When Promiscuity is Your Sacrament, and You're Terrified of Normalcy

I guess it's to be expected that those omalophobic souls who make a cult of despising virtue, or chastity, or even such a bourgeois habit as commitment, would be screaming on Those Interwebs about that strange, evil guy who, you know, does strange, evil things and set himself strange, evil rules of conduct, because he has these strange, evil notions about a strange, evil institution called marriage, and has this strange, evil superstition that there's such a thing as temptation, and he loves his strange, evil wife enough that he wants to avoid both it and the chance of giving people who delight in that sort of thing excuses to gossip, (not that the previously mentioned omalophobia sufferers have any particular affinity for dishing...)

Do you REALLY see in another person's fidelity or continence an inherent reproach to the way you've chosen to live your life?
Are ya maybe... projecting?

I wonder if there's the odd chance that any of such screamers read today's lectionary?

The wicked said among themselves, thinking not aright:"Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;he sets himself against our doings,Reproaches us for transgressions of the lawand charges us with violations of our training.He professes to have knowledge of Godand styles himself a child of the LORD.To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,Because his life is not like that of others,and different are his ways.He judges us debased;he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.

The Woman Taken in An Other-Than-First Marriage

"This woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him.
Jesus asked, "So, is this a formal dubium?"
And they answered,"Well, uhm... I dunno... so what if it is?"
And He spoke, "Then I might not answer you. So.... in what diocese do you live?"
And one said, "Uhm.... Malta?"
But yet another declared, "I'm from Philly."
And they were sore confused.
But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.
Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
She replied, “No one, sir.”
Then Jesus said, "Are you at peace with God?"
The woman replied, "Yeah, I guess so..."
“Neither do I condemn you. Go, from now on try to make it work with your current partner, okay?”

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of ...

... you thought I was going to say, "Christ," didn't you?
No, the'res more than one answer, boys and girls.
It turns out ignorance of scripture leaves a gaping lacuna in the study of sexual sociology.
To whit:

The work of sociologists has long been concerned with the relationship between urbanization and sexuality, especially in the form of visible clusters or neighborhoods typified by specific sexual moralities or practices. Identification of 'vice areas' and, latterly, 'gay villages', has been a stock in trade of urban sociology since at least the time of the Chicago School.

Really? at least since the 1920s or '30s?
No one noticing the phenomenon, and how it would affect both the denizens of such areas and, you know..... visitors, and, when you think about it, migration from said urban enclaves, a bit earlier?

The Poor, the Marginalized, the Outcast, the... Shepherd?

I reflected on something listening to the readings this morning, not for the first time.
I'm sure everyone has heard the standard Christmas sermon more than once, the one where the shepherds play a large, heart-tuggin part.
"Isn't it remarkable," says Father, "that the angel firt gives the glad tidings to the lowliest of the lowly, the shepherds. Shepherds was despised by decent people in the first century, they were not allowed -"

Wait a minute.
David was a shepherd.
Abraham was a shepherd.

God promises, over and over again in the Old Testament, to send a Shepherd to govern His people! was He thus threatening to shame them?

Or, despite what The First Nowell says, are sermonizers making too much of the poverty of the shepherds the better to preach on the purported "preferential option for the poor"?

(Exodus, of course, instructs the chosen people NOT to "favor the poor in a lawsuit".)

Neither Hillary Nor Donald Likely To Have Been At Mass This Morning, But...

I try to read the Mass lectionary before I attend, sometimes several days, even a week ahead, sometimes my resolve falls through the cracks.
I've been a bit scattered lately, hurricane, laziness, family obligations... I can always find an excuse, not always for what I've done, but certainly for what I've failed to do.

Anyway, hadn't noticed this, but pretty sure I'm not the only one who boggled at the Gospel today

Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees – that is, their hypocrisy. Everything that is now covered will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. For this reason, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in hidden places will be proclaimed on the housetops.

"Dives", Not a Bad Guy, Once You Get To Know Him

The Holy Father addressed catechists.

We all know the story from this past Sunday's Gospel, the rich man and the poor man who begged at his gate, yearning for scraps from his table.

The Gospel of today, which recounts the story of the rich man and Lazarus, “helps us understand what it means to love,” Francis continued.
He noted that the rich man is not presented as a bad person, but simply as suffering from a “terrible blindness”

Yeah, that's it, got it?
Not. A. Bad. Person.
So......just condemned to eternal damnation for not payin' attention.
You know, Jesus is telling us that the Father somehow allows the rich man to endure agony, to be tormented in fire until the end of time, even though he wasn't a bad person.

Does that sound to you like the way God does things?

Of course, not to worry, because just as with Sodom and Gomorrah, God changes his mind. You remember...

God creates an authentic relationship and pushes us to be daring. As daring as Abraham’s intercession prayer in favor of Sodom. A city upon which nobody would have bet a dime. His intercession prayer and his will to dare save Sodom. The city is saved because some righteous ones are there, even though a few of them. But the city is saved above all because Abraham, a man of prayer, is not a relentless accuser, he doesn’t speak against but in favor. 

Censoring the Gospel

I rant regularly about the Lectionary.
Poor Himself, who really doesn't care, has to put up with it, and much of my bluster is no doubt uninformed.
I think the Three Year Cycle is an unmitigated disaster.
I find the suggestion that it is a boon to homilists, who would otherwise have difficulty coming up with material over the years less than compelling - what has put it in their heads that the Gospel text must be the main, or even in the minds of some, only source for their ruminations?
Not only are there three other scriptural texts, (don't forget the psalm or canticle!) every Sunday, and the prescribed Introit and Communion antiphon if they're doing it right, and occult Offertory, (it's still there, albeit veiled from our eyes and banned from our books,) there is the Ordinary.
Why, you could preach on the First Eucharistic Prayer every Sunday for the rest of your days and not exhaust the topic!
(I must interject at this point, one of the finest homilies I ever heard was on the Pax dialogue, delivered by the great Msgr Andrew Wadsworth on Saint Irenaeus' memorial.)
Yesterday for the first time, I noticed that the portion of the prescribed Gospel dealing with the Prodigal is bracketed! It may be left out!
I was unfair in my opinion of a bright and attentive high school student, Catholic schools all the way, who told me she'd never heard that story except in Godspell.
Well, came to learn her parish, with a strong RCIA program, never used the Lenten cycle of readings in which the parable is contained, because they always defaulted to the Year A,
Because ... scrutinies.
And now I realize if she never heard it in late summer, it would have been because, at the (at most 4 times,) it might have come up since she was old enough to understand, (with three years passing in between hearings, mind you,) I know for near certainty that none of those parish priests ever read the long form of anything, especially not in warm weather.

Now this past week I heard something that took me aback, and frankly, with all the licit options made available to celebrants and associates, and sanctioned shortcuts, I've no doubt the man in question thought he was doing anything wrong.
But the deacon simply stopped short after the Beatitudes and left out the... what shall we call them? the "Woes"? the "Damnabilities"?

But woe to you who are rich,for you have received your consolation.

But woe to you who are filled now,for you will be hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,for you will grieve and weep.

Woe to you when all speak well of you,for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.

Yeah, who wants to hear that...

Maine Restaurateur, Second Amendment Rights, and the Sin of Sodom?

"The outcry against Bishop Galantino is so great, and his sin so grave, that I must go down and see whether or not his homily fully corresponds to the cry against him that comes to me. I mean to find out."
OK, not really. But this reading, the Sodom and Gomorrah one did come up recently. And if news blog?.... curmudgeon reports are to be believed, the head of the Italian bishops' conference is so ignorant of scripture, even by our Catholic standards, that he didn't realize that, gee, hate to break it to His Excellency, after all that... uhm, God does send down fire and brimstone and Will Ferrel movies and destroys the evil cities.
Is that a real school of thought, that Abraham schooled the Father in mercy the way at least some Jesuits think the Canaanite woman schooled the Son?

At any rate, anyone who discussed the little S & G incident found his combox inundated with Right-minded Persons making sure that everyone "knew" what they themselves professed to "know", (learn a new concept, "virtue signalling",) by hastening to announce, just a wee bit off topic, that oh and by the way, the Sin of Sodom was not what you prudes think is an attempt to force nasty sex on the disguised angelic individuals, but LACK  OF  HOSPITALITY.
Contrast that with the fact that  just a little before that in the cycle of readings, we learned that due to his hospitality Abraham was given a son, (and a nation, and all that.)

This was not really germane to the discussion at hand, the point of which was, nope, Bish, Sodom was NOT saved, and isn't necessarily true, but let's say for the mo it is --

I was just tickled at the NYTimes running a piece, (can't find it to link, because without subscription it would use up by limited access for the month, but this is another media outlet berating the Times for it,) about a liberal provider of public accommodation, who in her anti-gun zeal, (which I, full disclosure, share with her,) will not serve 2nd amendment supporters or certain types of gun owners in her diner.
I could be wrong, but food seems to me a more basic right than, oh, I dunno, wedding flowers? but the Times twisted itself into knots not to condemn the woman.

But isn't that, we don't serve your kind in here! the very definition of being inhospitable?

So the Down East restaurateur was guilty of the sin of Sodom, right?
At least, in the thinking of the New Church we've Sung Into Being, low these past few decades...

'When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.'

"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage."

People have been complaining lately about the lectionary, whose fabricators seem, calculatedly, to have omitted "hard sayings."

Well, what about the Canon of the Bible itself having omitted the next couple verses in Acts, huh? What about that?

But that "abstain from unlawful marriage" thingy? Don't worry, Silas and Judas will look to the reality of the family today in all its complexity.
Some of our members, (those judgy ones who went out to you without any mandate,) find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We are called to form consciences, not to replace them.
Marital problems often give rise to new relationships, new couples, new civil unions, and new marriages, creating family situations which are complex and problematic for the Christian life Therefore, while clearly stating the Church’s teaching, the prebyters are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations. Some of the brethern lack the training needed to deal with the complex problems currently facing families, and issues involving  marriages with pagans require particular attention which contain numerous elements that could well be made good use of and developed, both for their intrinsic alue and for the contribution that they can make to the ecumenical movement.
For those in unlawful marraiges, consider - because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – such persons can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. 

Someone leave out those words to the Antiocheans, (Antiochites? Antiochers?) deliberately?
Maybe St Luke decided Olden Days People didn't need them.
Our problems, of course, are very different from Olden Days People.
Because... complexity.

Is That Really the Spin Being Put On the Pope's Long Awaited Exhortation?

(For instance:)
The writer(s?) here.
Yes, critique and exegesis has already begun on a document some of the commentariat may not even have seen.
What did the Pope say? Why, of course, being right-minded he said exactly what we wanted him to say, what we would have said were we pope! It may seem otherwise, but this is why what he said means what we say it says rather than what the words might indicate to someone less right-minded!

But the same could go for the commentary on the commentary. (Or do I mean the commentary on the commentary on the commentary? They don't call it "spin" for nothing.)

This agitation might indicate that the post-synodal exhortation will not contain any doctrinal novelties or breaches. Rather, the text will focus on pastoral recommendations for the integration of the divorced-and-remarried.
This agitation was evident in the three articles published during the last week.
One article is by Enzo Bianchi, a layman who in 1965 established the Ecumenical Monastic Community of Bose in Italy. Brother Bianchi wrote a March 14 commentary in L’Osservatore Romano about the gospel account of the woman caught in adultery.
In general the commentary gave an ordinary interpretation of the text. But at its very end, Brother Bianchi stressed that “Jesus did not condemn her, because God does not condemn, but he gave her the possibility to change with his act of mercy.”
Brother Bianchi added that the Gospel “does not say that she changed her life, that she converted or that she became a disciple of Jesus. We just know that God forgave her through Jesus and delivered her to freedom, so that she could return to life.”
Vatican internal observers have interpreted this phrasing as an open door to the reception of Communion by Catholics who have divorced-and-remarried. A source told CNA March 22, “Brother Bianchi emphasizes God’s forgiveness, no matter what she will actually do,” as if “Communion might be given, no matter what you had done.”

Now, I can't read the original Italian, and the tense of the verbs is paramount to understanding this.
But it seems to me that no one could argue with what the good brother is said to have said.
let me repeat:

A source told CNA March 22, “Brother Bianchi emphasizes God’s forgiveness, no matter what she will actually do,” as if “Communion might be given, no matter what you had done.”

Who would disagree with that, of COURSE it might be! That is the entire point of God's mercy!
No matter what you had done He would forgive you!
What He won't condone is what you WILL do.
And that is clear in the story of the woman taken in adultery.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "Has no one condemned you? then neither will I. Now get back to bed work, you knucklehead, those tricks aren't going to turn themselves!"

No, as Brother Bianchi is reported and translated to have said, (emphasis supplied,)

 "God forgave her through Jesus and delivered her to freedom, so that she could return to life."

She could, though she might not have.
We don't know if she returned the "The Life," or to Life, the choice was hers, because Free Will. 
Scripture is silent on this point, just as on so much else. We don't know if the Dutiful Son ever joined in the Welcome Home festivities when the Prodigal returned. We don't know if the Rich Young Man thought about his riches for a while, and how much he would miss them, and then chucked them to follow the Lord. We don't know if the Centurion went on to some other assignment, eventuallyw went back to Rome, years later heard about this cult coming out of Palestine, realized its import and gave up all to be a follower of Christ.

And you know what, it's good that we don't.

Because if we don't know the end of the story, it's easier to understand that it's our story, that the ending is still up to us, and that God leaves it that way.

Because, um.... free will.

The Lectionary and the American Elections

I'm doing my level best to annoy the nitty-gritty petty viciousness of political news, but I'm the lay reader at Mass today, and this just, well.... see for yourself. I cannot be the only one to laugh ruefully, (I'll get it out of my system before Mass.)

I hear the whisperings of many:
“Terror on every side!
Denounce! let us denounce him!”
All those who were my friends
are on the watch for any misstep of mine.
“Perhaps he will be trapped; then we can prevail,
and take our vengeance on him.”

Is the Old Testament the Story of God's People's Adolescence?

Doing some reading on theodicy, (eeeeew! who's she think she is, Doctor Bloody Bronowski?) and came across some snotty mockery of Christianity, saying something along the lines of, Apparently church types think God was real, real, real mad at us so He killed Jesus and then He got nicer to us, 'cause that calmed Him down.

But what suddenly jumped out at me was a memory of a documentary I saw on tv, don't recall if the overall subject was human facial expressions, or the adolescent brain, but whichever it was, I think work by Deborah A. Yurgelun-Todd and William D.S. Killgore or something like this was the source of a tidbit about teenagers, that really stuck me at the time, and has stuck with me.

The adolescent brain, it seems, reads facial expressions in a way that allows for their frequent misinterpretation.
For instance, "fear", such as one might see registered on Mom and Dad's faces when junior has done something REALLY stupid and REALLY dangerous is misperceived as "anger."
(I certainly knew many kids who complained that "my mom is always mad at me, she hates me..." when that was clearly not the case. I, of course, was never so mistaken ;oP)

The Old Testament is full of Angry Father God, right?
But maybe it just seems that way because of the inadequacy of humanity's language to fully express God's inspired word, maybe what it's really full of is this and we're just too dumb in our teenage angst to see it...

Dad whose sorrow and fear for me only looked like anger....
When all the while he was searching the horizon for my return, ready, even when I am still a long way off to catch sight of me, and filled with compassion to run to me, embrace me  and kiss me. He'll stop me when I have hardly begun, Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be-- and order that I be adorned in the finest robe and jewels and sandals on my feet, and a groaning board prepared . He will celebrate with a feast because his dumb kid was dead, and has come to life again;was lost, and has been found.

 

He wasn't angry at all.

So, These Two Corinthians Walk Into a Bar...

... and the first Corinthian says --

Com'on, I can't have been the only one whose thoughts that way ran, upon hearing Donald Trump trying to sound as if he had more than a glancing interest in and knowledge of Christianity.

So, this first Corinthian says, "I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."

Actually, that's rther apt in light of current politics in this country....

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the product of conception you have there. And how does this happen to me, that the person who may in the future be the mother of my Lord, but is not currently a mother of anything but merely the vessel for a blob of cells, should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the fetus in my womb, admittedly somewhat bigger than the embryo in yours, but still not a person, only a potential person, not a life or anything, leaped for joy!"

.... said Elizabeth never.

Plugging Away at This Churchy, Faithy Thing

I hope I do no wrong when I tell my Sunday School kids that Advent is kinda like the Church's time to be Old Testament people, to know what it was like for the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, B.(efore) C.(hrist)- waiting, longing, hoping, thirsting, begging for Him who was foretold to get here already!

I do enough complaining about it that I also need to praise, sometimes the lectionary, the choices made by its fabricators are incredibly powerful and perfect.

How many times have I read this, how many times have I PROCLAIMED the readings for this Sunday, and how have I never noticed this before?

He shall take His place as shepherd

by the strength of the Lord,

by the majestic name of the Lord, His God;

And they shall dwell securely, for now His greatness

shall reach to the ends of the earth:

He shall be peace.

Not, He will bring peace, or there will be peace in His time -- He will BE peace.

Peace Incarnate.
As He is Love incarnate, Mercy incarnate, and yes, Justice incarnate... PEACE INCARNATE.

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus

"Ut duo sint"?

A Catholic/Jewish panel in Rome has issued a statement.

Par for the course from the Vatican nowadays, clear as mud and flexible enough to support 'most any position already held by anyone.

The secular press, (and, true, the portions of the Catholic media less given to precision in reportage than I might like,) ,) is therefore to be forgiven for stating flatly that "the Vatican says".. Catholics "should not try to convert" the Jewish people.

The document is far more equivocal and far less authoritative that NPR et al would have it be, but hard as any German bishop or rabbi might wish, it does not really say quite that.

Rather than actually proscriptively banning such evangelization, the doc, (which clear states of itself that it is "not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching" of the Church, descriptively  says how things are at the present time, that the Church "neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews," and it "is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews" which is "a very delicate and sensitive matter," and "must be presented correctly."
The Jewish people are unique, unlike any other non-Christians, occupying a special and privileged place.
BUT, the Church's members are "nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews," since She believes in the "universality of salvation in Jesus Christ," She "cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah," and yeah, sure, the "figure of Jesus thus is and remains for Jews the ‘stumbling block’", and the Old Testament is meaningless for Christians unless interpreted through the "key" of Jesus Christ, who is the "cornerstone" of the faith.
"Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation,...there is no other."

Oh, and yeah, forced conversions and violence and antisemitism are bad and soup kitchens are good.
What was that commission Christ gave his disciples? and how did He pray to the Father?

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, except the Jews, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching everyone, oh, but like I said before, leave the Jewish people out of it, to observe all that I have commanded you." 
"I pray that they may all be one, but, You know, with the usual exceptions, as You, Father, are in me and I in you... but now that I think of it, You and I are one but We're also kind of two, so yeah, like that, I pray that they all may be two...."

.... said Jesus NEVER. 

"See?" Says God

The Lord comforts his people and shows mercy to his afflicted. Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.” Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb?

See, upon the palms of my 

hands I have engraved you...

 

I really have had a kind of break-through, about life in general, but also regarding some recent concerns obsessions that I share with.... well, with too many people online.

This is as a result of some spiritual direction, (although not, perhaps in quite the way my confessor intended,) and I don't yet know how to put it into words, or, more important, to extend it to other people.

But I'm working on it. 

All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

Breaking News: The Church and Her New Sacrament

We're "doing" sacraments in Sunday school, and last week we looked at the concepts of form, matter and intention.
And we also spoke a bit of how these "delivery systems" for Grace are given us by the Lord, administered by His Bride, many in very specific actins taken by and words spoken by Christ.

Now it seems that there is to be a new one, that She somehow missed for nearly two millenia. The form and the matter aren't settled on yet, and they are having trouble with the name, but it will be replacing Reconciliaiotn/Penance/Confession for the most part, (people seemed to hate the traditional names of that one anyway.)
I'm suggesting, "OhYouDid?Really?WellNeverMindGodDoesn'tCareWhatYouDoAsLongAsYouFeelOkayWithIt."

I know, I know, a little long, a little unwieldy, it needs work, but it's a starting point at least.

You remember the parable, right?

Then Jesus said, A man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, "Father, you're taking a way long time dying, give me my share of your estate now."
So the father divided the property between them. After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation. When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need.
Coming to his senses he thought, "How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger."
I know! I shall shoot an email to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I was having a great time until I ran out of cash.
"I still don't want to act like your son and do as I'm told; could ya just treat me as a guest who comes and goes as he pleases. So for now, could you just send one of those reloadable debit cards?"
Since he was still a long way off, his father was filled with compassion and ran to his son in the distant land, embraced him and kissed him.
His son said to him, "Thanks, gotta run, a renewed life of dissapation awaits, I mean, I have to see a guy about something, sorry I don't have time to catch up with what's going on with you guys... Oh, but let me know next time you're having fatted calf, 'kay? I'll see if I can make it."
So the Father walked home, just fine with any crumbs of attention the kid gave him, and glad that he hadn't turned his younger sons room into a media a room like the older son wanted, "because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found. So hopefully he'll drop in from time to time."

Snarky, I know. But I say this as an acknowledged and repentant older son - I know the graver sin, the point of the story, (notice that in the real one, it doesn't end with the younger's penitance,) is how much worse is one son's failure to welcome the other home.
But we must see that the younger son, although the Father watches for him faithfully, has to make the move to come home, he has to be willing to change before the Father sees him, "a long way off...."
Where are we as a Church going, what am I to do if  taught, (and I in turn teach,) that amendment of life is not necessary? That there is no need for contrition, because sin is not sin? all actions are equally good, there is no moral weight to them for good or for ill.
Maybe that's the problem, we don't need a new sacrament, we need a new set of commandments.

Is sin sin? is there such a thing as sin? is anyone guilty of it?

You know, because not just since Moses, but since Jesus, the morality of some behaviors has just changed.

So some things that used to be sins aren't any more. And some things that used to be okay are now sins, I would imagine.

Saul was a sucker. He didn't need to become Paul, whihc was a pretty rough life. He didn't even need to stop what he was doing, because he no doubt came to a decision to stone Stephen in good conscience, and the Apostles should have helped him move forward and to respect that. Heck, if Stephen hadn't been, um... dead, he probably should have accompanied him!

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Was St Paul blowin' smoke?

Giving to Those More Fortunate Than Ourselves

I used to, rather pointedly, say "Charity" when the theological virtues came up, because the word "Love" had become so meaningless, (not only hippified [look it up, it's a word....] but commercialized - who doesn't "love" peanut butter, or bacon? I can hear other kids e'en now, you love tv? why doncha MARRY it? and "lurve" is distasteful, for many reasons.)
But now that I'm, (all bow,) A Catechist, and that,  let's face it, the word "charity" has also been debased, ("giving stuff you don't need to poor people,") I am more  inclined to detoxify the word "Love."
It is a very difficult word for a ten year old boy to speak in the presence of a ten year old girl, even if he is addressing, rather than her, an old lady such as myself.

"Christian Love" seems to me a mouthful, and just as esoterically vague - and besides - non-Christians are very capable of offering caritas.
So for hashing out these things with kids, (and hash we do - the wonderful ideas they have! the marvelous questions thy can come up with!) I have settled on the phrase "Love in Action," and the reading from James on the first day of class made it very easy this year, (that's a great passage to let budding orators scold the air with.)

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?... If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?...someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works...I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

That is what genuine good works are - Love in Action. (Because no one is going to argue with, "and the greatest of these...")

And yes, giving things, money, opportunities to those without things or money or opportunity is the kind of Love in Action/Charity that usually springs to mind.

And it is easy to be loving to someone who has less than you do, isn't it?

How much harder to fell charitable to those who seem to have more than you...

A guy I know, salt of the earth, giving, generous, very active in volunteer work, kind -- shocked me by getting on board with a rather ugly anti-immigrant stance someone else was taking, and I expressed surprise.

Well, it's not the immigrants per se, his liberality firmly in place, they are welcome, especially if they are political refugees in search of safety.
No, he is just "sick and tired of being asked to pay for things for people who are better off than I am."

And I thought to myself, "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—ungenerous, unkind, thoughtless — or even like this buddy of mine"

And because God isn't letting me get away with any thing lately, I'm watching the news, and there's a woman on who's thrilled because she just met the Pope, and she took of selfie with him with her phone.
She is not homeless, but Catholic Charities helps her out with her rent.

And what is my first thought?

What's she doing with a phone that takes pictures? My phone is too cheap to have a camera in it, and I'm dreading when it breaks and I have to buy a new one so I hope it happens in a good month, but the thing is already about 6 years old and wouldn't you think someone would pay his own darn rent before he'd get a phone that could -

O my God I am heartily sorry....