More

St John Ogilvie, Priest and Martyr, SJ (Memorial) Read Saint John Ogilvie »

More

Commentary on Wisdom 7:7-11; Hebrews 4:12-13; Mark 10:17-30

The man who comes up to Jesus in today’s Gospel is clearly a very good person, but it is clear that he has serious deficiencies where the Gospel is concerned. He thinks it is enough to be a morally good person, but the Gospel demands more than that.

Even his opening question indicates a certain self-centredness:

Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

As far as his ‘salvation’ is concerned, other people do not enter into the matter.

Ten Commandments enough?
Jesus at first replies by reminding him to observe the Ten Commandments. These commandments, of course, do involve relations with other people, but in this case, and very often in our case too, the emphasis is on what we do rather than on what happens to others. That is revealed in the way we make our Sacramental confessions: “I was not at Mass on Sunday…, I disobeyed my parents…, I stole money…, I had lustful thoughts…, or did ‘bad things’…, I gossiped…, I was jealous or envious…” These are a litany of personal failures, with no mention of faulty relationships with others—a failure to love. Love or compassion are never mentioned. I am sorry because I broke rules and I have disappointed my self image.

The young man, in all sincerity we can take it, says that he has constantly observed these commandments. Maybe he was expecting to be told that that was all he needed to do. If that was the case, he was in for a disappointment.

Where perfection lies
In Matthew’s Gospel, the man is told:

If you wish to be perfect… (Matt 19:21)

Earlier Matthew had quoted Jesus as saying to his followers:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matt 5:48)

In today’s Gospel from Mark:

Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

In so speaking Jesus was doing a number of things:

• He was zeroing in on the young man’s weakest point. Up to this, it probably had never struck the man that wealth and religious perfection could possibly be in conflict with each other. The man had asked for perfection and Jesus was asking him to give up the one thing he may even have thought was a clear sign of God’s blessing. (As well, see the reaction of the disciples immediately after this story.)
• Jesus was making it clear that personal moral perfection is not enough to follow the Gospel and be a member of the Kingdom. To be a follower of Christ, one must become a partner with God in the creative work of building the Kingdom—a complex of mutual relationships based on truth, love, respect, and justice.
• The man is not told just to give alms generously to the poor. He is told to sell all his property and give it to the poor. The Gospel is not about giving donations from one’s surplus; it is about sharing what one has with one’s brothers and sisters.

If I have 100 dollars/euros and I give 10 or even 20 dollars/euros to the needy, that is alms or ‘charity’. But if I give at least 50, that is sharing. The Gospel is really only interested in sharing, not just in almsgiving. In almsgiving, poverty is temporarily alleviated, but not removed. In sharing, there is a solidarity.

This is the meaning of the story of the feeding of the 5,000 in the desert. It is the meaning of the Eucharist which we are now celebrating. In the Eucharist, we do not ‘receive’ Jesus in ‘communion’. We are expressing a solidarity of sharing by eating together from one loaf, which represents all that we as a community have and are. Sadly, we would have to admit that most of our Eucharists are, strictly speaking, a form of sacrilege and blasphemy as many of us have no intention whatever of doing anything of the sort.

Difficult for the rich to “enter the kingdom of God”
And this is the point that Jesus brings up with his disciples afterwards. After the rich man had gone away, unable to part with his wealth, Jesus commented on how difficult it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. Being rich, by definition, does not just mean having a lot. It means having a lot more than others where, among those others, there are many who do not have enough. Wealth and poverty are relative to each other. An ordinary middle class person in a modern city today enjoys amenities that would have been completely unknown even to the very wealthy of another age. A ‘peasant’ regarded as very wealthy in a rural area may not have as much as a factory worker in big city.

That said, the disciples are “greatly astounded” by Jesus’ words about:

…how hard it is for those who have riches to to enter the kingdom of God.

To the disciples, wealth is a sign of God’s blessing and, as such, highly desirable. They say to one another:

Then who can be saved?

Jesus only emphasised his point by saying that it was:

…easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

What about those who have left everything for Jesus?
Then the disciples begin to see the other side of the picture. They themselves are far from being rich. And now they have gone further. They have given up everything to be with Jesus: their families, their profession and the instruments of their work. Yes, indeed, there is something for them. To follow Jesus is not to enter into a kind of emptiness. On the contrary, by following his Way, they will enjoy an abundance of blessings. This is not just a pie in the sky promise.

The followers of Jesus are to be bonded in a close fellowship founded on mutual love, care and compassion. They are to build a community where everything is shared, where each person’s main concern is to see that the needs of brothers and sisters are taken care of. When we all give, we all receive. This was what the rich man in the story—and those who cling to wealth in every age—did not understand. It is, alas, a lesson that has not been put into practice very much in the Church, let alone in the wider society. At its best, religious life is an attempt to put this Gospel vision into practice, but here too, legalism has often stifled the spirit. Oddly enough, atheistic Marxism appeared, on the surface, to implement the spirit of the Gospel in its slogan of “To each according to their need; from each according to their ability”. It is hard to believe that Jesus would have quarrelled with such a sentiment; it is exactly the vision presented in today’s Gospel. It was not the slogan that was at fault, but the horrific way people went about making Marxism a reality.

So Jesus tells his disciples that having left father, mother, brothers and sisters, and their home and material goods, they will:

…receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

And it happens in this life; in that sense, Marx had it wrong. Christianity is not an opium, a kind of drug to help people forget their sufferings by longing for a future happiness. What Jesus is saying is supposed to happen now. And it can happen now if we have the will to put it into effect.

What we need is not wealth, but the wisdom of which the First Reading speaks. It is wisdom which brings us a deep insight into the really important values in life. To have such wisdom is real wealth because it is the key to happiness and security. And is not that which we all long for?

It might be no harm for us to reflect to what degree this vision of Jesus is a reality in our parish community. To what extent do we really care for each other and share our resources?

More

Commentary on Acts 1:12-14; Luke 1:26-38

The Gospel reading from Luke is the account of the Annunciation, when Mary of Nazareth is asked by the Angel Gabriel to become the Mother of a child who will be the Son of God. Mary is quite taken aback by this request which she cannot reconcile with her present status. She is betrothed, that is, fully committed in marriage to Joseph, but they are not yet married and have not begun to live together. The angel assures Mary that the conception will take place by a special intervention through the Spirit of God.

Mary still does not fully understand, but putting her trust completely in the words of God’s Messenger, she accepts totally and unconditionally to the request:

Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.

And at that very moment, the awesome happening we call the Incarnation, the ‘en-flesh-ment’ of the Son of God took place in the womb of Mary. Nothing would ever be the same again in the history of the world.

The First Reading, from the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, shows the disciples of Jesus returning to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives after the Ascension. They went to the Upper Room where they had gathered with Jesus on the night before his Passion. All the Apostles are there with the obvious exception of Judas, who, overcome with guilt, had taken his own life.

But also among them were a number of women who had been companions of Jesus and among them was Mary. She would be with them, too, when the power of the Spirit of Jesus would come down on them giving them their mission to continue the work that Jesus had begun, the work of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

Today’s celebration invites all of us to meditate and pray on the events in Jesus’ life, following the example of Mary who was so specially involved with all of these events through her unique participation in the bringing the Son of God to live and work among us as one of us. We will identity with the Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious and Light mysteries of his life, which is the Source of our own life.

More

Our Lady of the Rosary is a title of the Virgin Mary related to the prayer of the Rosary, whose origin has been attributed to an apparition of Our Lady to St Dominic in 1208 in the monastery church at Prouille, near Carcasonne in the south of France.

Pope Pius V instituted the feast of “Our Lady of Victory” to commemorate the naval victory of Don John of Austria over the Turkish fleet at Lepanto on 7 October, 1571, the first Sunday of the month. The victory was attributed to the help of the Mother of God, because a rosary procession had been offered on that day in St Peter’s Square in Rome for the success of the League in preventing Muslim forces from overrunning Western Europe. Two years later, at the request of the Dominican Order, Pope Gregory XIII, in 1573, allowed this feast to be kept in all churches which possessed an altar dedicated to the Holy Rosary. In 1671, the observance of the feast was extended by Pope Clement X to the whole of Spain.

Somewhat later, Pope Clement XII, following the victory over the Turks gained by Prince Eugene on 6 August, 1716 (the feast of our Lady of the Snows), at Peterwardein in Hungary, decreed that the Feast of the Rosary be celebrated by the whole Church on the first Sunday in October.

Pope Pius X changed the date to 7 October, and in 1969, Pope Paul VI changed the name of the feast to “Our Lady of the Rosary”. Today’s celebration invites all of us to meditate often on the mysteries of Jesus’ life.

More

Commentary on Acts 5:27b-33, 40b-41; Ps 30; Luke 12:4-9

Read Saint Diego Aloysius de San Vitores – Readings »

More

Blessed Diego Aloysius de San Vitores, Priest and Martyr, SJ

Diego (James) Aloysius de San Vitores was born of a noble family in Burgos, Spain, in 1627.

His parents wanted him to follow a military career but Diego had a desire to be a Jesuit from the age of 11. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1640, studied philosophy and theology in Alcalá de Henares before being ordained on 23 December, 1651. Despite his desire to be a missionary in China or Japan, the young Jesuit taught grammar at Oropesa and then taught young Jesuits studying theology in Madrid. Finally the superior general, Father Goswin Nickel, assigned San Vitores to the Philippines missions in 1659.

He left Spain on 15 May, 1660 and sailed first to Mexico where we spent 18 months before continuing on to the Philippines. While in Mexico City he gave mission and preached in the streets. In 1662, on his way to the Philippines he stopped over in Guam and vowed to go back there some day. Three years later, through his close links to the royal court, he persuaded King Philip IV of Spain and Queen Maria Ana of Austria to order that a mission in the Ladrones group of islands about 1500 km northeast of the Philippines be established.

On arriving in the Philippines, he spent some months learning the local language. He was made master of novices and dean at the university in Manila. During the five years he spent there, he also did missionary work in other parts of Luzon and on the island of Mindoro.

When a mission opened in the Ladrones Islands, Diego was chosen to lead it. In June 1668 , he set sail from Acapulco in Mexico to Guam. He gave the Chamorro archipelago the new name of “Islas Marianas” (Marianas Islands) in honour of the Queen Regent of Spain, Maria Ana of Austria, as well as the Virgin Mary. The missionary landed on Guam in the village of Hagatna where he was greeted by Chief Kepuha. Kepuha’s family gave him land to establish the first Catholic mission on the island. On 2 February 1669 Diego established the first Catholic church in Hagatna and dedicated it to the “Dulce Nombre de Maria” (Sweet Name of Mary).

Work in the new mission began very smoothly partly because of a shipwrecked Spaniard whose friendship with several island leaders opened a path for the Jesuits, who imitated the simple life of the natives by walking barefoot, eating frugal meals and wearing a garb made of matted fibres. After only six months, the Jesuits had baptised some 13,000 people.

After Chief Kepuha’s death in 1669, relations between Spain and the Chamorro leaders deteriorated. Trouble began in 1670 when Fr Luis de Medina was martyred on Saipan, one of the Las Marianas islands. Diego began to pray for the grace of martyrdom. Then war broke out in 1671. Following several attacks on the Spanish mission, a peace was finally negotiated. Although he was inspired by the peaceful methods of St Francis Xavier, Diego recognised that a military presence would be necessary to protect the missionaries on Guam. In 1672, Chamorro resistance increased, led by Makahnas and Kakahnas (indigenous priests and priestesses) from the Chamorro nobility, who felt they would lose their leadership position and status under a Catholic mission and a male-dominated Spanish society.

On 1 April 1672, Diego set out with his Visayan companion Pedro Calungsod to save a servant from what they considered a dissolute life. When the two men entered the village of Tumon, they met a man named Matapang who was one of the mission’s first converts. Matapang threatened Diego, who left the village but did not go far away. When Matapang found him, he threw a spear without warning into the chest of Diego’s companion. The missionary, realising his own end was imminent, grabbed his crucifix and fell to his knees. A companion of Matapang struck the Jesuit in the head, killing him instantly. The bodies were then thrown into the sea.

Diego de San Vitores was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1985. He is remembered for his missionary zeal in preaching God’s word to native populations and is acknowledged as the “Apostle of the Marianas”.

More

Francis Borgia was born in Gandia, Spain, in 1510. He was the eldest son of the Duke of Gandia, great grandson of the notorious Pope Alexander VI (known as the ‘Borgia Pope’) and of King Ferdinand V of Aragon. He received a private education and was presented to the Emperor’s court at the age of 18. In the following year (1529), he married Leonor de Castro, and was made viceroy of Catalonia by the Emperor Charles V. He and Leonor had eight children.

In 1543, he succeeded his father as the fourth Duke of Gandia. Because of problems arising from his attempts to put an end to corruption by legal officials, he retired to his estate. He then devoted his time to the development of his property, including the setting up of a Dominican house and the restoration of a hospital.

His happy family life came to an end when his wife died in 1546. In the following year, he quietly entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and passed the dukedom on to his eldest son, while making provision for the rest of the family, including arranging their marriages. The news of this very distinguished candidate to the Society could not remain a secret for long and, although he tried to downplay his social status, his genuine ability could not be hidden.

He was ordained a priest in 1551. Because of his aristocratic birth, great abilities and wide reputation, he was immediately offered a cardinal’s hat. This he refused, preferring the life of a travelling preacher. However, in 1554 he was made Commissary General for the Jesuits of Spain and Portugal by St Ignatius Loyola, the founder and first Superior General of the Jesuits. Here his previous experience in government and administration proved invaluable, and he established many colleges and other Jesuit houses.

In 1561, he was called to Rome, and in 1565 was elected Superior General of the Jesuits. For the remaining seven years of his life he was so active and effective in governing that he has been called the Society’s second founder. He worked for the reform of Christian life in Europe, and set up a new Jesuit province in Poland as well as new colleges in France. He also promoted missionary work in other parts of the world, especially in the Americas. In Rome, he was one of the founders of the Roman College (later known as the Gregorian University), he built the church of St Andrew on the Quirinal (one of the seven hills of Rome) as well as initiated the building of the Gesu church. Despite the high status of his office, Francis led a humble life and was widely regarded, even in his own lifetime, as a saint.

When the plague struck Rome in 1566, he organised relief for the poor as well as sending Jesuit priests to take care of the sick in hospital. In 1571, he accompanied a papal ambassador on a visit to Spain, Portugal, and France, which was very successful. However, under the burden of both sickness and the cares of office, he died on 30 September, 1572, soon after his return to Rome, but not before giving his blessings to his children and grandchildren. He was 62 years old. Francis was canonised by Pope Clement X in 1671 and is remembered for his spirit of prayer and his humility that led him to renounce worldly honours in order to live for Christ alone.

More

Commentary on Genesis 2:18-24; Hebrews 2:9-11; Mark 10:2-16

We touch today on a very topical, very sensitive and very painful reality of life in our time—the question of divorce. Similarly, today’s Gospel indicates that it was a controversial question in Jesus’ time and in his society also.

In reply to the Pharisees’ question about the permissibility of divorce, Jesus quotes from the book of Genesis in a passage used in our First Reading today. It expresses in beautiful language the ideal of the perfect marriage. Speaking about the companion God had given him:

…the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.”

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

We are hardly shocked nowadays when we hear that a couple we know have decided to divorce. There are some places where as many as half of the marriages end in the divorce courts. And the percentage among Catholics is often on a par with the rest of the population. Even where the figures are not high, they are growing nearly everywhere and are a matter of serious concern.

More than one kind of divorce?
The problem may even be more widespread than official figures indicate. We might say that there are two kinds of divorce. First, there is the obvious case when a couple decided legally to separate and terminate their marriage permanently. However, there is another kind of ‘virtual’ divorce which may be almost as bad and, in some cases, even worse. This is where the husband and wife nominally remain a couple, but where, in fact, their lives have become completely separate. One or both partners may even have established new liaisons of their own. This second kind of ‘divorce’ may be more common than we realise.

Some time ago a woman wrote to me in these terms:

“Yesterday was our 40th wedding anniversary. No big deal really despite attending two Marriage Encounter sessions, a Cana weekend, and reading umpteen books on how to have a better marriage. Love, whatever that is, flew out of the window a long time ago. I’m committed to this marriage physically, but my thoughts and fantasies in a ‘different world’ make me wonder is this what life is all about? A half life? We try to do all the right things. [My husband] seems quite content with his life, but I don’t really know. I might appear to be content with my life, but how can this be when I find myself thinking…‘Oh well, when I’m a widow, I shall be able to do this, that and the other.’ Before, it was ‘when I retire, I shall…’ but this has not worked out at all… How do I know if I will outlive [my husband]?”

One wonders how many are living in half-marriages like this: neither in nor out.

Can Catholics divorce?
Is divorce possible for Catholics? Our first reaction would be to say, “Of course, not.” Yet, strictly speaking, there is nothing to prevent Catholics deciding not to live together any more. They can even go to a civil divorce court and have their civil marriage and all the legal responsibilities connected with it set aside. What is ruled out for baptised Catholics is remarriage with someone else. The Church would also exclude remarriage for non-Christians who are, in its eyes, validly married. There are, however, limited exceptions to this which we cannot go into here.

No matter how high our ideals may be, we have to face the fact—and it is a fact—that marriage relationships can and do break down. They can break down completely and irrevocably. It is not something that happens overnight, but if the warning signs are ignored, a couple can reach a point of no return and a relationship becomes stone dead. If the symptoms had been dealt with in good time, perhaps it need not have been like this. Perhaps, with hindsight, they should never have got married at all. But right now, the couple is faced with an apparently unresolvable incompatibility.

If this happens in a marriage between Catholics, what are they to do? If it is clear that they can no longer live together, the Church very clearly provides for separation, even permanent separation from bed and board. This is not divorce nor is it annulment; the marriage bond still exists. (In annulment the marriage is regarded as never having validly existed.)

Where a legitimate separation takes place and where, after a reasonable period of time, it is clear that the separation is permanent, there would seem to be no problem for the couple to go through a civil divorce. This in no way affects the obligations arising from their Christian marriage, but it does withdraw the state’s recognition of the marriage and the civil obligations that arise from it.

In this way, the separated couple may come to a legal and satisfactory arrangement over material goods they were holding in common. The court may also help to decide equitably the status of the children and the rights of access of each parent to them. Yet, as Catholics they need to remember that their Church marriage still holds and any further marriage is, according to Church law, ruled out.

Remarriage of separated couples
Nevertheless, it is not unknown that, after a separation and civil divorce, one of the couple does remarry—though not, obviously, in church. It is also not unknown that the first (church) marriage may have ended in disaster quite early on. Once the first flush of romance had faded, it was seen that the marriage was a terrible mistake. But the second marriage, what the Church prefers to call an ‘attempted’ marriage, may prove to be stable, deeply happy and last for decades until the death of one partner.

In this case, what is to be done? May this remarried couple, who are both fervent Catholics, whose children are being formed in the Christian faith, be reconciled with the Church? Must they continue to be severed from the Eucharistic table at which their children partake—and thus be prevented from expressing their union as a family?

Again, according to the letter of the law, this is possible provided the parents no longer have sexual relations with each other and that no scandal is given to other Catholics who know their situation. In practice, it should be said that the Church, in its pastoral concern, may apply more sympathetic solutions on a case by case basis. In reality, can we say that a remarried couple who are now members of a deeply Christian family community and sharing their marriage bed should still be regarded as ‘living in sin’? Are we to be guided by the existential relationship (i.e. non-relationship) that now exists between two separated partners, or are we to have our lives determined by a legal prescription?

However, for the Church in its official teaching we are not dealing just with a law, but with the very nature of things which cannot be changed. The question remains, though, whether we understand the nature of things differently now and under what circumstances divorce was seen in the past. The whole institution of marriage has undergone radical changes in recent times. This is likely to affect the question of divorce also.

Whatever the case, it is important for the Church to be always mindful of the healing compassion of Jesus who came to save and not to condemn. It remembers the words of Jesus that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

A painful experience
In spite of its being so widespread, there is no doubt that a divorce is a most painful experience for a married couple. Although we are told that people nowadays find commitment more difficult, it is not likely that most married couples enter marriage on a trial basis, to ‘see if it works’. On their wedding day they presume this is for keeps. (In preparing people for marriage, I have never met a couple who had any doubt that it was for keeps.)

Facing the threat of divorce is an experience no one would want to go through. It is an admission of failure. Two people who once seemed so sure about each other have now to admit that they can no longer live at the level of union expected of a marriage relationship. Some individuals have even said that the pain of divorce is too great for them to contemplate another marriage.

And then there are the children. They, of course, are the real victims. How long into their future lives will the experience of seeing their parents’ marriage falling apart affect their own interpersonal experiences later on? The tragedy is made even greater when divorce is seen as being the lesser pain than continuing to live in a home riven by constant conflict.

What to do?
What is the answer to divorce? As in most sicknesses, physical or social, the best cure is surely prevention. Yet how can divorce be prevented? One important way must surely be a much better preparation for marriage. In most cases, so much time, effort and money is poured into preparing for the wedding day which lasts a matter of hours. Next to nothing may be done to prepare for the decades of living in intimate relationship together.

Somehow there is a naive belief that with the wedding over, the couple can be left to their own devices and that nature will take care of the rest. What could be more natural than sexual union and procreation? Millions of broken marriages and divorces should long ago have told us that things are not so simple.

Today’s Gospel says that the couple are no longer two persons, but “one flesh”. To develop that kind of two-becomes-one relationship requires a lot of work. It requires a good deal of guidance and help to make it happen. In fact, marriages don’t happen, they are made. The psychologist and philosopher Eric Fromm wrote about the art of loving. It is an art, a skill to be learned.

The Church, in its wisdom, in many parts of the world insists that couples intending to get married must follow a comprehensive pre-marriage course led by experienced married people. What the Church—and society—does not do sufficiently is to follow up the couple after they are married. Marriages often run into trouble simply because there is no one around to give support and counsel when a marriage runs into a rough patch. While in our society there are expected roles for parents and relatives of young married couples, they often do not provide the kind of effective wisdom-sharing approach that is really needed in today’s pressurised living. For Catholics, however, there are in most places ‘Marriage Encounter’ experiences or ‘Cana Conferences’ where couples can re-affirm the marriage commitment in a highly supportive environment. But Jesus is right. Divorce is not the answer.

More

Commentary on Exodus 23:20-23; Matthew 18:1-5,10

Coincidentally, the Gospel reading for today’s Memorial to the Holy Guardian Angels is the same as yesterday’s for the feast of St Thérèse of Lisieux (unless her feast falls on a Sunday). The emphasis on St Thérèse’s feast was on the childlike qualities of Thérèse. There, Jesus was saying that true greatness only comes to those who in a spirit of complete docility and trust submit themselves totally to the will of their Father in heaven.

Today the focus is more on Jesus’ statement at the end of the reading where he says:

Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven.

The meaning is that those considered as of least consequence—children, the poor, the marginalised—are all very special in God’s eyes and, through their angels, can be sure of God’s loving concern.

The First Reading is from the Book of Exodus. It comes from a long passage of commandments covering a wide range of issues which Yahweh gave to the Israelites. This happened after Moses had gone up Mount Sinai and spoken face to face with Yahweh. The passage, beginning with chapter 20, starts with the giving of the Ten Commandments. These are then followed by a long list of instructions on how the Israelites are to behave.

Towards the end of Yahweh’s words (in chapter 23) we have the short passage which is today’s reading. It is a promise of God’s protection for his people as they continue their long and dangerous journey through the desert on their way to the Promised Land:

I am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.

It is the promise of Yahweh’s protection over his people. But they are warned to listen to the voice of the angel; there will be no forgiveness for their failure to obey—because Yahweh’s authority resides in his angel.

But if they follow Yahweh’s angel in everything:

…then I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes.

Their angel will go before them and will help them defeat the various peoples—Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites—who will try to prevent them reaching the goal promised them by God.

Today, we pray that God’s ever-loving protection will be always with us and that he will guide us on the right paths. Help us always to follow the paths shown to us by Jesus our Lord.

More

The Church has never formally declared that every individual has a protecting angel. However, a writer as far back as St Jerome said it was the “mind of the Church”. He wrote in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:

How great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from birth an angel commissioned to guard it.

Belief in guardian angels was common among many cultures in ancient times. Examples can be given from Menander, Plutarch and Plotinus as well as from the Babylonians and Assyrians. In fact, it was their belief which was taken up by the Jews following their periods of conquest and exile.

In the Old Testament, the evidence of protecting angels is frequent. For example, an angel led Lot to safety before the destruction of Sodom. During the Exodus, an angel is appointed as leader of the Israelites. As well, God tells Moses in today’s Memorial’s First Reading:

I am going to send an angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. (Exodus 23:20)

There is also the lovely story of the angel (Raphael) who took protective care of Tobias as he went in search of a bride and for medicine to heal his blind father (Tobit chap 5).

In Psalm 91:11 we read:

For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

Ironically, these same words were used by Satan tempting Jesus to jump from the top of the Temple.

In chapter 10 of the Book of Daniel, angels are entrusted to take care of particular districts. It is clear the Old Testament understood God’s angels as messengers carrying out his will, including the protection of people.

In the New Testament, angels are frequently the links between God and his people. We hear Jesus saying:

Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven. (Matt 18:10)

There was the angel who consoled Jesus during his Agony in the Garden (Luke 22:43), and it was an angel who delivered Peter from prison (Acts 12:6-10). And finally, in the Letter to the Hebrews we read:

Are not all angels spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:14)

As children, many of us remember the prayer we were taught to say every night before sleep:

Angel of God, my guardian dear
to whom God’s love commits me here.
Ever this day/night be at my side
to light, to guard, to rule and guide.
Amen.