The Accidental Catholic

Catholic Exchange ^ | July 1, 2006 | Fr. Paul Scalia

[NYer]

		During His earthly life and in His small area of the world, our Lord was what we moderns would call a celebrity. Scripture tells us that crowds came to Him from all over — crowds so great that they blocked the streets and doorways (Mk 2:2) and so demanding that He and His Apostles could not even eat (Mk 3:20).
Knowing how insistent and unruly crowds can be, we can easily imagine that people must have pushed in upon our Lord, bumping and jostling one another and Him. Some surely came for reasons of faith of devotion. But human nature being what it is, others probably came only to see the local celebrity, to marvel at His miracles or just to follow the crowd. So when on one occasion our Lord in the midst of a crowd asks, “Who has touched my clothes?” His disciples reasonably respond, “You see how the crowd is pressing upon you, and yet you ask, ‘Who touched me?’” (Mk 5:30-31). With all the people pushing, elbowing and shoving, it could have been anyone. Yet our Lord asks the question for a reason. Most people in the crowd touched Him and His clothes because they could not help it — that’s the way crowds are. They bumped up against him accidentally, or perhaps touched Him just out of curiosity. But someone in the crowd touched Him for a different reason: the woman “afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years” (Mk 5:25), who thought, “If I but touch His clothes, I shall be cured” (Mk 5:28). She “came up behind Him in the crowd and touched His cloak” (Mk 5:27). Unlike the rest of the crowd, she touched Him not accidentally, in the jostling of people, but deliberately, in faith. We do well to keep in mind the distinction between the crowd and the woman — between accidentally bumping into our Lord and deliberately touching Him in faith. It is the difference between knowing about our Lord and knowing Him personally; between proximity to Christ and intimacy with Him; between going through the motions and striving for holiness. And either one is possible for us. Just as then there were some who accidentally brushed up against our Lord in all the commotion, so today there is the “Accidental Catholic.” He might know all about our Lord, about His life and miracles. He might be familiar with the Mass and Catholic devotions — the prayers, responses, hymns, gestures, etc. But he never deliberately invests himself in them. He recites the Creed and goes to Communion, but without reflection or thought — simply because the rest of the crowd does and because it happens every Sunday. He only bumps into our Lord. They happen to be in the same place at the same time. He confuses proximity to our Lord for intimacy with Him, and Catholic “things” for Catholic faith. Each of us — and especially we “cradle Catholics” — is in danger of becoming an “Accidental Catholic.” We should examine ourselves often on this point, asking whether we are in fact reaching out to Christ or just running into Him. The solution, of course, is not to stop this contact with the Lord — to end our prayers, devotions, Communions, etc. Rather, it is to do and make them deliberately, as acts of faith. Outwardly, the woman with hemorrhages may have touched our Lord in much the same way as anyone else. The difference was that, unlike the crowd, she invested herself in that action. She placed all her hope, her entire future — indeed, her very self — in that one touch. So also our practice of the Faith, although routine, should never be rote. Every prayer we utter, every sign of the Cross we make, every Communion we receive, should be as a hand reaching out to Christ — seeking the power that goes out from Him (cf. Mk 5:30).

[NYer]

Fr. Scalia is parochial vicar of St. Rita parish in Alexandria, Virginia.

[NYer]

One of my most favorite gospels!

[Nihil Obstat]

Great article and meditation. God bless Fr. Scalia and his family. Thank you for posting.

[GSlob]

Is he any relation to the Justice Scalia?

[Nihil Obstat]

Fr. Paul Scalia is one of Justice Scalia's nine children.

[GSlob]

Thank you for the info.

[Caravaggio]

Really? I knew one of his kids was a lawyer, didn't know about the priest. Great article - it's easy for our prayers and rituals to start becoming habit more than acts of love so it's good to be reminded every so often to be viligent against this happening.

[Uri’el-2012]

They bumped up against him accidentally, or perhaps touched Him just out of curiosity. But someone in the crowd touched Him for a different reason: the woman “afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years” (Mk 5:25), who thought, “If I but touch His clothes, I shall be cured” (Mk 5:28). She “came up behind Him in the crowd and touched His cloak” (Mk 5:27). Unlike the rest of the crowd, she touched Him not accidentally, in the jostling of people, but deliberately, in faith.

She touched the hem of His garment;
it would have been the tzit-tzit at one of the corners of Tallits.

Deuteronomy 22:12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

Also see: tzit-tzit for a further explanation.

b'shem Y'shua

[Nihil Obstat]

oops, TEN children. You should like this article from a few years ago:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Igpress/CWR/CWR0796/profile1.html

little snip -

The proud father (Justice Scalia)

...there is no such lacuna in his personal piety. By all accounts he is a devout Catholic, utterly loyal to the Church, thoroughly devoted to his wife and their ten (yes, ten) children.

During his May trip to Rome, Justice Scalia gave the public a rare and revealing glimpse of his personal piety. After his speech at the Gregorian University, he was invited to address seminarians at the North American College--where his own son Paul was a student. In introducing his distinguished guest the rector, Msgr. Timothy Dolan, remarked that the North American College might be the only place on earth where Justice Scalia was welcomed as "Paul's father"--when everywhere else the young man was identified as "Justice Scalia's son."

That introducton was obviously intended as a joke, but the Justice did not take it as such. Stepping to the podium, he said, with a burst of emotion that caught his audience by surprise, and moistened more than a few eyes,"Being introduced as Paul's father is all the introduction I could ever desire."

Just sixteen days thereafter, Paul Scalia was ordained to the priesthood for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia. Naturally the proud father was on hand for the ceremony. But careful observers noticed that Justice Clarence Thomas was also in the congregation, and appeared thoroughly absorbed by the ceremony.

Of course the appearance of Justice Thomas at Paul Scalia's ordination could be explained as a routine act of respect for a colleague and friend. But when Father Paul Scalia said his first Mass the next day, Justice Thomas was in the congregation again, and the rapt expression on his face could no longer be dismissed.

Two weeks later, Justice Thomas confirmed what many neighbors had begun to suspect. The obvious devotion he saw in the young priest, and the fierce pride he saw in Paul's father, had moved him to re-examine his own religious beliefs. After years away from home, Clarence Thomas had returned to the Catholic Church.

[Theophane]

I believe this Gospel passage is also the basis for the custom in the old (Tridentine) liturgy whereby the server/deacon holds and slightly elevates the end of the celebrant's chasuble at the elevation of the Host and the Chalice. It was thought to represent the desire of faithful to be healed by the same touching of Our Lord's garment and probably is a remnant of the "older" mentality that expected biblical events to reoccur (at least in analogous form) in the lives of the faithful.

In this connection I have also seen the faithful at Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy gather around the aisles during the Great Entrance (when the priest brings the Gifts (to be consecrated later in the service) from the side of the church through the Royal Doors (i.e. the doors in the middle of the iconostasis) and into the altar) so as to be able to touch (and even kiss) the priest's vestment as he passes by bearing the Gifts. With the priest passing through the people crowded around on both sides of the center aisle, touching or kissing his garment, it can quite closely resemble the moment described in the Gospel.

NB: do not try this at Mass, it will at a minimum unnerve the celebrant.

[bornacatholic]

I believe this Gospel passage is also the basis for the custom in the old (Tridentine) liturgy whereby the server/deacon holds and slightly elevates the end of the celebrant's chasuble at the elevation of the Host and the Chalice.

*I think that action harkens back to earlier times when the size of the Chausable made it necessary. The Chausable used to be a lot larger and heavier.

[Theophane]

Could well be. I did read the "touching the garmnent" theory in a book once, but it could have been erroneous, anyway; I think the book was not a Catholic book per se but was more generic in its approach to liturgical rites as ceremonies.

[Salvation]

Also posted here

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1659186/posts/11#11

[the invisib1e hand]

This is a thought provoking perspective. It makes me picture the scene happening in the subway. And the idea that you can be so close, but still a total stranger is...sobering.

[bornacatholic]

Well, the actions in the mass have had many explanations attached to them at different times. I can see how the one you noted could have been advanced

[annalex]

Each of us — and especially we “cradle Catholics” — is in danger of becoming an “Accidental Catholic.”

This scripture was very much on my mind today and yesterday as I was discoursing with Forest Keeper about the nature of the sacraments. It seems that the woman's will -- in cooperation with Christ's divine presence, utterly passive in this case, -- effects her salvation. Does this then give rise to the Lutheran consubstantiation?

It is true that one who approaches the sacrament in a defiant mode takes it on his condemnation (1 Cor. 11:27). It does not follow from 1 Cor. 11 that he who is distracted, for example, by the crowd, at no fault of his own, is likewise condemned. Nor does the Church teach that: the truth is that the sacrament is efficacious even for one who approaches with the blasphenous intent, certainly for one who is swept up by the crowd. The story teaches that the woman's faith made her whole, but it also teaches that Christ's garment, in itself and regardless of the woman's disposition, has made her faith complete to fruition. His garment was a sacrament.

Catholics venerate relics for a reason.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the ping. I liked the article and think the ideas apply to us as well.

It seems that the woman's will -- in cooperation with Christ's divine presence, utterly passive in this case, -- effects her salvation.

That's interesting in this case because we have to ask ourselves what the cause was for her to act. It seems that Jesus gave credit not to her decision to touch His garment, but rather to her faith, which she already had. Jesus makes no statement akin to pronouncing her saved because of what she did. So, what effect on the woman's salvation would you say this event had? It appears she already knew (and was right) ahead of time that her plan would work.

The story teaches that the woman's faith made her whole, but it also teaches that Christ's garment, in itself and regardless of the woman's disposition, has made her faith complete to fruition. His garment was a sacrament.

What in the story leads you to think that Christ's garment brought her faith to fruition? Her faith told her that it would work. When Jesus said "Go in peace" to comfort her, she was never afraid of Jesus, she was afraid of the crowd noticing her.

[Judith Anne]

What in the story leads you to think that Christ's garment brought her faith to fruition? Her faith told her that it would work.

Well, she wasn't cured before she touched the hem of his garment. The action followed the faith, it didn't precede it.

[Forest Keeper]

Well, she wasn't cured before she touched the hem of his garment. The action followed the faith, it didn't precede it.

That's true, but I think we might be talking about two different types of actions. Alex said: "Christ's garment ... has made her faith complete to fruition." I took that to mean that the action we are talking about (completion to fruition) would have been on the woman's faith, not her medical condition. But I may have misinterpreted.

[annalex]

I will get to the Erasmus thread tomorrow. This is the passage in question (Douay):

... a great multitude followed [Jesus], and they thronged him. 25 And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years,

26 And had suffered many things from many physicians; and had spent all that she had, and was nothing the better, but rather worse, 27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind him, and touched his garment. 28 For she said: If I shall touch but his garment, I shall be whole. 29 And forthwith the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the evil. 30 And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the virtue that had proceeded from him, turning to the multitude, said: Who hath touched my garments?

31 And his disciples said to him: Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou who hath touched me? 32 And he looked about to see her who had done this. 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 34 And he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole: go in peace, and be thou whole of thy disease.

(Mark 5)

It seems that Jesus gave credit not to her decision to touch His garment, but rather to her faith, which she already had. Jesus makes no statement akin to pronouncing her saved because of what she did. So, what effect on the woman's salvation would you say this event had? It appears she already knew (and was right) ahead of time that her plan would work

Certainly the woman had faith before she touched His garment (v 28). But she did not get whole until she did touch (v 29). This illustrates the Catholic distinction between declarative faith (which she had before deciding to touch the garment) and formed faith (which resulted in doing certian work: getting close in the crowd and reaching the garment). We believe that it is the faith accompanied by action,-- formed faith,-- in this case venerating Christ's garment, that "makes whole", that is, saves.

What in the story leads you to think that Christ's garment brought her faith to fruition?

The fact that she did not get whole until she touched it, and that the saving divine grace did not get dispatched to her till she did (vv 29, 30).

I took that to mean that the action we are talking about (completion to fruition) would have been on the woman's faith, not her medical condition. But I may have misinterpreted.

I think that in all healing episodes, while medical healing indeed takes place, the lesson to us is about spiritual healing of sin, i.e. achieving salvation. In this case, there was nothing medically therapeutic about the garment, -- it was not soaked in Tiger Balm, or such. She venerated the garment because it was worn by Christ; that is to say, her faith was expressed through work, and delivered salvation even outside of Christ's conscious involvement (v.30).