Snippets of Sad News

Every so often, as I scan the daily news, I’m reminded of how much sadness there is in the world. Some of it is expected; for example, the death of a celebrity who has lived a long life. It’s saddest perhaps for family and close friends left behind, and I suppose for loyal, diehard fans, but for most of us it’s just another story touched with nostalgia, one that also reminds us of our own mortality. Other sad stories make us scratch our heads in wonder, as we try to fathom the motives that lead people to do strange and seemingly inexplicable things. I like to understand the motives of others, but today, although motives are often veiled, we can sense the presence of real evil. And some stories are sad for only a few, while others publicly celebrate the same news. 

Here are just a few stories that popped up on my iPad today, stories that generated sadness among some and other emotions in the hearts and minds of others.

Catholic Voters in Swing States. Here’s a story that generated sadness among some of my Catholic friends who reside on the political left. In a poll conducted by the Trafalgar Group in mid-October, Catholics in the key swing states of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania overwhelmingly rejected President Biden. The president’s average disapproval rating among Catholics in these states was 62.2%, while his approval rating was a mere 35.4%. For Democrats, who must ride his coattails even though they’d prefer to ride almost anything else, this news was especially troubling. I called one of my more liberal pals to get his reaction, and he simply asked, “Don’t they realize the president is a devout Catholic?” Perhaps, I suggested, he might want to listen to the American bishops who have come out strongly against the president for his rejection of almost the entire range of Catholic moral teaching. Maybe the results of this poll show us that many Catholics have listened to and agree with our bishops. I must admit, the news didn’t sadden me.

The Funeral of a Parishioner. Late this morning I assisted our pastor at the funeral of a parishioner, a woman named Carol Buyarski. It was a beautiful funeral Mass, attended by a large gathering of family and friends. There’s always an element of sadness when a loved one dies, the sadness of grief and separation, but never a sadness resulting from death itself. As Christians we believe our lives here on earth are simply the beginning. As T. S. Eliot once wrote, “In my end is my beginning,” a phrase I believe he borrowed from Mary, Queen of Scots. But whatever it’s source, it’s a wonderful phrase because it’s true. For the faithful, the end of this life is merely the beginning of something wonderfully eternal, a life in the Presence of God. As St. Paul reminds us: "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” [1 Cor 2:9]. And so, at the funeral I found myself listening to others talk about Carol, this good woman who brought so much good and joy and peace to the lives of others. I thought how good it was that she had lived her 78 years well. But then I recalled that she and I were both born on September 13, 1944, a remarkable coincidence. Of course, I don’t believe in coincidence. Anyway, this brought to mind something my mother said to me years ago. I was probably 8 or 9 years old and we were attending the Irish wake of a relative, one of those older relatives whom I really didn’t know well. Looking at the old man lying peacefully in his casket, I turned to my mom and asked “What did he die of?” Her response meant little to me at the time, but I never forgot it. “Oh, I suppose he just died of old age.” You guessed it, he was 78. Now that’s sad.

Jerry Lee Lewis Dies Today at 87. Okay, I know, you don’t have to remind me, Jerry Lee Lewis was by no means a paragon of virtue. I believe he was married seven times and one of those marriages, his third, was to a cousin who was, as I recall, all of 13 years old. And throughout it all, drugs, booze, and infidelity were a major part of his life. Yes, indeed, Jerry Lee was a sinner, and a very public one. But if you’re a fan of true 50’s rock ‘n roll, you know full well you loved Jerry Lee’s music. Maybe I should say you loved his entire performance, something that was outrageously unique and virtually unrepeatable. At the age of maybe fifteen I managed to attend a “show” (that’s what we called concerts back then) that included Jerry Lee Lewis. It was a rollicking, absolutely amazing show. No one could imagine — I certainly couldn’t — that anyone could give us that kind of brash, wild and crazy experience. Everyone in the theater was on their feet, totally involved in the music, as Jerry Lee sang and pounded out “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On” followed by “Great Balls of Fire.” He had managed to blend Gospel, rockabilly, Country-Western and ended up giving us the purist form of rock ‘n roll. Later in life he redefined himself as a Country-Western star. As for his lifestyle, yes, he was a sinner, but unlike most celebrities he admitted it. One thing you can say about Jerry Lee Lewis: he was no hypocrite. He also believed in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and I hope spent some repenting time with his Lord during his last days. As Sr. Francis Jane, O.P. once told our eighth-grade class, “If you get there, you might be surprised whom you will meet in heaven.” I am saddened at Jerry Lee Lewis’ death because he will no longer play that piano as no one else ever has. May he Rest In Peace. 

OK, Here's What I'm Reading

In recent weeks I've had several of my Bible Study participants ask me what I'm currently reading. I'm not sure why they'd want to know; after all, my reading habits are likely no more interesting than anyone else's. Anyway, my tastes in books can also be a bit off-putting to some folks. For example, I rarely read modern novels, and by "modern" I mean anything written during the past 30 or 40 years. There are exceptions; indeed, one of the books I'm currently reading would certainly be labeled a modern novel, but I was introduced to other works by the same author and enjoyed them. The reason I avoid most modern fiction? There's far too much of it and I have so little time to sort out the bad from the not-so-bad. There's really very little good. I hate to waste precious time (and inflationary cash) on something not worth reading, so it's safer to wait several decades and ask a few simple questions:

• Is it still in print? This isn't always a good benchmark, but it does limit the field. Multiple printings tell us little about the critics, but a lot about the general public; and I trust the latter more than the former. The public isn't always right, but it's more right than most critics.
• The above leads to another set of criteria: Who likes it and who doesn't? Is it on the "must read" list of someone I know and trust? Or is it on the "hated list" of someone whose opinions I regularly dismiss as foolish? A "yes" answer to both questions is a definite plus.
• Is it a seminal work, one of those truly influential books that has changed the world? Its impact might have been horribly negative, like Mein Kampf or Das Kapital, or very positive, like Augustine's Confessions or Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind. I read them all, since ignoring them leaves one ill-equipped to cope with their consequences.
• Finally, is it a book I will simply enjoy? For example, Flannery O'Connor's letters, published posthumously as The Habit of Being is one of those books to which I often return. O'Connor was always interesting and usually quite funny. I also enjoy the works of Jane Austen, Gene Wolfe, Alice Thomas Ellis, G. K. Chesterton, V. S. Naipaul, P. G. Wodehouse, Evelyn Waugh, Mark Helprin, Maurice Baring, and so many others.

At any given time, I'm usually reading more than one book, all stacked neatly on the table next to my comfortable, squishy easy chair in our living room. Diane thinks this is weird, but it works for me. I simply choose the book that seems to suit my current mood, something that changes often enough. If a book is interesting and well-written, I have no trouble picking up where I left off when I last put it down. And so, here are a few of the books I've recently read or am reading now. 

Winter's Tale, by Mark Helprin (1983). Helprin is a wonderful writer, and I often find myself checking to see what he's published lately. I've read many of his works, novels and short stories -- I especially liked A Soldier of the Great War -- but somehow missed this novel, one of his earlier works. A remarkable love story, touched with fantasy, but for me utterly believable. 

The Seven Storey Mountain, by Thomas Merton (1948). I first read this book when I was a freshman at Georgetown, but that was 60 years ago. As I recall I found it too personal and too spiritual. But what did I expect? After all, it's an autobiography of a man who becomes a Trappist monk. Personal and spiritual? Well, yeah! Right now, I'm smack dab in the middle of it and truly enjoying it. It takes me back to the Church and the world I experienced in my youth. And reading Merton's life, I encounter pieces of my own and my struggles to make my way past many of the same obstacles that confronted the author. Interesting that I didn't recognize any of this during my first reading when I was 18. As college freshmen we were sure we were oh so smart, when in truth we were amazingly stupid.

The Stripping of the Altars 1400-1580, by Eamon Duffy (1992). This absolutely fascinating (and very long) book is another through which I'm now making my way. It's one of those books that has changed how many people, both Catholics and Protestants, understand the role the Catholic Church played in the lives of the English people before and during the early years of Reformation. Duffy focuses on a particular period (1400-1580) and demonstrates that late medieval Catholicism remained the religion of the people throughout. He also writes convincingly of the means by which this truth has been grossly distorted. 

Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book, by Walker Percy (1983). With this book, Percy, a medical doctor and successful novelist, offered us a work of non-fiction designed to help you and me discover, as he phrased it, "who you are not and even (an outside chance) who you are." Percy looks intently, and with his own brand of humor, at man and the universe in which God has placed him and tries to make sense of it all by providing us with a cosmic survival guide. I just finished reading the book, enjoyed it immensely, but in truth preferred Percy's novels, especially The Moviegoer and The Second Coming.

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray (2019). If you're sick and tired of all the wokeness that is continuously streamed into your life and that of your family, then this is the book for you. Douglas Murray, a British political commentator and an editor at The Spectator, takes a hard look at the plague of identity politics, its Marxist roots, and its manifestations regarding race, sexuality, and gender. He also examines how technology and the online culture it has spawned has negatively altered human relationships. It's a wonderfully researched and well-written book. You might consider giving copies to grown children and grandchildren, assuming they can still read and have the attention span necessary to make their way through almost 300 pages.

Here are two others on the subject of Sacred Scripture, books that tell us much about modern Scriptural scholarship.

The Case for Jesus (2016), by Brant Petre. This little book should be read by all Christians who have become confused thanks to the work and commentary of so many of today's New Testament scholars. Brant Petre, a Catholic Scriptural scholar, lays bare the false assumptions and conclusions of the form critics who unfortunately have led so many Christians astray and been the cause much lost faith. Focusing on the Gospels, Petre digs deeply into the original manuscripts, as well as the works of Early Church Fathers, proving, as the Church has always taught, that the Gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and relate the truth about the life and public ministry of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Although written for the layperson, Petre provides detailed references and documentation for anyone who desires to pursue the subject in greater depth.

The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture (2021), by Scott Hahn & Benjamin Wiker. Here we have another wonderful book focusing on the truth of Sacred Scripture and the attempts by many scholars to turn the Bible into just another book of tall tales. The authors provide an overview of the degradation of Scriptural scholarship over the centuries, and its negative effects on the faith of millions of Christians. From Marsilius and Ockham in the late medieval period, through the Reformation, and into our modern times, we are shown how Sacred Scripture has been radically attacked by generations of scholars who, in the words of one reviewer, left "an incoherent mess" in their wake. 

Doors in the Walls of the World, by Peter Kreeft (2018). I've been reading Peter Kreeft for decades and he never disappoints. This little book is no exception. Its subtitle, Signs of Transcendence in the Human Story, is a perfect description of its content. Although barely 125 pages, it took me several evenings to make my way through it. Almost every page left me with something to think about more deeply and I found myself questioning my own habits of thought. Here's just one example, from p. 43: 

"Divine design is either nothing or everything; and if it is everything, then it extends even to randomness and apparent meaninglessness, to the puzzling presence of evil and the absence of scientific proofs. The hypothesis of faith may not be provable, but it is believable. The doors in the walls of the world may be only loose threads, but they are there."

Because I've long accepted God's omniscience and omnipotence, I had never believed in mere coincidence. Here Kreeft extends this to include a rational disbelief in both randomness and meaninglessness. It's a wonderful book.

And that's enough. Blessings and God's peace...

Evangelization and Truth

In my last post I suggested that perhaps it's time for our bishops to act and defend the Church's teachings, especially when these teachings are dismissed by nominally Catholic politicians as irrelevant or just plain wrong. I see this as part of the bishops' responsibility for evangelization. In today's post, I hope to extend that seme responsibility to all of the faithful, to you and to me, as we make our journey through the small slice of time and space in which God has placed us. In our parish Bible Study, we're currently studying the opening chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, so I thought the example of St. Peter would provide us with a good starting point.

In chapter four of the Acts of the Apostles, we find a Spirit-filled Peter standing before the local authorities, with the young apostle, John, at his side. The two apostles faced a crowd of local notables: the high priest, Caiaphas; his predecessor and father-in-law, Annas; and a collection of Jerusalem's most distinguished "leaders, elders, and scribes." This was the Sanhedrin, a kind of governing council and supreme court. Largely aristocratic, the Sanhedrin's members included representative of the most influential noble and priestly families. 

Although the Sanhedrin possessed significant power, they remained subservient to the Roman authorities. Most of these men were probably Sadducees, although the Sanhedrin also included Pharisees and others among its members. The Sadducees were responsible for maintaining the Temple and many were counted among the priests who performed the Temple sacrifices. Theologically, though, they differed greatly from most contemporary Jews, especially the Pharisees. Sadducees did not accept the immortality of the soul, rejected the idea of an afterlife and the resurrection of the dead, and did not believe in the existence of angelic or spiritual beings. As you might expect, they tried to make this life as comfortable as possible. They would have agreed with the old Schlitz beer commercials of the 1970s: "You only go around once...grab all the gusto." We can understand, then, why they did not appreciate anyone who threatened to upset the status quo, especially their relationship with the Romans.

Why were Peter and John standing there facing these men? The drama began the previous day when Peter and John passed through the Temple gate and encountered a beggar, a man crippled from birth. Peter said to him:

“I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, rise and walk” [Acts 3:6].

The man was instantly and completely healed. Peter had then gone on to proclaim the truth about Jesus Christ to the Jewish crowds gathered within the Temple precincts at Solomon's Portico. His preaching led to a remarkable result:

"...many of those who heard the word came to believe and the number of men grew to about five thousand" [Acts 4:4].

This, of course, was too much for the Jewish authorities who had the two apostles arrested. After a night in custody, Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin for questioning. They were asked a single question:

“By what power or by what name have you done this?” [Acts 4:7]

Inspired by the Spirit, Peter gave the perfect response, a brief but remarkable sermon:

“Leaders of the people and elders: If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a cripple, namely, by what means he was saved, then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed.

He [Jesus] is ‘the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.’ There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” [Acts 4:8-12].

Here we have a true homiletic gem. Within it we find a statement that offers us one of Christianity's absolute truths. Reread Peter's last sentence in which he provides the perfect declaration of salvation that comes to the human race only through Jesus Christ.

In Peter's words we encounter the universality of the Christian message, a message we are called to proclaim to every human being. Just consider Jesus' final words to the disciples before His Ascension to the Father:

“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” [Mt 28:18-20].

This is a command by Jesus, a three-fold command: (1) make disciples of all nations; (2) baptize them; and (3) teach them. And it's followed by a promise: "I am with you always." If we are called to "make disciples of all nations," Christianity, then, is truly catholic. With these words, we realize God desires all to be saved through Jesus Christ [Acts 2:21; 1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Pt 3:9] Although "for God all things are possible" [Mt 19:26], He instructs us to help bring this about through sacramental Baptism, supported by the continued presence of Christ's Holy Spirit in the teaching authority -- the Magisterium -- of the Church.

We are called to follow Peter's example and always proclaim the truth to those who do not believe. The problem, however, is that so many Christians, including many Catholics, seem either to reject this command of Jesus or simply fear to express the truth. Too many of us have grown a bit wobbly when it comes to evangelizing in truth. We either water down the Church's teaching or fall prey to a kind of syncretism in which all religions are considered okay. Once, while teaching a course on World Religions to a class of Catholic catechists and teachers, I was surprised when many thought there was no need to evangelize Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or others who reject our Christian faith. As one high school teacher said, "As long as they follow their religion's teachings, I'm sure they'll be okay with God." Well, that may be true, but that's God's call, not ours. We're called to obey Him, to evangelize, to follow the example of the apostles. We must always remember: you and I cannot convert anyone; we simply plant seeds, or water and fertilize the seeds others have planted. God, and only God, brings all to fruition.

Like the apostles, we Christians have been commissioned to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world, the entire world. This doesn't mean we do it arrogantly or haughtily. Not at all. We are commanded to do all this with love, but to love without forsaking the truth. As Peter told the beggar: "...what I do have I give you." We must do the same, give whatever we have, however the Spirit inspires and equips us. We must also live the truth of Jesus Christ so others will recognize Jesus Christ in us, just as we see Jesus Christ in them. And in doing so, we must also be ready to stand for the truth even at the cost of our lives, these days an increasingly likely possibility.

It’s Time for Our Bishops to Act

The other day, during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, a senior White House official, Keisha Lance Bottoms (former mayor of Atlanta, but now the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement), was asked about the extent of President Biden’s support for abortion. The program’s co-host, Willie Geist, asked Bottoms, “Does the President, does White House, believe there should be abortion available without limits in the country?” As you might expect from this White House, Bottoms did not provide a clear “Yes” or “No” response, but instead said the following:

“What the president believes is that there should be a fundamental right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body and the President has said this time and time again, that there are basic, fundamental rights, access to health care, this access to health care includes women across this country. And what we expect to see is that, especially college-aged women, women who’ve had to face these very difficult choices will be reminded of this, especially during this season. And it’s something that we can’t ever put too far behind us because, again, we know that elections matter and we know that congressional Republicans want to take us back. I’m 52 years old. In my lifetime, I’ve always known that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body and what we are seeing being put forth by congressional Republicans right now takes us back more than 50 years.”

It would seem her response confused even the folks at MSNBC; and Geist, trying to elicit a more definitive answer from Bottoms, asked: “So, does that mean the President supports abortion at any time during the pregnancy, whether it’s 3 weeks or 30 weeks?” To this, Bottoms replied: 

“What the President has said very publicly is that he supports a woman’s right to choose. I’ve never heard the President give a timeframe on that. But he has said that he believes that a woman has a fundamental right to make decisions about her own body and her healthcare choices.”

I’m pretty sure this is White-House-Speak for a “Yes” answer, that the administration is telling us President Biden supports abortion at any time during a woman’s pregnancy. Ms. Bottoms certainly didn't say otherwise.

The next question, then, should be asked of the Catholic Bishops of the United States. If President Biden, who frequently declares himself to be a "devout Catholic," absolutely denies the Church’s consistent magisterial teaching on life and a host of other moral issues, should he be allowed to partake in the Church’s sacramental life? Just consider the scandal the President causes as he publicly attacks the Church by denying its teachings and, as one parishioner remarked the other day, “…just gets away with it. Where are our bishops?”

Yes, indeed, where are our bishops? One priest told me they likely hesitate to get involved in what they view as political issues, something that might influence elections. I think my response surprised him. I simply said the Church has always taught that the goal of evangelization is to ensure the Good News of Jesus Christ reaches individuals and also penetrates and transforms cultures, highlighting and lifting up those aspects of culture relevant to the Gospel. 

Too often today we live our Christianity strictly as individuals. Even in societies with large and majority Christian populations, Christian influence on laws and institutions, on education, science, entertainment, sports, and the arts is lacking or completely absent. Some say that this is fine and in keeping with our Constitutional freedoms. And I agree, at least partially. Our Constitution guarantees our religious freedom, prohibiting the government from establishing a state religion, but also prohibiting that same government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion by the people. If that's the case, and it is, we can certainly exercise our Church's primary task: evangelization. As Jesus commanded the disciples right before He ascended to the Father:

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” [Mt 28:19-20].

As Pope St. Paul VI reminded us:

“…The split between the Gospel and culture is without a doubt the drama of our time, just as it was of other times. Therefore, every effort must be made to ensure a full evangelization of culture, or more correctly of cultures. They have to be regenerated by an encounter with the Gospel. But this encounter will not take place if the Gospel is not proclaimed” [Evangelii Nuntiandi, 20]

This teaching was echoed by Pope St. John Paul II who wrote: 

“A faith that does not affect a person’s culture is a faith 'not fully embraced, not entirely thought out, not faithfully lived.'” [Christifidelis Laici, 59]

It’s time to act and restore a culture of life in our nation and in the world. We each have a part to play in this drama, but our bishops should lead the way and set the example for the faithful.

Homily: Feast, St. Luke, Evangelist

I didn't actually preach this homily today, since the celebrant decided to preach, which is certainly fine with me. But since I had prepared a homily for St. Luke's feast day, I thought I might as well post it here.

____________________________

Readings: 2 Tim 4:10-17b; Psalm 145; Luke 10:1-9  

____________________________

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Luke, evangelist and companion of Paul – author of the Gospel that bears his name and also the author of Acts of the Apostles. Of all those early Christians, those we read about in the Gospels and in Acts, Luke is the one I’d most enjoy meeting and spending some time with.

He was a physician – “beloved physician” Paul calls him – and therefore like Paul an educated man – something that’s evident by the quality of his writing. Most scholars believe he was a Greek and a Gentile, but whatever his background, it’s apparent Luke was in the first wave of Gentile converts to the Faith. 

His Gospel was aimed at the Gentiles, those unfamiliar with Jewish Law and custom. In other words, he wrote for folks like you and me, so his approach is quite different from the other Synoptic gospels. For one thing, he rarely quotes the Old Testament, and never refers to Jesus with the Hebrew title of Rabbi, but always with the Greek title of Master. Unlike Matthew, Luke doesn’t trace Jesus’ genealogy from Abraham (the founder of the Jewish race) but from Adam (the ‘founder’ of the human race). 

Luke gives women a more prominent place in his Gospel. The nativity and infancy story, much more extensive in Luke’s Gospel, is told from Mary's point of view. And it’s through Luke that we know about Elizabeth, Anna, the widow of Naim, and the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet.

Luke also gives us some of the most beautiful parables, for example, the Prodigal Son; and only Luke relates the parable about the non-Jew, the Good Samaritan. Without Luke we wouldn’t have the road to Emmaus or those three great canticles -- Mary’s Magnificat, Zechariah’s Benedictus, and Simeon’s Nunc Dimittis – canticles we pray every day in the Liturgy of the Hours. But what I like most about Luke’s Gospel is the emphasis he places on prayer and praise, and the mercy and goodness of God. He describes Jesus praying at all key moments of his life.

What sort of man was Luke? Well, in today’s first reading we get a glimpse of the real Luke. Writing to Timothy, Paul describes how he’s been abandoned by co-workers and friends except for two key companions.

Onesiphores, had traveled far and found Paul, seemingly without help from the Christians in Rome. And Luke who had remained with Paul, endured the imprisonment with him and cared for him. It would seem Luke’s friendship was important to Paul. Cut off from his own community, perhaps unappreciated by the Roman Christians, Paul faced certain execution, and was unable to move about and preach the Good News. We sense his loneliness. 

Luke, trying to complete his texts, found himself attending to Paul who was probably held in some sort of house confinement or possibly even imprisoned. We can only imagine what this friendship might have cost Luke personally. He probably wondered whether he’d also be caught up in Rome’s campaign to destroy the Christian message. But his loving care remained authentic, and he stayed beside his friend.

True friendship is a uniquely human experience and is often most clearly shown by the small acts of care and attention one person shows for his or her friend. It’s also a simple thing, something in which even a child can participate. And yet it has a divine element as well. Listen, again, to these words from today’s psalm: 

“Your friends make known, O Lord, the glorious splendor of your Kingdom” [Ps 145:12].

Yes, the compassion and love that are the signs of friendship are also signs of the Kingdom of God, signs of God’s grace. Knowledge of the Kingdom is made possible by experiencing the quality of love that a friend bestows.

The Gospel, too, invites this insight. Friendship brings a Spirit of Peace with it; and where the Spirit of Peace is found, one discovers true hospitality. It is, then, in the heart of true friendship that the lost, the lonely, the abandoned, the imprisoned, the hurting, and the broken find encouragement and are made whole and healthy and strong again.

Saint Luke is the patron of physicians, not just because he was one himself, but because he was a healer of the both the heart and the soul. He was a true friend to Paul, who no doubt was in great need of consolation. 

But St. Luke is also recognized as a friend of the poor and the outcast, because he recorded how Jesus took pains to care for the least, the most rejected, the impoverished. At the Last Supper, Jesus set the example for all of us saying, “I call you friends,” because a friend will lay down his life for the other.

Luke, recognizing the divine character of this most human of relationships, followed the Lord’s example. Perhaps, then, we should honor St. Luke as the patron saint of friendship.