Articles

A Listener's Guide to the Homily

Book Reviews

Singer-Towns, Brian, et al., eds. The Catholic Youth Bible: New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition (rev. by Michael Warren)
Miller, John W. Calling God "Father": Essays on the Bible, Fatherhood and Culture
(rev. by Pamela Kirk)
Donnelly, Doris, ed. Retrieving Charisms for the Twenty-First Century
(rev. by William J. Byron)
Pierce, Joanne M., and Michael Downey, eds. Source and Summit: Commemorating Josef A. Jungmann, SJ (rev. by Daniel M. Ruff)
Phan, Peter C., and Jung Young Lee, eds. Journeys at the Margin: Toward an Autobiographical Theology in American-Asian Perspective (rev. by James T. Bretzke)
Casarella, Peter, and Raúl Gómez, eds. El Cuerpo De Cristo: The Hispanic Presence in the U.S. Catholic Church (rev. by Theresa Torres)
Moore, Mary Elisabeth. Ministering with the Earth (rev. by Gabriel Moran)
Baumgartner, Frederic. Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization (rev. by Zachary Hayes)

New and Noteworthy

87 National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry: Environmental Justice: Protecting God's Creation
Hamma and Crilly: A Catechumen's Companion: A Guide to Praying with the Lectionary
Cronin: Friend Jesus: Prayers for Children
Kohmescher: Catholicism Today: A Survey of Catholic Belief and Practice, Third Edition
Hoffman: The Art of Public Prayer: Not for Clergy Only, Second Edition
Manss and Frohlich: The Lay Contemplative: Testimonies, Perspectives, Resources
Goldstein: Spiritual Manifestos: Visions for Renewed Religious Life in America
Koch: Send Your Spirit: Praying for Our Teens
Hart: Spiritual Quest: A Guide to the Changing Landscape
Finley: The Joy of Being a Lector
Egeberg: Stations for Teens: Meditations on the Death and Resurrection of Jesus
Earle and Maddox: Praying with the Celtic Saints

Departments

Editor's Foreword
Calendar
Department of Education News
Guidelines for Contributors
Index to Volume 36

Editor's Forward

Revisiting Mount Sinai
By Berard L. Marthaler

Pope John Paul II's pilgrimage to Mount Sinai earlier this year focused attention once again on the Ten Commandments. Some parents, school principals, and elected officials have lobbied tirelessly to post the commandments in public buildings. The research of scholars into the background and culture of ancient Israel and biblical texts has thrown new light on their origins and significance. When this issue of The Living Light was going to press, the book Broken Tablets: Restoring the Ten Commandments and Ourselves (Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights, 1999), another example of the current interest in the Decalogue, came into our office—too late to be reviewed in this issue but too important for its theme to be ignored.

Broken Tablets is a collection of essays by a group of rabbinic scholars who were invited to revisit the Ten Commandments. The editor, Rachel S. Mikva, a rabbi of Community Synagogue in Rye, N.Y., had to overcome the reluctance of several contributors who wondered what could be said about the commandments that has not been said a thousand times before. Mikva had to answer the objection of one author who didn't like the title of the book ("Broken, are they? And we are going to fix them?"). But in the end, Rabbi Mikva prevailed. She has managed to bring together in one book of modest size the reflections of Jews of widely diverse backgrounds and opinions—Orthodox and liberal, Israelis and Americans, men and women, scholars and practitioners. But it is not a book for Jews only. Christians will find the commentary unlike any with which they are familiar.

The Ten Commandments—or as most of the authors prefer, the "ten utterances"—provide the basic structure. Rabbi Mikva introduces each of the ten chapters with a patchwork of stories and parables drawn from rabbinic midrash, Hassidic lore, and personal experience. Her brief reflections manage to link the past to the present, the permanent to the ephemeral, the history of ancient Israel to the lives of men and women today. The commentaries of the contributors on each of the commandments are systematic but draw on a tradition enriched with Hebrew phrases, names, and writings that are seldom (if ever) cited in Christian works. Each addresses particular issues, but as a group the authors are concerned about how the utterances shape lives and define the Jewish tradition, not to mention, their influence on Christians.

In his introduction to the book, Rabbi Lawrence Kushner quotes Rabbi Eleazar, who taught, "In these ten statements are embodied all the commandments in the Torah, decrees and punishments, cleanness and uncleanness, branches and roots, trees and plants, heaven and earth, sea and the deeps." The commandments embody attitudes and values, define relationships and obligations, and teach conduct and behaviors. They present a world view, inculcate a spirit of reverence for all of creation and its maker, teach that time has more to do with ritual than chronology, organize the family, and set down principles for social well-being. "The Ten Words," writes Mikva, "teach a multitude of things, some of which we have not even yet imagined, few of which we have mastered."

The essays are dedicated to Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, friend of all and mentor to many of the contributors. The book ends with an afterword, "Ten More Words," by Rabbi Wolf, who makes it clear that he does not agree with all the views expressed by his friends. "Our greatest challenge these days," he writes, "is to find common ground upon which all Jews can unite, with our differences respected, our common fate acknowledged, and our tradition empowering us all." In the foreword, Rabbi Mikva also expressed a similar need, saying that the radical objective of the commandments lies in their "trying to unite a community around common obligations rather than common interests."

Rabbi Wolf, like Mikva and the other contributors, describes a need that is universal. It is not simply a need of Jews or even of Jews and Christians. Our country, our world, needs to find this common ground. Pope John Paul II's pilgrimage signaled that we should look again to Mount Sinai as the place where it can be found.

Special Feature

[This excerpt is from the article "Politicizing the Ten Commandments," by Gabriel MOran, The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light.]

The following scene now regularly plays out in towns across the United States. A school board votes to display a copy of the Ten Commandments on school grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) appears almost immediately and files suit to prevent the board from carrying out its decision. A local judge sides with the ACLU. Members of the school board assert that they do not accept the ruling and vow to fight on.

Some people might find the scene humorous, but I think it is both sad and tragic. Two groups that seek the good of the country and its school children cannot find a common ground of understanding. The ACLU, nearly always the winner in the court battles, does not have much to show from its victories. And when the school board occasionally wins, or at least fights on, the benefit to the children is doubtful.

How did we get from the biblical and catechetical setting of the Ten Commandments to these secular skirmishes in numerous towns?

1. Tom Gorman, "School District to Defy Court, Post Ten Commandments," Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1999.
   
2. Michael Small, "ACLU Condemns Local School District's Decision to Post 10 Commandments in School Offices" (Statement, American Civil Liberties Union, November 11, 1999).
   
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), no. 2071.
   
4. The lists of the Ten Commandments are found in the preface of part three, section two.

Special Feature

This excerpt is from the article "A Fresh Look at the Ten Commandments" by Don C. Benjamin, The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light

Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) boldly states that "it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed," the Catechism introduces its explanation of the Ten Commandments by stating, "the Decalogue must first be understood in the context of the Exodus, God's great liberating event at the center of the Old Covenant."¹ The Catechism goes on to elaborate this statement and in the process recalls some facts and principles that should be a part of every catechesis on the Decalogue (at least for adults). They can be reduced to two summary guidelines: (1) "Whether formulated as negative commandments, prohibitions, or as positive precepts," the Decalogue should be presented as "a path of life" (no. 2057); and (2) "the Decalogue is never handed on without first recalling the covenant" (no. 2060).

My purpose is not to develop the first point—though it will be touched on in the conclusion—but to elaborate on the second by providing background information that will help situate the Ten Commandments in the biblical tradition of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

The Notion of Covenant
Just as in the modern world, the ancient world's intention in a covenant was to identify clearly the responsibilities that two parties, whether individuals or groups, had toward one another. In the ancient world, the Hittites (a people who lived in what is today central Turkey) developed the covenant as an instrument of statecraft so that they could live in peace with their neighbors and rivals. Other cultures, like Egypt and early Israel, adapted the genre to their own needs. Examples of covenants are present in the Genesis stories of Abraham and Sarah, but the most outstanding example in the Bible is the covenant between Yahweh and Israel,² a covenant that embodies six components that were standard in Hittite treaties. The credentials of each partner in the covenant are listed (Ex 19:1–20:2), and a new and official history of the peoples affected by the covenant is told (Ex 20:2). The covenant then lays out the stipulations governing this new relationship (Ex 20:3–23:19). It specifies provisions to record and promulgate the covenant (Ex 24:9–Lv 27:34), and it then lists witnesses (Ex 24:1-8). Finally, there is a litany of curses for covenant violations and blessings for covenant compliance (Nm 1:1–27:11).

Deuteronomy quotes Moses, who said that Yahweh wrote the "ten words" on "two tablets of stone and gave them to me" (Dt 5:22). More likely, according to modern archeologists familiar with artifacts of the period, the tablets were limestone flakes on which the Decalogue was scratched. The two tablets may well refer to two copies, one for each party—that is, one for Yahweh and one for Israel—as was customary in negotiating covenants. In that case, each tablet contained all Ten Commandments.

The rabbinical tradition divided the covenant stipulations into two sets. The five that mentioned the name of Yahweh addressed the relationship between humans and God. The other five addressed the relationship of human beings with one another. According to the catechetical tradition that became standard among Catholics, the commandments were also divided into two sets. One tablet contained the first three commandments that centered on responsibility toward God; the other tablet contained the other seven that outlined one's responsibility toward fellow human beings (CCC, no. 2069).

The Catechism calls attention to the fact that another tradition among Christians divides the Ten Commandments differently. This fact must be kept in mind during ecumenical discussions. The three-and-seven breakdown followed by Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans is traced to St. Augustine (a.d. 354-430), whose influence on the catechetical tradition continues even today.³ Orthodox Christians and Christians in the Reformed tradition also divide the commandments into two sets, but their breakdown is into four and six. They number the commandments according to the book of Exodus, following a tradition common among the Greek fathers and favored also by St. Jerome. This tradition has the first commandment begin with the words, "You shall have no other divine patrons but me" (Ex 20:3), and the second commandment with the words, "You shall not make statues in the form of anything" (Ex 20:4-6). The Augustinian tradition combines the prohibition "You shall have no other gods but me" (Ex 20:3) with the prohibition "You shall not make statues in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex 20:4-6). Thus when Catholics think of Sabbath observance, they think of the third commandment while many other Christians think of the fourth.⁴

While the Catholic tradition combines two prohibitions in the first part of the commandments, it divides two prohibitions in the last part. Again following Augustine, Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans separate the prohibition "You shall not covet your neighbor's house" (Ex 20:17) from the prohibition "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Ex 20:17) to create their ninth and tenth commandments. The Reformed tradition's alternate numbering for the commandments reflects the tradition in the book of Exodus (Ex 20:3-17), whereas Catholics reference the tradition in the book of Deuteronomy (Dt 5:1-21).5

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd. ed. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), nos. 2056, 2057. Subsequent references are given in the text.
   
2. George E. Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 58-60, 62-3; cf. Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
   
3. Cf. Boniface Ramsey's introduction to The Augustine Catechism. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love (Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 1999).
   
4. Biblical citations in this article are the translations of the author.
   
5. Ronald Youngblood, "Counting the Ten Commandments," Bible Review 10 (1994): 30-35, 50, 52.
   
6. Andrew D. H. Mayes, "Decalogue of Moses: An Enduring Ethical Programme?" in Ethics and the Christian (Dublin: Columba, 1991), 28.
   
7. Cf. Dale Patrick, "The First Commandment in the Structure of the Pentateuch," Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 107-118.
   
8. Cf. Herbert B. Huffmon, "The Fundamental Code Illustrated: The Third Commandment," in David Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurwitz, eds., Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 363-71.
   
9. Stanley Hauerwas, "Truth About God: The Decalogue as Condition for Truthful Speech," Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 40 (1998): 17-39.
   
10. Jeffries M. I. Hamilton, "‘The Rest Is Commentary': A Reading of the Ten Commandments," Quarterly Review 13 (1993): 25-37.
    
11. Walter Brueggemann, "Truth-Telling as Subversive Obedience: Implications of the Ninth Commandment," Journal for Preachers 20 (1997): 2-9.
    
12. Alexander Rofe, "The Tenth Commandment in the Light of Four Deuteronomic Laws," in Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi, eds., The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), 45-65.
    
13. Mayes, op cit., 33.
    
14. Cf. David J. A. Clines, "Ten Commandments, Reading from Left to Right," in John Davies, Graham Harvey, and W. G. T. Watson, eds., Words Remembered, Texts Renewed (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield University Press, 1995), 97-112; Richard A. Freund, "Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity," in Craig Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield University Press, 1998), 124-41; and Moshe I. Greenberg, "Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined," in Segal and Levi, eds., The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, op. cit., 83-119.
    
15. Walter Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995), 173-93.
    
16. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, "What Makes the Ten Commandments Different?" Bible Review 7 (1991): 35-41; and idem., "Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel's Tradition," in Edwin Firmage, Bernard Weiss, and John Welch, eds., Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 3-47.

Special Feature

[This excerpt is from the article "At the Foot of Mount Sinai: Reflections on Women and the Ten Commandments" by Florence Morgan Gillman, The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light.]

Like Moses, I wanted to climb Mount Sinai. However, like his wife Zipporah, and his sister Miriam, together with the rest of the Exodus people, I encountered restrictions that kept me at a distance. The year was 1978. Unlike Moses, I was not trying to get away from complaining Israelites nor even expecting a theophany, although the blessed certainty such an experience would bring to my faith would be most humbly welcomed. Traveling in Israel with twenty other graduate students, I decided to take a side trip to St. Catherine's Monastery along with three men from my group. This ancient walled Greek Orthodox monastery sits as a solitary fortress at the base of the traditional site of Mount Sinai. From there we planned to climb Djebel Mousa, the "mountain of Moses," as Sinai is now called, and contemplate so much of what it symbolizes in biblical tradition.

"Set limits . . . all around the mountain" (Exodus 19:12)
To reach remote St. Catherine's from our location in Jerusalem, we had to fly to the Israeli city of Eilat and then take a jeep six hours into the mountainous southern Sinai peninsula. It took a whole day to get there. Travellers had to stay in the monastery guesthouse and from there go up the mountain early the next day. This suited me fine; but then the tour leader told me that when we got to St. Catherine's, while the three men would certainly be welcome overnight, I might not be, and he had no way of predicting. He recommended against my going. Feeling so disappointed, I thought of the many other women who through the centuries had certainly managed somehow to go up Sinai. Under time constraints, and unable to change this into a camping expedition, I yielded to his misgivings, made them my own, and agreed not to make the trip.

What a mistake! Looking back more than twenty years later, I feel I gave in too easily to limitations imposed by female stereotypes. Why did I not take my chances? Maybe I would not have been shut out of the monastery after all. A worst-case scenario would have been standing alone outside its walls for one night (with scorpions? would my male friends have joined me in solidarity?). Perhaps I could have argued myself at least inside the gate or slept in the jeep. I have never been that close to Mount Sinai since, and I wish I had been dauntless then. In feminist consternation at myself that I did not make that excursion, I still hope to go eventually, and I expect no problems since access and accommodations have become easy to work out.

This story mirrors something about the long-term effects of feminist consciousness-raising I and many others have experienced. After a few decades of analyzing the many types of subordination, restrictions, exclusions, and general second-class existences to which we were subjected, we feel like incredulously cross-examining our old (but younger!) selves, reprimanding our acquiescence. We wonder why, even as we were challenging some major professional and lifestyle barriers, we still gave in so easily to obstacles like those foreseen by my Sinai tour guide.

Our Mothers, Ourselves
Someday, finally perched on Sinai, I will certainly muse upon the same profound things about Yahweh, Moses, the covenant, and the Decalogue, just as I would have in 1978. But two ensuing decades as a student and then professor of biblical studies has changed me. For now I also have Miriam and Zipporah on my mind. Scholarship, especially in feminist hermeneutics, has brought their lives more to the fore for me in studies on Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; and with them, all their sisters and daughters have come prominently into exegetical and historical consideration, raising intriguing questions about the women of ancient Israel. For instance, what role did they play in the Sinai covenant as members of a patriarchal society? What was their status in the cult of Yahweh?

The inferior status of our spiritual mothers is part of the legacy of all women in the covenantal traditions stemming from Sinai. While we have moved away from the patriarchy of their time and place, there is still far to go. That is why when I do get to Djebel Mousa, before I ever trek up that mountain, I want to spend time at its base. From that symbolic place, as if at the bottom of a pyramid, I will meditate on the whole mountainous scene. My thoughts will be with the many women who stood there at the base of pyramids before me.

Exodus and Deuteronomy never say that Miriam and Zipporah questioned their patriarchal lot. But one wonders what such women of ancient Israel thought, for example, about the Ten Commandments, addressed explicitly only to the males of their company. There is no hint from Zipporah, who is present in the story just before Moses ascends to the peak (cf. Ex 18:1-9) but then disappears totally from the narrative. As for Miriam, the book of Numbers contains the tradition that, sometime after the Sinai events, she challenged Moses by saying that God spoke through her as well (Num 12:1-16). For doing this she was punished with leprosy, although she was later cured after being shut out from the camp for seven days. While Numbers probably uses and develops this tradition to underscore the primacy of Moses as God's spokesperson, it inadvertently reveals that the women behind the traditions about Sinai were hardly reticent. One night outside the walls of a desert monastery would have been a cinch for Miriam!

1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, et al., The Woman's Bible (Part I, 1895; Part II, 1898; reprint, Seattle: Coalition Task Force on Women and Religion, 1974), 86.
   
2. Athalya Brenner, "An Afterword: The Decalogue—Am I an Addressee?" in Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Exodus and Deuteronomy (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 255-258. Subsequent references are given in the text.
   
3. On the interpretation of commandments in the New Testament period, see, for example, this case study just published: "You Shall Not Commit Adultery," in Raymond F. Collins, Sexual Ethics and the New Testament: Behavior and Belief (New York: Crossroad, 2000), 42-61.
   
4. Homily of John Paul II, February 26, 2000, at Celebration of the Word at Mount Sinai. See www.vatican.va/ holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000226_ sinai_en.html.

Special Feature

[This excerpt is from the article "The Ten Commandments and the New Testament" by John Gillman, The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light.]

When one thinks of commandments in the New Testament, the first passage that comes to mind is that in which Jesus identifies the two commandments that are the basis of the whole law and prophets. In Mark's Gospel, "one of the scribes" asks, "Which is the first of all the commandments?" (12:28); and in Matthew, the Pharisees ask, "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" (22:36). In both accounts Jesus replies with a two-part answer. In Mark the first part quotes the Shema, "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!" (Dt 6:4), and then he continues, quoting the Deuteronomic text, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mk 12:30). Matthew's account omits the Shema but quotes the same text from Deuteronomy, calling it "the greatest and the first commandment" (Mt 22:38). And then Jesus adds, "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments" (Mt 22:39-40; Mk 12:31).

The Ten Commandments
Although the Ten Commandments are not listed in their entirety anywhere in the New Testament (nor are they ever referred to collectively), a number of passages in both the Gospels and the letters cite individual commandments, and several more allude to them. In the New Testament one finds that the individual precepts of the Decalogue—for example, "Honor your father and your mother"—are cited more frequently than in the Old Testament (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10; Mt 19:19; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20; Eph 6:2). The ninth and tenth commandments are twice cited in an abbreviated form: "You shall not covet" (Rom 7:7; 13:9).¹ The third commandment, "Keep holy the Sabbath," although not directly quoted, serves as the backdrop for several of the controversies between Jesus and the religious leaders of the day (Mt 12:1-14;
Mk 2:23–3:6; Lk 6:1-11; Lk 13:10-17; Lk 14:1-6). In a few instances several precepts from the second half of the Decalogue are recounted together in both the Gospels and the letters (Mt 19:18-19; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20; Rom 13:9; Jas 2:11), suggesting that the New Testament authors considered these to be a consistent unit.

The Commandments of God
In the New Testament the word "commandment," the usual translation for the Greek term entole, denotes a rule, order, decree, or instruction by a person in authority. For almost all New Testament occurrences, the command is that of a divine, not human, authority. It expresses the will of God for the people of God. Several passages identify the commandments specifically as God's (1 Cor 7:19; Rev 12:17; Rev 14:12), "his" (Jn 12:50; 1 Jn 2:3, 4; 1 Jn 3:22, 24; 1 Jn 5:3; 2 Jn 1:6), or "of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37). God's mandates have an authority over the tradition of the elders (Mk 7:8-9) and human opinion (1 Cor 7:25). In the fourth Gospel, Jesus receives his command from the father (Jn 10:18), speaks with his own authority, and gives his teaching ("This is my commandment"), the essence of which is to "love one another as I love you" (Jn 15:12; cf. 15:17).

The proper reply to a divine mandate is not merely external compliance but the freely given response of the whole person. In this spirit, the people are to keep God's commandments (Jn 12:50; 1 Cor 7:19; 1 Jn 2:3, 4; 1 Jn 3:22, 24; 1 Jn 5:3; Rev 12:17; Rev 14:12) and to walk in them (2 Jn 1:6). Thus they will remain in God and God in them (1 Jn 3:24). The ultimate significance of the commandments is to join the people to God in a binding covenantal relationship. Following these observances establishes a pattern of life that characterizes the lives of believers, identifying them as God's people.

1. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength (Mk 12:30).
   
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Mk 12:31).
   
3. Do to others whatever you would have them do to you (Mt 7:12; Lk 6:31).
   
4. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her (Eph 5:25). And the wife should respect her husband (Eph 5:33). Children, honor your father and mother. Fathers [and mothers] bring up your children with the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:2-4).
   
5. Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me (Mk 10:21).
   
6. Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Lk 6:27; Mt 5:44; cf. Parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk 10:29-37).
   
7. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect (Rom 12:2).
   
8. Live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh (Gal 5:16). Refrain from every kind of evil (1 Thes 5:22).
   
9. Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).
   
10. Feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, care for the ill, and visit those in prison (Mt 25:31-46).

1. In this article, the enumeration of the commandments will follow the tradition of the Latin Church, which is based on the numbering in Deuteronomy 5:6-21.
   
2. On the androcentric formulation of the Decalogue in both the Old and New Testaments, see in this issue Florence Morgan Gillman, "At the Foot of Mount Sinai."

Special Feature

[This excerpt is from the article "The Fourth Commandment: Hear and Obey" by Kevin Godfrey, The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light.]

In a witty op-ed piece published in U.S. News & World Report a few years ago, John Leo attempted a politically correct rephrasing of the fourth commandment. In it, he raised questions as to who is entitled to honor and respect: "Honor thy mother or mothers, including thy birth, adoptive, step-, surrogate or same-sex-partner mothers, and honor thy father, thy mother's sperm donor or her casual inseminator, current whereabouts unknown."¹ Leo's comment is one-sided, focusing only on the variety of maternal options for parenthood, but the tragic humor in his words lets us know that times are changing. Traditional interpretations of the fourth commandment (or the fifth, on some lists) are challenged as modern culture struggles with the notions of "parenthood" and the relationship of children to father, mother, and family.

A cursory survey of the various ways in which the fourth commandment has been interpreted over time shows it has shaped attitudes and behaviors well beyond the precincts of home and family. "Honor your father and your mother" has been extended to an endless number of relationships: the relationship of citizens to government, students to teachers, employees to employers, and even slaves to their owners. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) goes so far as to say the fourth commandment "constitutes one of the foundations of the social doctrine of the Church."²

The obligations imposed by the fourth commandment have traditionally been classified under three general categories. The first describes the responsibilities that mature adult children have to provide for their elderly, sick, or debilitated parents. The second explains the duties of young children toward their parents under the category of obedience. The third describes the obligations of everyone who in any way is a subject—that is, in the sense of being subordinate to someone else. After a brief examination of each of these three approaches, this essay suggests that a fourth heading is necessary for the discussion: that of obedience and responsibility in the complex world of modern society.

Responsibilities of Adult Children
The first and most primitive interpretation of the parent-commandment imposes upon mature adult children the obligation to honor their parents. This religious obligation has its historical root in ancient Jewish tradition. There one observes two basic understandings of the fourth commandment's obligation upon children.

First, parents were considered representatives or symbols of God. They are seen as participating in the creative process that brings children from non-existence into being. Parents nurture children into material and physical life. Most importantly, they usher them into the salvific religious traditions of the community of Israel. Viewed within this context, the honor bestowed upon one's parents was considered, by extension, honor bestowed upon Yahweh. The Hebrew word "honor" (kibbud) means "to make one weighty," in the sense of recognizing someone's importance.³ Thus, "honoring one's parents" was a matter of recognizing their importance as collaborators with Yahweh in the great process of creation. To recognize their importance was at the same time to recognize Yahweh's importance.⁴

The second way in which the Jewish community interpreted this commandment's obligation was to recognize it as a charge to provide for the material and physical well-being of those in need because of age or sickness. This practice seems to have developed as a modification, or at least as an extension, of the earlier injunction to honor Yahweh by honoring one's parents. In order to clarify what the obligation of the fourth commandment required by way of honor, the Rabbinical tradition distinguished between the terms "honor" and "reverence." The Palestinian Talmud, for example, answers the question, "How does one revere a parent?" by replying, "By not sitting in his place, not speaking where he ought to speak, in not interrupting. In what does honor consist? Nourishing him, giving him something to drink, clothing him, providing him with shoes, helping him to enter and to exit."⁵ Clearly, this example of a rabbinical definition of the honor due to parents demonstrates how the Jewish tradition gradually recognized that this commandment imposed practical obligations of service upon mature children, obligations that involved the material and physical support of elderly parents.

New Testament tradition also refers to the obligation of the fourth commandment in several places. A number of Jesus' sayings deal directly with the filial obligation. When Jesus explains to the rich young man what must be done in order to inherit everlasting life, he refers to several commandments of the Decalogue and seems to put special emphasis on the parent-
commandment (Mt 19:18-19). Jesus also reproves the Pharisees for making their qorbon tradition more important than the duty to observe the fourth commandment (Mt 15:3-6). The letters of the New Testament confirm the significance of the fourth commandment for Christians as well. St. Paul teaches, "Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother.' This is the first commandment with a promise, ‘that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth'" (Eph 6:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 5:4). Romans 1:30 and the second book of Timothy refer to persons who are disobedient to parents.⁶

Clearly, the New Testament tradition, no less than that of the Hebrew Scriptures, recognizes in the fourth commandment the obligation to provide for the material and physical needs of elderly parents. In fact, it appears that in Jesus' mind, the focus of the parent-commandment was for adult children to provide financial support for parents. In any event, New Testament references to the fourth commandment reaffirm the obligation of adult children to honor their parents.

The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it. (no. 2199)

1. John Leo, "Thou Shalt Not Command," U.S. News & World Report (November 18, 1996): 16.
   
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), no. 2198. Subsequent references are given in the text.
   
3. Cf. Julian Carron, "Honor Your Father and Your Mother," Communio 22 (1995): 31-33.
   
4. For an explanation of how the ancient Near Eastern world employed the parent-child relationship as an image of the God-and-people relationship, cf. Walter Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 99-100.
   
5. Cited in Raymond Collins, "Obedience, Children and the Fourth Commandment—A New Testament Note," Louvain Studies 4 (1972): 162.
   
6. Cf. Michael Barré, "The Fourth Commandment: Is it Just for Kids?" Bible Today 29 (January 1991): 45-46; Raymond Collins, "The Fourth Commandment—For Children or for Adults?" The Living Light 14:2 (1977): 227-228.
   
7. Collins, "The Fourth Commandment," op. cit.
   
8. Cf. Collins, "Obedience, Children and the Fourth Commandment," op. cit., 164.
   
9. Cited in ibid., 159-160.
   
10. The commentaries by St. Thomas used here were published under the title God's Greatest Gifts: Commentaries on the Commandments and the Sacraments (Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 1992). (These commentaries were originally translated into English by Joseph B. Collins and included in The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas Aquinas [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1939].)
    
11. Ibid., 35.
    
12. R. F. Bradley and E. Keraue, trans. and eds., The Roman Catechism (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1985), 401.
    
13. Ibid., 404.
    
14. Berard Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 103.
    
15. Henry Fehren, "The Fourth Commandment," U.S. Catholic (November 1988): 41.
    
16. Cited in Michael J. Walsh, ed., Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1994), 363. Cf. Joseph A. Selling's discussion of the fourth commandment in ibid., 368-371.

Special Feature

[This excerpt is from the article "The Catechism and Christian Morality: Beyond the Commandments" by Russell B. Connors Jr., The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light.]

Introduction¹
Don't you just love a good shortcut? Isn't it great to get where you want to go as quickly and directly as possible? Yet shortcuts often bypass scenic areas and historical markers that make longer routes more pleasant and satisfying. Imagine a friend coming to visit, someone who has never been to your town. You gave her directions to your home, making sure that she would travel along Lake Road. This route is a little longer than the freeway, but it will give her a glimpse of the beauty of your town. Your friend arrives and quickly boasts that, after looking at the map, the freeway route looked a lot quicker so she took it. "So, then," you ask, "you didn't see the lake?" She answers, "What lake?"

Thus, while shortcuts have their place, they can also hinder far more than they help. That is why I am leary when people use shortcuts with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). My problem is not with the Catechism, but rather with people who don't take the time to fully understand the message found there.² For example, as part of a presentation in one of my classes, a student made reference to what she called the "Catholic teaching on sex." The sum total of her account was a single reference to the Catechism's teachings on birth control and premarital sex. Of course, there is much more to the Catholic teaching on sex than what appears in one Catechism reference.

However, the Catechism invites such a shortcut by using the Ten Commandments as one of the organizing elements in its treatment of the Christian moral life. In that student's presentation, the shortcut taken bypassed some of the richest and most positive elements of the Catholic tradition's approach to Christian living, which we find in the Catechism. Such a bypass allows for a direct move to "the bottom line"—to specific norms about behaviors, specifically those that the Church judges to be incompatible with Christian living—without understanding the fuller picture of Catholic belief. Because attention is focused on laws and prohibitions in this shortcut, people's negative views about Catholicism are unfortunately reinforced.

In this article, I will explore the richness of the Church's moral teaching as found in the Catechism. First, I note that some of the most important elements of the Christian moral life are treated in those sections of the Catechism in which Christian morality is not explicitly the focus of attention: namely, the Catechism's discussions of faith, worship, and prayer. Second, I will look briefly at part three of the Catechism, "Life in Christ," which deals directly with Christian morality. In that context, I will examine several important things about the Catechism's treatment of morality that precede its discussion of the commandments. Finally, with the fifth commandment as an example, I will explore the way the Catechism approaches the commandments and show that it provides far more than "bottom-line" norms prohibiting specific behaviors.

The Catechism and the Moral Life: Faith, Worship, and Prayer
It is no accident that the Catechism's treatment of morality is not presented first in the text. Rather, it begins with an examination of what we as Catholic Christians believe—the Creed. Fundamentally, we believe in the unconditional and amazing love of God, who is love (CCC, no. 733).³ We believe that God's love has been revealed to us through the gifts of creation (no. 32) and that God's steadfast and forgiving love was made manifest in the experience of the Israelites (nos. 56-64). We believe that the revelation of God's love was displayed in all its fullness through the life, love, dying, and rising of God's Son, Jesus Christ (no. 604), and that we who are followers of Christ are the recipients of nothing less than the Spirit of this loving God abiding in our hearts, transforming us, and empowering us to continue the ministry—the life and love—of Jesus Christ in our world (nos. 689-690).

This, I suggest, is the heart of Christian faith; Christian morality, in contrast, is nothing other than a life of response to the unconditional and amazing love of God. The Catechism indicates that Christianity is first and foremost not about us. It is not primarily about what we are to do, however important our actions may be. Rather, Christian living is first of all a matter of believing in the gift of God's transforming, healing, and saving love in Jesus Christ. We are in good standing with God, in other words, not fundamentally because of our own good deeds, but because of the saving love and grace of God. One of the oldest (and most stubborn) of all heresies in Christian history is the idea that we earn our salvation in some way, that we merit God's love by what we do. This observation is not meant to trivialize the significance of the Christian moral life but to put it in proper perspective. As the recent Lutheran-Catholic "Joint Declaration on Justification" reminds us, "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."⁴ As Christians, the Catechism suggests, we live our lives and attempt to discharge our moral obligations as a response to the love of our gracious God.⁵

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000). For a more comprehensive overview of Christian morality, see my book The Catechism of the Catholic Church: In the Breath of God: Christian Morality (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2000).
   
   
2. A valuable analysis of the structure of the Catechism is offered in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Optimism of the Redeemed," Communio 20 (1993): 469-484.
   
   
3. Subsequent references to the CCC are given in the text.
   
   
4. Lutheran-Catholic Agreement, "Joint Declaration on Justification," Origins 29:6 (June 24, 1999): 87.
   
   
5. In the Second Vatican Council's decree On the Training of Priests (Optatam totius), the bishops called for the renewal of moral theology: "Its scientific presentation should draw more fully on the teaching of holy Scripture and should throw light upon the exalted vocation of the faithful in Christ and their obligation to bring forth fruit in charity for the life of the world" (no. 16). The explicit connection made between Christian faith (especially belief in God's love) and the Christian moral life might be seen as the Catechism's ways of taking seriously the council's call for the renewal of moral theology.
   
   
6. Two recent theological works that emphasize the point that moral decision-making for followers of Christ is best understood as moral discernment (discerning what God is asking and enabling us to be and do in concrete circumstances) include Richard M. Gula, Moral Discernment (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1997) and William C. Spohn, Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (New York: Continuum, 1999).
   
   
7. For an extended reflection on this notion of the "call" involved in moral experience (he refers to a "tug"), cf.Enda McDonagh's "The Structure and Basis of Moral Experience" in Ronald P. Hamel and Kenneth R. Himes, eds., Introduction to Christian Ethics: A Reader (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1989), 106-119.
   
   
8. For a fuller treatment of moral character, see Russell B. Connors Jr. and Patrick T. McCormick, Character, Choices & Community: The Three Faces of Christian Ethics (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1998), 16-33.

Article

[This excerpt is from the article "A Listener's Guide to the Homily" by Richard C. Stern, The Living Light Summer 2000, Vol. 36, No. 4. Subscribe to The Living Light.]

In a 1982 statement on liturgical preaching, the U.S. Catholic bishops noted that "the proclamation of the Word of God is the responsibility of the entire Christian community by virtue of the sacrament of baptism."¹ All worshipers play an important part in the celebration of the liturgy of the word. Yet a particular role—the role of hearer—has not been nurtured as carefully and fully as it should. Over the centuries, the Church has spilt a great deal of ink on what should be preached and who may preach it. The liturgy has been the subject of extensive treatment in religious education efforts. In An Introduction to the Homily, Robert Waznak wrote, "The taproot of catechesis in the early Church was the liturgy and its method was preaching. The content of the catechesis of preaching was the kerygma, the paschal mystery, and the promise of God in Christ."²

Given the prominence of preaching, more can and should be done to prepare hearers for their important role within the liturgy as active contributors to and participants in the homily. Good preaching points to the importance of attending to the needs of those who are hearers as well as to those who are preaching.

As a member of the Lutheran clergy who has been teaching homiletics at a Catholic seminary for ten years, I first have a confession to make. I didn't listen carefully to homilies until after I had been a pastor for several years. I subsequently learned that I am hardly alone. All my energy went into preparing homilies. As a pastor, I was a better than average preacher—pretty good but probably not great. Of course, by then, I was preaching homilies far more than I was listening to them. Certainly I did listen to the few homilies I heard after being ordained, but too often in a superficial, one-sided way. I knew if I liked a homily or not. I knew if it struck some particular chord within me. But I didn't often think too much about the homily once it had ended. A few stand out, but most went in one ear and out the other. I listened as a preacher, looking for ideas, techniques, and approaches that I could use in my own preaching, not as a listener intent on the message.

It was as a pastor/preacher, however, that I started to ask, "What makes a homily ‘work'?" and "What makes a homily ‘good'?" "What could I do as a preacher to make a homily better, more effective, and more memorable?" As a teacher of preachers, it is now my task to form others into good preachers. Hopefully, I pass along some of what I learned about making my own preaching better. Unquestionably, the most important thing I have learned is to put myself in the situation of the parishioner/hearer before I say anything. But more can be done.

In addition to helping preachers to be better at their craft, hearers also can be better prepared for their important role in preaching. Hearers should expect good preaching, but with that expectation comes responsibilities. Hearers should ask of themselves the same question asked by the preacher: "What can I do to make the homily better?" After all, it takes both homilists and hearers to make a good homily.

Parishioners should do more than warm the pews during the homily. Hearers are the ones who ultimately create the homily; they put meaning to the homilist's words. Let me suggest a comparison. You do not have to be a gourmet chef to enjoy a good meal. But if you know something about the subtleties of spices, sauces, and fresh ingredients, you will appreciate a fine meal even more. If you have ever tried to prepare a fine meal and failed, you appreciate how difficult it is to get the ingredients, the timing, and the presentation to work out just the way you want. You may even value a meal that is not so great because you know why something did not turn out. Apart from occasional batches of spaghetti sauce following my mother's recipe, I do not cook at all except to pour milk on my cereal. But I watch lots of cooking shows on television. My appreciation of good cooking has increased tremendously. Greater knowledge and awareness bring greater appreciation. And truly, the meal only begins when the food is brought to the table and the diners begin passing the plates.

If a meal properly done is as much the diners' achievement as it is the chefs', the same is true with homilies. The hearer looks in the homily for points of application in their own lives; they determine whether the homily "worked" or not.

Homily or Sermon?
First things first. What is preaching? This might seem obvious, but there may be some confusion on the definition of preaching—parents are accused of preaching on occasion and preachers are accused of lecturing. Preaching is an umbrella term for various forms of communication that proclaim the word of God.

Is there a difference between a homily and a sermon? The answer depends on whom you ask. A student may describe the difference this way: "Catholics preach homilies; Protestants preach sermons." This is concise but incorrect. "Homily" is a Greek word. "Sermon" is Latin. Both originally referred to informal conversation, and the words are still often used interchangeably. Gradually, for many Catholics anyway, the homily has come to refer to liturgical preaching "which flows from and immediately follows the scriptural readings of the liturgy and which leads to the celebration of the sacraments."³ Sermons, while they may be biblically based, are more topical in nature, based on topics such as forgiveness, grace, or stewardship. In addition, they are preached in non-liturgical settings such as retreats.

Homilies come in different varieties—short, long, good, bad—stories, teachings, and so on. We have some idea of what we like and don't like in a homily. A parishioner once informed me that preaching can often take the form of meddling when the homily gets too close. But what is a homily? What purpose does it serve? Above all, a homily is the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the announcement of the good news: "He is risen. Alleluia." Preaching is making present the word of God for that time, people, and place.

Sometimes homilies take on the appearance of teaching or explanation. The homilist may seem to be providing a personal "take" on the Scripture passages. Homilies, however, are more than the homilist's opinion. While homilies certainly may teach or catechize at times, their primary role is to announce the word of God and in the process to interpret the word for that particular gathering of people. Preaching is making timely the timeless word of God. The Second Vatican Council defines preaching as "the proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation [that is] the mystery of Christ ever made present and active in us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy" (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [Sacrosanctum concilium], no. 35). The Council adds that preaching "must expound the word of God not merely in a general and abstract way but by an application of the eternal truth of the Gospel to the concrete circumstances of life" (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests [Presbyterorum ordinis], no. 4). This echoes the apostle Paul who wrote to the Romans, "How can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?" (Rom 10:14). Preaching then is not simply the preacher's "take" or an explanation of Scripture; it is the proclamation of God's word.

We have all heard homilies described as "breaking open the word." This is most certainly true, but it is not a complete definition. The homily is also a way of letting the word "break us open"—letting it transform our hearts and minds toward a greater alignment with the word and will of God. Letting the word break us open speaks to the need to be converted and transformed by the message that the word contains, as well as the need to interpret the word for today. The word, which is always addressed to someone, is never generic. Fulfilled in Your Hearing observes that we preach from Scripture, not on or about Scripture.⁴ This implies that preaching is an extension of the word, not merely someone's commentary about it.

• Listen to the homily. Be aware of distracting "noise" and focus on the homily. This noise includes external noise—cars driving by, fans running, children crying, adults whispering—and internal noise—concerns you bring to worship, sleepiness, preconceptions about the homily or the homilist, worries, or other concerns. Be prepared to listen to the entire homily. Don't pass judgment too quickly on whether you like or agree with it.
  
• Understand the homily. Are there points in the homily you do not understand? Is this lack of understanding due to theological jargon or unclear ideas? Are new ideas presented that you have never thought about before?
  
• Process the homily. Interpret what the homilist says for your own situation, that is, relate the main ideas to your own values, opinions, and beliefs. How would you summarize the homily? What questions would you like to ask the homilist about the message? How does the homily move you to respond?
  
• Evaluate the homily. This means more than deciding if it was good or bad. How can you put the homily to work in your life this coming week?

1. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fulfilled in Your Hearing: The Homily in the Sunday Assembly (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1982), 2.
   
2. Robert P. Waznak, An Introduction to the Homily (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998), 40.
   
3. Ibid., 1.
   
4. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, 20.