, if John’s chronology is correct, the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple at the same time that Jesus, the true Lamb, was crucified. He observes that this theologically significant connection has led many scholars to write off John’s chronology as a “theological” chronology, deliberately constructed in order to bring out this important theological connection. However, the Holy Father believes that the Johannine chronology is more historically probable than the Synoptic chronologies because it seems unlikely that Jesus would have been executed on the feast of Passover. “On the other hand,” he writes, “Jesus’ Last Supper seems so closely tied to the Passover tradition that to deny its Passover character is problematic” (p. 109).

Benedict notes that attempts have frequently been made to reconcile the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies. He discusses at some length the interesting theory of twentieth-century French scholar Annie Jaubert, who claimed that Jesus celebrated the feast of Passover on a Tuesday evening following an ancient priestly calendar, while the Jewish authorities, following their own calendar, would have celebrated the Passover on Friday evening. Thus the difference between the Synoptic and Johannine dating of Passover can be explained by the use of two different calendars. However, Pope Benedict points out that John’s gospel itself indicates that Jesus followed the same calendar as the Jewish authorities, and he also notes the long tradition assigning Jesus’ Last Supper to Thursday. He concludes: “So while I would not reject this theory outright, it cannot simply be accepted at face value, in view of the various problems that remain unresolved” (p. 112).

Benedict finds a solution to the Passover discrepancy in a meticulous and comprehensive scholarly work by John P. Meier entitled A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Concluding that one must choose between the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies, Meier argues that the weight of evidence favors the Johannine version of events. The former pontiff notes that Meier cannot give a convincing explanation for the Synoptic references to a Passover meal, dismissing them as later additions to the gospel texts. Meier claims that Jesus’ Last Supper was not a true Passover meal according to Jewish ritual and calendar, but that it was Jesus’ own personal version of a Passover meal in which he gave himself to his disciples as the true Lamb on the eve of his passion and death. Benedict describes this viewpoint as follows: “Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the inner connection of the whole event with Jesus’ death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus’ Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out—when their time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them” (p. 114).

Personally, I find little reason to doubt the accuracy of the Synoptic chronologies. The Synoptic gospels are straightforward historical accounts of Jesus’ life, teaching, Passion, Death and Resurrection. They were written much closer in time to the events they record than was the Gospel of John. It makes sense, as the Synoptics tell us, that the Last Supper was a real Passover meal taken by Jesus and his disciples on the opening night of the Passover feast. After all, Jesus observed all the major Jewish feast days. The notions that Jesus’ Last Supper was not a genuine Passover meal and did not take place on the eve of Passover I find distasteful, unacceptable and incompatible with the Synoptic gospel accounts. Those accounts also contain significant theological connections. According to the Synoptics, the institution of the Holy Eucharist took place appropriately on the feast of Unleavened Bread. Then on the feast of Passover, the day on which the Israelites were delivered from slavery in Egypt, Christ passed over into the realm of the dead, delivering mankind from the slavery of sin. I believe that Jesus’ trial and execution did actually take place on the feast of Passover as the Synoptics indicate. The chief priests and scribes may have originally planned not to arrest and kill Jesus on Passover as Mark’s gospel relates (14:1-2), but then Judas offered to hand Jesus over to them (14:10-11) and did so at a convenient opportunity, which happened to be the night before the Passover feast. Moreover, a statement by Jesus in Matthew’s gospel seems to confirm that his death would really take place on Passover. Jesus says to his disciples: “You know that in two days’ time it will be Passover, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified” (26:2). The way this statement is worded implies two simultaneous events: Passover and crucifixion. It really does not make sense to interpret it any other way. If Jesus was going to be crucified before the Passover, why would he bother to mention the Passover first—or at all? Finally, the Roman governor had a custom of releasing one prisoner chosen by the people on the occasion of Passover (Mt. 27:15); Pilate followed this custom, offering to release Jesus, but the crowds, stirred up by the chief priests and elders, demanded Barabbas’ release instead (Mt. 27:16ff). It makes sense that this amnesty would have been granted on the actual day of the Passover feast.

It’s true that, unlike the Synoptics, John’s gospel makes no mention of Christ’s Last Supper as being a Passover meal. However, John does not therefore deny the Passover character of the Last Supper. He simply chooses to focus on Jesus’ example of humble service in the washing of his disciples’ feet. John fails to mention a great many facts recounted in the Synoptics because his approach is different; his gospel is the “theological” gospel, and his main concern is not to record all the facts of Jesus’ life but rather to present him in all his glory as the Son of God. Also, John prefaces his account of the Last Supper with the words, “Before the feast of Passover” (13:1); this can mean that the Passover feast would occur the next day, that is, Friday.

But how can we explain the statement in John’s gospel that the Jews who led Jesus before Pilate avoided entering the praetorium “so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover” (18:28)? Is this merely a theological device intended to connect Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs? No; this is a simple factual statement, and as such it cannot reasonably be doubted or explained away, even if it seems to contradict the Synoptics. Perhaps this verse from John can be reconciled with the Synoptic accounts in this way. The Jewish feast of Passover is in fact not confined to a single day but constitutes a week-long celebration. True, the principal Passover meal takes place on the first evening of this feast, but the lesser meals taken on the succeeding days are also part of the Passover celebration. The Passover may have already begun on Thursday evening, but the Jews who brought Jesus before Pilate still had to keep themselves ritually pure if they were to continue to eat the Passover feast, which would continue until the following Thursday.

So perhaps there is no real conflict between the Synoptic and Johannine accounts of Christ’s Last Supper and crucifixion in relation to the Passover feast. But even if my explanation of John 18:28 turns out to be inadequate and not well supported, I would still tend to favor the Synoptic version of events, which I find to be historically accurate as well as theologically significant. In the meantime, I will try to keep an open mind pending additional research on this subject.


Copyright © 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Quote of the Day

But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the "tyranny of relativism", which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples...Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.

--Pope Francis

Quote of the Day

"The vocation of being a "protector", however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God''s creatures and respecting the environment in which we live. It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about. It means caring for one another in our families: husbands and wives first protect one another, and then, as parents, they care for their children, and children themselves, in time, protect their parents. It means building sincere friendships in which we protect one another in trust, respect, and goodness. In the end, everything has been entrusted to our protection, and all of us are responsible for it. Be protectors of God''s gifts!

--Pope Francis

March for Marriage

From the Virginia Catholic Conference:

"Next Tuesday, March 26, 2013, several organizations from across the country will join together to stage a National March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. The March presents a significant opportunity to promote and defend marriage and the good of our nation, to pray for our Supreme Court justices, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will. It also complements a Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty announced last November by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Joining the USCCB’s Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, the Virginia Catholic Conference encourages Catholics to attend and support the March for Marriage.


"The March marks the two days --- March 26 and 27--- when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases related to so-called same-sex “marriage.” Petitioners are asking the Court to rule on the constitutionality of limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman. Currently nine jurisdictions, including Maryland and the District of Columbia, have redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships.

"Our own Virginia bishops, in their 2006 pastoral letter on marriage, noted that marriage “is inscribed in our human nature.” Further, the U.S. bishops in 2009 pointed to the Second Vatican Council, which reminded us that “marriage is not a purely human institution’’ but one “established by the creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws.” The unique, fundamental meaning and purpose of this universal institution is to unite a man and a woman with each other and with the children born from their union. In fact, government has long recognized marriage because it is the institution best designed to protect children and their families. Those who want to redefine marriage claim marriage exists to satisfy an emotional need or to support voluntary relationships. However, the institution of marriage is not simply one of many alternative kinds of relationships. Rather, it is the very building block of the family and of society. Because of the unique contributions this institution makes to the common good, it must be clearly distinguished from other relationships.

"In 2006, Virginia voters passed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage and prevent legislators and judges from redefining it. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could have a profound impact on marriage laws across the nation and could even put individual and organizational conscience rights in jeopardy.

"To learn more about what the Church teaches about marriage, see the USCCB site as well as Marriage: Unique for a Reason.

"The Virginia Catholic Conference encourages all those who are able to attend the March for Marriage on March 26 and provide public witness as well as prayer on this critical issue."

Great idea. Life, marriage, and religious liberty are under attack in our nation today as never before. We Catholics need to stand up for what we believe and join with other people of goodwill to defend the traditional values on which our nation is built. We have the annual March for Life in Washington, and now there will be a March for Marriage.

Thankfully, our Catholic bishops have been doing a fine job of leading this effort to protect the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and our religious freedom and moral conscience rights. I think the bishops should go one step further and organize a massive march on Washington for life, marriage, and religious liberty. If it was well organized and well presented, millions of people--Catholic and non-Catholic alike--would attend. This could make an impact similar to that of the civil rights march of 1964: the federal government might actually listen to the people and take meaningful, decisive political action to protect their God-given human rights in response to massive public pressure. Let's hope and pray that this happens in the near future.

Quote of the Day

It was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham and his descendants that he would inherit the world, but through the righteousness that comes from faith...For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us, as it is written, "I have made you father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not exist. He believed, hoping against hope, that he would become "the father of many nations," according to what was said, "Thus shall your descendants be."...That is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."

--Romans 4:13, 16-18, 22

Quote of the Day

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
--John 8:12

A Pope of Surprises

(Note: This is a revised and expanded edition of my previous post.)

Yesterday, on just the second day of the conclave and on the fifth ballot, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was elected the 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, and the 265th Successor of Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Francis. He is the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit pontiff, and the first non-European pope in many centuries.


This new pope brings many surprises. For one thing, I did not expect the cardinals to elect a new pontiff so quickly, given that they seemed to lack clear direction in the wake of Pope Benedict's stunning resignation, and the fact that no single cardinal stood out as a clear front-runner going into this conclave. But apparently the cardinals had already begun to form a consensus around a particular candidate when they entered the conclave—a candidate about whom they did not speak openly to the news media. That was a tactful move on their part, and a brilliant way of dealing with the modern world media machine that tries its best to influence the election of the next pope. They allowed journalists to focus on their favorite candidates and indulge in their favorite speculations, and then pulled the rug from under their feet with the quick election of a “dark horse.” It’s plainly obvious that the cardinal electors did not allow the world’s media to influence their decision. That is heartening, and the cardinal electors deserve our great respect and warm congratulations for carrying out their duty so well amid difficult circumstances. In choosing a pope, their solemn responsibility is to follow their consciences and cast their ballot for the man whom they feel is best qualified to lead the Church at this particular moment. And they have taken that responsibility seriously, thanks be to God.

For another thing, I was not expecting this particular cardinal to be elected to the papacy. I did include him on my list of thirty-two papabili (see my recent article, "Who Will Be the Next Pope?") because according to my research he met the qualifications for a serious papal candidate; however, I put him a ways down the list (at #20) because I felt he was a bit of a long shot, mainly because of his age and relative obscurity. I also felt a Latin American pope was less likely than an Italian or other European. But age, nationality, and familiarity with the general public are only secondary considerations for the cardinal electors in choosing a new pope.

Also, I was not expecting a Jesuit pope, but I am nonetheless delighted to see one. I have great respect for the Jesuits because of their high education and faithful service to the Church over the centuries as well as in our own day. They were founded by Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be simple yet highly trained and loyal servants of the pope, and they were forbidden to accept ecclesiastical honors such as being made a bishop, a cardinal, or pope. So it is ironic to have a Jesuit who has accepted all three of these honors. But of course, it is up to the pope to appoint bishops and name cardinals, and he can bestow these honors on whomever he thinks should be given them. And it’s up to the cardinals to elect a pope and to choose the man whom they believe is most suited for that position. Saint Ignatius perceived that the danger in accepting honors is that they can make men proud and arrogant. But even with his great learning, Jorge Bergoglio is obviously a humble man and has remained so, which is why he was given these honors—and why it was appropriate that he should have been given them. He accepted them in humble obedience to the authority of the Church, not out of pride or to advance his ecclesiastical career. His education as a Jesuit will no doubt prove a valuable contribution to the papacy and the Church.

And finally, I was not expecting the new pope to take a name that no previous pontiff has used. I thought he would call himself Pope John Paul III or Benedict XVII or Paul VII or John XXIV or Pius XIII or something like that. But no, he chose Francis. What a beautiful and appropriate name--perhaps in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor and humble man, and Saint Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit missionary--or perhaps in honor of Saint Francis de Sales, the sixteenth-century "gentleman saint."

This man was unfamiliar to me; I had never really seen him prior to his appearance on the loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica, so I wasn't sure what to expect. When he first came out on the balcony, initially he seemed a little distant and reserved, perhaps even a bit nervous and fearful, as he stood there almost motionless, solemnly facing the massive crowds of cheering people in Saint Peter's Square, acknowledging their applause with an occasional slight wave of one hand. He seemed as stunned as we were by the cardinals’ choice of a pope. Frankly, I felt a bit sorry for him. Just like Cardinal Ratzinger before him, he did not want to be elected pope, and probably did not even expect it. As he stood there before us, clothed simply in the white papal garments with his pectoral cross, he seemed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders—and in a very real sense he did, because the modern papacy is a tremendous responsibility. His rigid and dignified stance reminded me of earlier pre-Vatican II pontiffs.

Then as His Holiness began speaking into the microphone, smiling as he warmly greeted the people in Italian, my apprehensions melted away and I was instantly won over to the new pope. His words of greeting lasted at least a minute, longer than those of the two previous pontiffs. In a thoughtful and respectful gesture, he first directed our attention to his great predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and led us in praying an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be for him. I was impressed by how he then bowed down in front of the whole world and asked us, the faithful, to pray that God would bless him before he gave us his first blessing as our new Shepherd in Christ. Once he had done that, he added a few words of farewell, saying he looked forward to seeing the people on Sunday, and wishing them good night.

This is clearly a man of profound humility, simplicity and deep faith, a man of restrained and even temperament who also knows how to communicate with an audience through carefully chosen words and meaningful gestures—a man who, I believe, will evangelize the world mainly through his own powerful example of holiness.

Now that I’m getting to know Pope Francis a little better, and who he was as Cardinal Bergoglio, I realize that my first impressions of this man as being distant and fearful were inaccurate. This is not a bold and outgoing character like Pope John Paul II or a shy and gentle scholar like Pope Benedict XVI. This is a different kind of man altogether: noble and dignified, reserved and correct, with quiet presence, yet nonetheless a man of deep joy, kind and cheerful, who is able to connect with people. He has his own personality and style, and as he stepped onto the world stage as our new pope, he was more or less simply being himself.

I do gather one thing in particular about this man’s unique personality and style from the time we spent waiting for him to emerge after the white smoke and the official announcement of his election, and the time he took on the balcony to greet us and lead us in prayer, and how he lingered a moment before departing. This is a man who is not in a hurry. He takes his time, and is comfortable doing so. And I believe that that sends a very significant message to our modern, fast-paced, highly secularized and materialistic twenty-first-century world, in which we are pressured to rush to get so many different things, that there is something far more important than everything else that is worth not rushing for. It is when we slow down and let go and listen that God can speak to us in the stillness of our hearts. We must have the courage to shut out the world from time to time in order to deepen our relationship with God and allow him to direct our lives towards our heavenly goal.

As I continue to observe the papacy, I’m coming to learn that each pope is unique and has something special to teach us. Pope John Paul II taught us to be bold and fearless in proclaiming the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Pope Benedict XVI taught us the importance of being correctly formed in our faith and of keeping the liturgy and the Second Vatican Council within the proper context of the Church’s rich tradition. And I believe that Pope Francis will teach us how to slow down and listen to the Holy Spirit, as well as how to serve the Lord and one another in simplicity, humility, and charity. His style will take some getting used to, but we will get used to it just as we got accustomed to the style of Pope Benedict XVI before him. I'm sure he will do a fine job of succeeding the two great pontiffs of our time, and will continue leading the Church in the direction it has been taken by Popes John Paul and Benedict.

We are truly blessed to have Pope Francis as our new Holy Father. May God bless him and help him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, to faithfully carry out the task entrusted to him for years to come.


Copyright 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Habemus Papam! We Have a Pope!

(Photo credit: AP)

Today, on just the second day of the conclave and on the fifth ballot, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, has been elected the 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, and the 265th Successor of Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Pope Francis. He is the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit, and the first non-European pope in many centuries.

Wow! Lots of surprises here. For one thing, I did not expect the cardinals to elect a new pope so quickly, given that the cardinals seemed to lack clear direction in the wake of Pope Benedict's stunning resignation, and the fact that no single cardinal stood out as a clear front-runner going into this conclave. But apparently the cardinals took their responsibility seriously and were able to reach a consensus quickly.

For another thing, I was not expecting this particular man to be elected. I did include him on my list of thirty-two papabili (see recent post below, "Who Will Be the Next Pope?") because according to my research he did meet the qualifications for a serious papal candidate; however, I put him a ways down the list (at #20)because I felt he was a bit of a long shot, partly because of his age. I also felt a Latin American pope was less likely than an Italian or other European. But age, nationality, and even precedent are not the primary considerations for the cardinal electors in choosing a new pope. Their solemn responsibility is to follow their consciences and cast their ballot for the man whom they feel is best qualified to lead the Church at this particular moment. And that they have done, thanks be to God.

Also, I was not expecting the new pope to take a name that no previous pope has used. I thought he would call himself Pope John Paul III or Benedict XVII or Paul VII or John XXIV or Pius XIII or something like that. But no, he chose Francis. What a beautiful and appropriate name--perhaps in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor and humble man, and Saint Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit missionary--or perhaps in honor of Saint Francis de Sales, the sixteenth-century "gentleman saint."

I had never seen this man prior to his appearance on the loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Initially he seemed a little distant and rigid, perhaps a bit hesitant, standing almost motionless, solemnly facing the massive crowds of cheering people in Saint Peter's Square, acknowledging their applause with an occasional slight wave of one hand. His dignified stance reminded me of Pope Pius XII and earlier pre-Vatican II pontiffs. Then as he began speaking into the microphone, smiling as he warmly greeted the people, my fears melted away and I was instantly won over to the new pope. His words of greeting lasted at least a minute, longer than those of the two previous popes. I was impressed by how he bowed down in front of the whole world and asked us, the faithful, to pray that God would bless him before he gave us his first blessing as our new pope. Once he had done that, he added a few words of farewell, saying he looked forward to seeing the people on Sunday, and wishing them good night. This is a man of profound humility and deep faith, a man of restrained and even temperament who also knows how to communicate with an audience through words and meaningful gestures. I'm sure he will do a fine job of succeeding the two great pontiffs before him.

We are truly blessed to have Pope Francis as our new Holy Father. May God bless him and help him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, to faithfully carry out the task entrusted to him for years to come.

Deo gratias!
Laudate Iesu Christe!

As the Historic Conclave Begins...

...My prayer is that the Cardinals will be given the graces they need to follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and elect the man whom God wills to lead the Church as the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

What an awesome Church we have--the one true Church of Jesus Christ. And what an awesome responsibility is that of the Pope, and that of the Cardinals who must choose him.

Quote of the Day

If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep. It is also true that they sometimes needed him for some sudden and militant act of reform; it is equally true that he often took advantage of being the strong man armed to be a tyrant like some of the Sultans of the East...But the spirit that endures the mere cruelties and caprices of an established despot is the spirit of an ancient and settled and probably stiffened society, not the spirit of a new one.

--G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 1925

(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008, pp. 58-59)

Thought for the Day

"The message of Benedict XVI...is in the end a dramatic appeal to the Church and the world, to each individual: There is no way we can possibly continue as before, he exclaims. Mankind stands at a crossroads. It is time for reflection. Time for change. Time for conversion. And unwaveringly he maintains: 'There are so many problems that all have to be solved but that will not all be solved unless God stands in the center and becomes visible again in the world.'"

--Peter Seewald, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), p. xix.

"Selections from The St. Michael Hymnal" Now Available

My first musical album, "Selections from The St. Michael Hymnal," was released this past week and is now available for sale on the Internet.

This is a two-CD set of instrumental piano music. It features recordings of 48 of the greatest traditional and contemporary Catholic hymns found in The Saint Michael Hymnal, Fourth Edition (Lafayette, IN: Saint Boniface Catholic Church, 2011), an excellent Catholic musical resource that aspires to fulfill the true vision and spirit of Vatican II for Catholic liturgical music and sacred hymns. I highly recommend this hymnal for use in Catholic parishes across the United States. It is available at www.stmichaelhymnal.com.

The CDs are suitable for sing-along purposes for Catholic schools, prayer groups and so forth as well as just for your listening pleasure.
To order your copy of the two-volume set, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181092603046

If you would like to order a copy of just Volume I, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181091994702

Or, if you'd like to order just Volume II by itself, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181092519379

Thank you for your interest. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at justin_86@ntelos.net.

Quote of the Day

God took Abram outside and said: "Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so," he added, "shall your descendants be." Abram put his faith in the Lord, who credited it to him as an act of righteousness.

--Genesis 15:5-6

Is a Homosexual Lobby Manipulating the Vatican?

We certainly live in strange times. A few years ago I would never have dreamed of what is suggested in the headline above, much less of writing it. But now it seems we have to face the possibility of answering this question in the affirmative.

Two days ago, in an e-newsletter from Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, I received an unconfirmed news report that a ring of homosexual activists has infiltrated the highest levels of the Vatican and is manipulating the internal affairs of the Church’s government in order to advance its loathsome agenda. Apparently this homosexual lobby has been secretly bribing and even blackmailing various cardinals and other curial officials into complying with its demands.

According to an “unnamed Vatican source” who is apparently close to the Holy Father, this rumor originates from a confidential 300-page report given to Pope Benedict XVI on December 17, 2012. The report was written by a select group of three cardinals whom the Pope had commissioned to investigate the “Vatileaks” scandal that erupted last May. That scandal involved the papal butler, Paolo Gabriele, who had stolen confidential documents from the Pope’s desk and smuggled two of them to an Italian journalist who published them. Paolo and his accomplice, a computer technician named Claudio Scarpetti, were arrested and charged with aggravated theft and aiding and abetting a crime, respectively.

When asked why he did it, Gabriele claimed that he was dismayed by the corruption he witnessed everywhere within the Vatican and by how the Pope was kept in the dark about various important matters he should have known about. Paolo said that he acted for the good of the Church, which he deeply loved.

Naturally, Pope Benedict was deeply hurt by his butler’s betrayal of his trust, although he did a good job of concealing this pain from public view. Gabriele was well known within the Vatican for being very loyal to the Pope. Also, he and his family were close to the Holy Father, and Gabriele was seemingly a pious Catholic by all accounts. Psychological examination of Gabriele following his arrest revealed a sane, sincere, and strongly religious character fully aware of and responsible for his actions who at the same time harbored a deep-seated insecurity that compelled him to draw attention to himself.

In October, Gabriele was convicted of theft and sentenced to 18 months in prison by a Vatican court. Shortly before Christmas, one day after Pope Benedict received the cardinal commission’s report, he officially pardoned Gabriele, forgiving the remainder of his sentence.

The Vatileaks case included several puzzling mysteries. Foremost among these is the fact that the police who raided Gabriele’s home at the time of his arrest apparently confiscated and removed from his house a larger quantity of documents than it could physically hold. In the thirteen hours spent inside the butler’s home, they found and confiscated several computers and hard drives; stacks of books about spying and Freemasonry; and reams and reams of copies of Vatican documents from the Pope’s desk. In all, we are told that the police removed some 80 crates of documents from Gabriele’s modest home. At his trial, one of the police remarked that it was going to be fun sorting through all that material. But none of this vast amount of material was used at the trial as evidence against Gabriele—only the two documents he had actually smuggled to the press were used. Why? And how could all of that material have come from inside Gabriele’s rather small house? Furthermore, given the size of the building, why did it take thirteen hours for the police to search it?

If the alleged report about homosexual spies in the Vatican turns out to be true, it would explain a number of things. It would partly explain why Pope Benedict XVI has decided to resign the papacy at this particular moment in Church history; with his advanced age and his declining health, he is ill-equipped to deal with a corruption scandal of this magnitude. It would confirm that Paolo Gabriele was telling the truth about corruption existing everywhere within the Vatican (although even this grave matter does not justify what Paolo did to bring attention to it; it’s always wrong to do evil so that good may result), and why Gabriele was so upset when he heard of the Pope resigning (in his insecure mind, he probably felt that the Pope was “giving up” and running away from the challenge of cleaning up the corruption within the Church). It would explain why God allowed a dramatic bolt of lightning to strike Saint Peter’s Basilica on the day the Pope announced his resignation as a sign of his displeasure with the evils festering inside the Vatican. It would explain why Pope Benedict pardoned Gabriele immediately after receiving the report that revealed the corruption within the Holy See: what Gabriele did was wrong, certainly, but the corruption within the Vatican is far worse, and Gabriele hates it as much as the Pope does. And it would also begin to explain some of the mysteries surrounding the Vatileaks affair.

(To be continued)

Quote of the Day

“Pope Benedict has offered a brave and intelligent defense of truth against a relativist tide.”
--Rev. R. Albert Mohler, president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Who Will Be the Next Pope?

When the papal conclave unfolds next month in the Sistine Chapel in Rome, who will the cardinal electors choose to succeed Pope Benedict XVI? Of course, we cannot know for certain the answer to this question due to the absolute secrecy of the conclave proceedings and the vast field of possible candidates for the papal office. In theory, any baptized man is eligible for the papacy. In practice, however, a variety of informal qualifications, traditional requirements and longstanding rules govern potential papal candidates, rendering some men much more likely than others to be elected Bishop of Rome. These include:

• membership in the College of Cardinals;
• being well known to the other cardinals;
• being an archbishop;
• excellent education and above-average intellectual abilities;
• experience in the Roman curia (the select group of cardinals who work in Rome assisting the pope with the administration of the Church);
• strong organizational and leadership qualities;
• remarkable diplomatic skills;
• fluency in multiple major languages;
• good PR and media skills;
• remarkable and well-known intellectual, pastoral, administrative, and/or diplomatic achievements;
• an ability to communicate with and relate to ordinary lay Catholics;
• reasonably good health and not too advanced of an age;
• irreproachable personal character;
• a humble and cheerful personality; and
• personal holiness.

Since only a handful of men in the Church today exhibit all or nearly all of these characteristics, we can make some reasonably educated guesses as to who might be chosen to fill the soon-to-be vacant Chair of Saint Peter. With these qualifications as guidelines, I have researched and compiled the following list of papabili or likely candidates for the papacy to succeed Pope Benedict XVI:

1. Cardinal Angelo Scola, 71, Archbishop of Milan, Italy
2. Cardinal Marc Ouellet, 68, former Archbishop of Quebec, Canada, now Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
3. Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, 70, Archbishop of Paris, France
4. Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, 68, Archbishop of Vienna, Austria
5. Cardinal Pedro Odilo Scherer, 63, Archbishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil
6. Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, 69, Archbishop of Genoa, Italy and President of the Italian Bishops' Conference
7. Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, 65, former Archbishop of Brasilia, Brazil, now Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
8. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, 70, Italy, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture
9. Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, 64, Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana and President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
10. Cardinal Kurt Koch, 62, former Archbishop of Basel, Switzerland, now President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
11. Cardinal Angelo Amato, 74, Italy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints
12. Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, 67, former Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, now Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
13. Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, 62, Archbishop of Lyon, France
14. Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, 68, Italy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy
15. Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, 69, Argentina, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches
16. Cardinal Angelo Comastri, 69, Italy, President of the Fabric of St. Peter, Vicar General of His Holiness for the State of Vatican City and Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica
17. Cardinal John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, 69, Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria
18. Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, 70, Archbishop of Mexico City, Mexico
19. Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, 70, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras and President of Caritas Internationalis
20. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina
21. Cardinal Peter Erdo, 60, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, Hungary
22. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, 64, USA, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura
23. Cardinal Agostino Vallini, 72, Italy, Vicar General of the Diocese of Rome
24. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, 69, France, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
25. Cardinal Fernando Filoni, 66, Italy, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
26. Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, 67, Poland, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity
27. Cardinal Giuseppe Betori, 65, Archbishop of Florence, Italy
28. Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, 76, Archbishop of Madrid, Spain
29. Cardinal Antonio Maria Veglio, 75, Italy, President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples
30. Cardinal Robert Sarah, 67, former Archbishop of Conakry, Guinea and President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum
31. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, 63, Archbishop of New York, USA and President of the U.S. Bishops' Conference
32. Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, 55, Archbishop of Manila, Philippines

In assembling this list, I have placed those whom I consider more likely to be elected pope nearer the top and those whom I regard as long shots at the bottom. For example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York may be a widely known and respected leader in the Church today, but his lack of familiarity with the Roman curia and his status as an American are significant disadvantages that make him an unlikely papabile. (The cardinals tend to avoid electing a pope from a powerful country because this could jeopardize the diplomatic independence of the Holy See.) Nevertheless, I have included Cardinal Dolan because I think that his election is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

Why are so many Italians included here? Because I foresee a possibility that, after two non-Italian popes, the cardinals may at least temporarily revert to the centuries-old tradition of electing an Italian pontiff. Many of the Italian cardinals have extensive experience working in the curia, which is a major plus for a potential pope, and their high-profile positions in the Vatican make them well known to the other cardinals around the world in the process of dealing with Church administrative matters.

The thirty-two men listed above represent the cream of the crop--the finest and best-known leaders in our Church today. It is highly likely that one of their number will become the next pope. Have I overlooked anyone? That is possible. My experience at guessing or predicting who will be elevated to the papacy is quite limited--after all, this will be only the second conclave of my lifetime. Moreover, as an outsider to the Vatican I am at a disadvantage compared with those who observe the inner workings and dynamics of the Holy See at closer range, and who are therefore more qualified to predict who the next Roman Pontiff will be. Nevertheless, over the past ten years I have done a fair amount of research on the subject of papal elections, and this has given me some idea of what to expect when the conclave of 2013 takes place.

In researching the cardinals and compiling the above roster of papabili, I have attempted to be as rigorous and objective as possible. Of course, it is difficult to be entirely unbiased. I frankly admit that I have placed Cardinal Schonborn so near the top mainly because I personally like him and would like to see him elected pope, despite his relative lack of experience in the Roman curia which could be a minus for his electability. On the other hand, however, he is among the best-known cardinals in the world, well-respected, a brilliant theologian and writer (not unlike Pope Benedict in many ways) with a charismatic personality, and he also has most of the other informal qualifications for a serious papal contender.

But thankfully, it's not up to me to decide who will be the 265th Successor of Saint Peter. The responsibility for deciding that rests with the 117 cardinal electors, who will try to listen to and follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their choice of a successor to Pope Benedict XVI. We should keep them in our prayers as they prepare to undertake this challenging duty of such momentous importance for the life of the whole Church. Regardless of whom the cardinals pick as our new Holy Father, I will gladly accept and embrace him without the least hesitation, fully believing and trusting that the Holy Spirit, through the new Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him, will continue guiding the Church so that it teaches the truth of Christ faithfully and without error as it has done uninterruptedly for the past 2,000 years.


Copyright © 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Pope Benedict XVI Is Leaving Us

I just found out this morning that Pope Benedict XVI has announced that he has decided to resign from the papacy for health reasons. Although I am deeply saddened by this announcement, I completely understand the pontiff's reasons for relinquishing the Chair of Saint Peter, and I accept his decision. While he is still in very good health for his age (he will turn 86 in April), the pope's strength has been gradually declining over the eight years of his pontificate, and especially over the past year or so he has been getting noticeably weaker. Unlike most men who reach his age, and unlike Blessed John Paul II before him, Pope Benedict has no serious illness or disease, so despite his growing weakness, he may continue living for years to come. He does not want the Church to suffer as a result of his inability to carry out the functions of his office. Therefore, after several months of thoughtful consideration and prayer, he has decided to give up the papacy for the good of the Church. I think he has made the right decision.

Although initially I was shocked by the news of Pope Benedict's resignation, I am not really too surprised; in fact, I was sort of expecting it, knowing Pope Benedict and having observed his papacy pretty closely. Even the casual observer can tell that this man is not a clone of Pope John Paul II. He has his own personality, his own ideas, his own approach and style, and he is comfortable being himself. He thinks for himself and then he does what he thinks is right, whether it is popular or not, whether it is expected or not, whether it has been done before or not. And he takes full responsibility for his decisions.

It is very rare for a pope to resign. This will be the first time in 598 years and only the fourth time in Church history that a pope has stepped down. The last pope to voluntarily renounce his office was Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415 during the Great Western Schism to allow for the proper election of a successor.


Pope Benedict XVI has set a wonderful example of humility and wisdom for the whole Church. He has fully understood and put into practice the Christian concepts of servant leadership and obedience to God's will. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger never wanted to be pope. Already in his late seventies at the time of John Paul's death, he would have preferred to retire to his native Bavaria and write books in quiet solitude. When elected pope on April 19, 2005, he initially felt that he was not up to the enormous task of governing the universal Church. However, he humbly accepted his election as God's will, setting aside his own preferences, referring to himself as "a humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord," and trusting that God would give him the necessary graces to carry out the papal mission. And God certainly rewarded his trust. Now, as he begins to lack the necessary strength to fulfill his ministry, Pope Benedict XVI has the humility and wisdom to recognize that his time as Supreme Pontiff should come to an end. Both in accepting the papal office and in giving it up, as well as throughout his papacy, he has been a humble servant of God, always putting the good of the Church and of others first.

Our brilliant, scholarly, humble and wise Holy Father has served the Church very well over the past eight years, carrying out his many responsibilities with total dedication and careful attention. His accomplishments are too numerous to list here. He has successfully ushered the Church into the post-John Paul II era. The profound theological riches of his encyclicals, apostolic letters, homilies, addresses, and other writings and speeches will be mined for decades to come.

A very fond farewell to one of the holiest and greatest popes the Church has ever known. May God bless his remaining days on earth. When he passes from this life and stands before God, I'm sure God will say to him, "Well done, my good and faithful servant...Come, share your Master's joy" (Matthew 25:21).

P.S. Of course, Pope Benedict is not really "leaving us," just leaving the papacy. I'm sure he will keep us all in his prayers, and let's do the same for him.

Forty Years of Legal Mass Murder in the U.S.

Today we observe with great sorrow the fortieth anniversary of the unconstitutional, immoral, and tragic Roe v. Wade decision.

On January 22, 1973, seven men on the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a woman has a right to kill her innocent unborn child for any reason whatsoever. In producing this ruling, the Court misinterpreted the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, which states, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This passage, along with most of the Fifth Amendment, was written to protect the rights of persons accused of crimes. When our nation’s Founders authored this text, they meant that no one could be executed or deprived of his freedom or land without first being properly tried and convicted of a crime. But the irresponsible activist Court led by Chief Justice Warren Burger chose to ignore the intent of the Constitution’s authors and, through some incomprehensible twist of logic, reinterpreted the Fifth Amendment due process clause to justify legalizing the murder of innocent unborn persons—something the Founders would never have approved of in their wildest dreams. Roe v. Wade represented nothing less than an attack on the integrity and meaning of the Constitution of the United States by the very institution that is supposed to protect it, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not only was Roe v. Wade an unconstitutional decision, it was also an immoral decision. In the Declaration of Independence, we the people of the United States declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights with which God the Creator has endowed all human beings. This right to life is an “unalienable” right, meaning that it cannot be taken away. Human life is sacred because it is a gift from God the Creator. To deprive an innocent human being of life is a violation of that person’s unalienable right to life. It is also a violation of the Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Our nation’s devout Christian Founders took these principles for granted. They could scarcely have imagined that, two hundred years later, the judicial branch of government would somehow justify allowing innocent human beings to be killed in their mothers’ wombs right here in the United States of America. They did warn, however, that the United States would not long endure without what George Washington referred to as the “indispensable supports” of religion and morality. If the people of a nation don’t believe that human rights—especially the right to life—come from God, then those rights will be perceived as coming from the state and the state will claim the authority to give or take away those rights as it sees fit. And if people don’t believe that it is wrong to deprive an innocent person of his or her right to life, then human life will not be respected.

Finally, Roe v. Wade was an immensely tragic decision. During the past forty years, some 55.5 million innocent unborn human beings—an average of 1.38 million a year—have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs through legalized abortion. That is an alarming and staggering figure. That’s more than nine times the number of innocent Jews murdered in the Holocaust. It’s also more than the fifty million people killed in World War II, the deadliest conflict in modern human history. It is difficult to comprehend the full magnitude of this loss of life or to calculate the full impact of this massacre of the unborn on our nation over the past forty years. Excluding miscarriages, accidents, disease, and other causes of death outside the womb, our country is currently missing some 55 million inhabitants; in addition, many of those aborted in the 1970s and 80s would now be married and raising children of their own, so our country is really missing around 70 million people, and our nation’s population should be around 385 million instead of the 315 million it is now. Think of how much different—and better—things would be in our country if we had all these missing people contributing to our economy and using their God-given talents to serve our nation in a variety of professions and fields. We will never know how different the United States would be in 2013 if nearly all the innocent unborn had been born and were alive today. The absence of 70 million people is an incalculable loss to our nation.

Pope John Paul II once said, “The condition for the survival of America is to respect every human person, especially the weakest and most defenseless ones, those as yet unborn.” The appalling mass murder of the unborn in our nation must be brought to an end. Roe v. Wade must be overturned so that the unalienable, God-given right to life of every innocent unborn human being in the United States is once again protected by our Constitution and guaranteed by our laws. We must not rest until we achieve that goal.

Quote of the Day

Every Christian--as he explores the historical record of Scripture and tradition and comes to a deep, abiding faith--experiences that Christ is the risen one and that he is therefore the eternally living one. It is a deep, life-changing experience. No true Christian can keep it hidden as a personal matter. For such an encounter with the living God cries out to be shared--like the light that shines, like the yeast that leavens the whole mass of dough.

The true Christian is a living gospel. That does not mean he is a disciple of a doctrine that is far away in time and foreign to the reality of life. He does not repeat powerless formulas. No, he is convinced and tenacious in asserting the relevance of Christ and the unceasing newness of the gospel. He is always eager before anyone and at any time to give reason for the hope which he harbors in his heart (see 1 Peter 3:15).

--Blessed John Paul II

And the Word Was Made Flesh...

...and dwelt among us,

(and we saw his glory,

the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,)

full of grace and truth. 

--St. John 1:14

Wishing you and yours a blessed and joyful Christmas season.

Quote of the Day

The question is: Is the humanity of our time still waiting for a Savior? One has the feeling that many consider God as foreign to their own interests. Apparently, they do not need him. They live as though he did not exist and, worse still, as though he were an "obstacle" to remove in order to fulfill themselves. Even among believers--we are sure of it--some let themselves be attracted by enticing dreams and distracted by misleading doctrines that suggest deceptive shortcuts to happiness. Yet, despite its contradictions, worries and tragedies, and perhaps precisely because of them, humanity today seeks a path of renewal, of salvation; it seeks a Savior and awaits, sometimes unconsciously, the coming of the Savior who renews the world and our life, the coming of Christ, the one true Redeemer of man and of the whole of man.

--Pope Benedict XVI

Thought for the Day

Enmity with God is the source of all that poisons man; overcoming this enmity is the basic condition for peace in the world. Only the man who is reconciled with God can also be reconciled and in harmony with himself, and only the man who is reconciled with God and with himself can establish peace around him and throughout the world.

--Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 85.

Quote of the Day #2

With the recent murder at a school in Connecticut, I felt that the following passage from Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI would be very pertinent. This passage is set within the context of the Holy Father's brilliant and penetrating analysis of the hidden meaning of the Beatitudes and of the interconnections between them, which is one of the great highlights of the book. Here the Pope is discussing the second Beatitude, "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt. 5:4):

The sufferer is not truly comforted, his tears are not completely wiped away, until he and the powerless of this world are no longer threatened by murderous violence; comfort is not brought to completion until even past sufferings never previously understood are lifted up into the light of God and given the meaning of reconciliation by his goodness; true comfort only appears when the "last enemy," death (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26), and all its accomplices have been stripped of their power. Christ's words about comforting thus help us to understand what he means by "Kingdom of God" (of the heavens), while "Kingdom of God" gives us in turn an idea of what consolation the Lord holds in store for all those who mourn and suffer in this world.

--Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 88

Quote of the Day

But they that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.

--Isaiah 40:31 (Douay-Rheims Version)

Thought for the Day

Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.

--Vaclav Havel