Another look at Fr. Cameli in Jesuit-run ‘America’: Use of Scripture

Screen Shot 2017-01-10 at 15.27.06The other day there was misleading piece at Jesuit-run America by a Chicagoan Fr. Louis Cameli. He launched an ad hominem attack against the Four Cardinals of the Five Dubia.  Cameli continued with a not entirely honest defense of his personally preferred reading of Amoris laetitia Chapter 8 by which just about anyone can be admitted to Holy Communion no matter what through “accompaniment”.

The other day I pointed out Cameli’s dishonest use of St. John XXIII’s words at the opening of the Second Vatican Council.  He quoted the famous speech “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia“, but cut out all the bits that John said which directly contradicted him. Have a look: it’s blatant.  HERE

wile-e-coyote helpIn an amusing aside, the Wile E. Coyote of contemporary liberal catholicism over at Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) went on grand mal spittle-flecked nutty flung at Raymond Card. Burke (part of his ongoing struggle with Burke Derangement Syndrome, I’m afraid), Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Raymond De Souza (which may need a song to the tune of “Georgia on my mind”… “Raymond… O Raymond…”) and my good friend, the brilliant Fr. Gerry Murray.   In channeling his inner George T. Bell, Winters’ obvious intent was to flag those whom he hopes his cohorts of the liberal Left will now target.  He want to hurt people and silence them, as liberals do.  Agere sequitur esse. But I digress.  I got onto that because Winters solemnly proclaimed: “I wish to associate myself with every word of Cameli’s argument.”   I have to wonder if Winters also associates himself with Cameli’s shameful bowdlerizaton of John XXIII’s Gaudet Mater Ecclesia.  Enough of the boring part.

Let’s have a look at how Fr. Cameli used Scripture in his attack on the Cardinals and his defense of the untenable.

Cameli juxtaposes to Christ’s clear teaching about indissolubility in Matthew 19, the account in John of the meeting between Christ and the Samaritan woman.  My emphases and comments:

In the second instance (Jn 4:5-42), Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman. This is not a conversation about general principles or truths. Jesus encounters a woman with a complex life story that involves five husbands and a current live-in boyfriend. [“complex life story… live in boyfriend”… we used to call this “sin”.] He does not simply announce the truth of marriage and then challenge her to live it out. From the beginning, with his request for water, he engages her and draws her to himself. Then, at a certain point, he says to her: “‘Go, call your husband and come back.’ [Of course He did, for the sake of propriety.  He was talking to her and she was unaccompanied.] The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!’”  [Whatever else this is, this is certainly a challenge to the woman.  It is at least a challenge and probably a reprimand.] Perhaps embarrassed by this revelation, she seeks to divert the conversation, but Jesus stays with her and accompanies her. [Can anyone discern what “accompanies” means there?  Christ called her out.  He constrained her to acknowldge the truth of her situation.] Eventually, she embraces faith in Jesus, and this is evident in her words to her fellow townsfolk: “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?”

After reading that you are supposed to have a new vision of Matthew 19… I think.   It didn’t work for me.

“Our Lord did not simply announce the truth and challenge to live her out”, quoth Cameli.  No, indeed.  Jesus’ words to the woman who had had five husbands and was presently in an adulterous relationship with a sixth wasn’t just a statement of fact, some kind of neutral observation.  Nor is it a compliment.  Christ’s words to the woman are a rebuke, based on the truth of marriage. He challenged her.  So what if He didn’t trot out Deuteronomy or other rules in Torah.  They both knew them!  He directly challenged her. To miss that is to miss the point.

“With his request for water, he engages her and draws her to himself,” quoth Cameli.  Fine.  He also told her to go get her “husband”, and come back because, out of propriety, He didn’t want to be talking to a woman alone.

“But Jesus stays with her and accompanies her”, quoth Cameli.  What does that mean?   Sure, He doesn’t say to her, “Scram!  Get lost.”  He also doesn’t stalk away.   However, He in no way accommodates her marital situation.   Think about it.  Jesus ate with sinners.  Eating with them didn’t make them NOT sinners.  By eating with them He was not acquiescing to their sin.  If the Lord didn’t reject the Samaritan woman, or storm off, He clearly didn’t condone her life.

“Eventually, she embraces faith in Jesus”, quoth Cameli.  Maybe so, but Jesus did not accept her marital situation.

If Our Lord “accompanied” her, He did so by telling her the truth of her situation and by not letting her dodge or squirm off the hook..

You cannot adapt the truth of marriage to whatever situation people find themselves in.   If you do that, you are not being true to the Gospel.

 

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Linking Back, The Drill and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Another look at Fr. Cameli in Jesuit-run ‘America’: Use of Scripture

  1. MrTipsNZ says:

    If Trump wants to build a wall, he should put it around Chicago. No good has ever come from the city that had to be lifted above its own sewerage.

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  2. Ivan says:

    How call we them, who are, willingly and concisely, not being true to the Gospel?
    Them who are keeping with doing a great effort to stay untrue to the Gospel.
    If man is sure, they are not doing something, maybe accidentally, then
    I am sure that it is now a highest time to call all of them by the right name.
    A liars.

  3. pannw says:

    Would it be out of line to suggest that some shepherds should probably be a little more worried about accompanying members of their flock straight to you know where, and less about whether the flock feels all welcomed and valued in their sin here on earth? Or would that be too rigid and judgey?

  4. aliceinstpaul says:

    I don’t get it. I’m not a theologian, just a Catholic. But that’s one of the most exquisite scripture passages.

    Jesus is as cunning as a fox and as innocent as a lamb. He asks her for help. The Lord doesn’t tell her he’s going to help her–because she would reject that. She doesn’t need help! Everything’s fine in her life of sin! Instead He asks her to help Him.

    The Lord often does this. He’s sees if we are open to him. He’s sly and aware we are proud, too proud to ask Him for help. So He lets us think we are doing Him a favor, a favor He doesn’t need but we need, because it will start our salvation.. It’s so we can encounter Him.

    Then through her openness, He intruiges her, disarms her, and then calls her out and speaks the Undeniable Truth until she can no longer be too proud to deny it, because He is too amazing.

    Staying with Him requires admitting the Truth. Receiving the Living Water requires her to amend her life! He calls her out and challenges her personally, deeply, not in the anonymity of a sermon, but directly, intimately.

    She converts. He doesn’t accompany her in sin or allow her to think it’s not sinful, not for a moment.

    How can a *priest*, a shepherd, not see what he must do to be Christ-like by reading exactly this passage?

    He doesn’t “acdompany” her.

  5. jameeka says:

    Well put, Fr Z. What’s more…..coherent!

  6. joekstl says:

    The Johannine account of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well has always been a favorite of mine for three reasons. First: (and I think this addresses some of the attempts at interpretation of “accompaniment”): the German theologian Rudolph Schnackenburg dissected the interaction in an article “Biblical Perspectives of Faith”; Jesus accompanies the woman on her journey to recognition; just look at her “labels” for Jesus: Jew, Sir, greater than our father Jacob, you are a prophet, can this be the Messiah. That’s what I think “accompany” means here. Second: this, I think, is the only account where Jesus meets a sinner and doesn’t admonish “sin no more.” Third: this is another example from the Scriptures where “those people” – outcasts – are the ones who have true faith.

  7. Alanmac says:

    “America” the Jesuit magazine is a very slanted, almost dishonest, attempt to influence Catholics. They are, in every edition, discussing same sex marriage and female ordination in the tangential hope of normalizing these two goals of theirs.

  8. Grumpy Beggar says:

    I wonder if Fr. Cameli can’t see the forest for the trees (trees which he himself is planting . . . and, I fear , that in fertilizing them , he is wayyyy overdoing it with the manure.)

    People who wish to predicate what Jesus would’ve said or done based on a variation or unfounded distortion which departs from what our Blessed Lord actually said or did , are forever losing my respect.

    1. We recall that in 2015 Pope Francis issued two documents reforming and simplifying the process for obtaining a marriage annulment which would take effect Dec. 8, 2015 – at the beginning of the Year of Mercy.

    2. About 10 days before the Year of Mercy concluded , Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego began to diffuse a guano-laden misinterpretation of Amoris Letitia which was to be implemented in his diocese and which had very little in common with Church teaching, and uncomfortably much in common with moral relativism ; San Diego bishop to priests: Embrace ‘LGBT families’, give Communion to ‘remarried’
    A snippet:

    Following a much-hyped diocesan synod on the family last month, Bishop McElroy encouraged priests to publish a diocesan notice in their bulletins saying the Church will “assist those who are divorced and remarried and cannot receive an annulment to utilize the internal forum of conscience in order to discern if God is calling them to return to the Eucharist.”

    First of all , that directive undermines what Pope Francis was hoping to accomplish when he streamlined the annulment process. Secondly , it erroneously presumes that those who would be granted an annulment (explicitly and implicitly regarding a previous marriage) would also be somehow automatically eligible to receive Holy Communion . . .without actually further discerning what their present marital status would amount to in the eyes of the Church. More than not, this isn’t the case. Have a look HERE

    How is this San Diego directive being allowed to stand without a reprimand ? Even those who may not exactly agree with the way the 5 Cardinals presented the Dubia , can appreciate that what is happening in the Catholic Diocese of San Diego substantiates the request for clarification, clearly demonstrating what type of disaster can happen without clarification.

    As for speculating elaborately whether Jesus “accompanied” or didn’t “accompany” the woman at the well , while further obscuring what is actually meant by “accompany” in the process, there’s a much simpler way:

    Jesus said to the woman at the well, “He is not your husband.”
    Isn’t that precisely what the annulment process does – tells the person either , “he is not your husband (or she is not your wife)” , or “he is your husband (or she is your wife) ? If someone isn’t willing to respect the annulment process , how can it be said that they respect the Holy Catholic Church ? And why would someone so badly feel the need to be included in a group they aren’t willing to respect ? That isn’t really feasible. We’re talking about two different groups of people at that point, because one group is trying to implement a second set of rules (which in practice, would prove to be no rules at all).

    Lord, save us ! Blessed Mother, please intercede for us and protect us !

  9. Matt Robare says:

    Father,

    None of what these Jesuits and bishops call “accompaniment” sounds very, well, accompanying. If I were lost while hiking in the deep woods and I met someone who offered to “accompany” me back to civilization by telling me that all paths were the same and that I should just take the one that makes me feel the best, I would tell them to shove their hippy nonsense where the sun doesn’t shine. For them to accompany me I would expect them to come with me, help me through the tangled roots and washed out paths, push me up steep slopes and across narrow defiles.

    Virgil accompanied Dante through Hell and Purgatory. Sam accompanied Frodo through Mordor.

    True accompaniment would be where the priest helps the couple to live according to the Will of Jesus.

  10. Pingback: WEDNESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit

  11. OldLady says:

    The Tower of Babel graduates another student! A semantic tug of war with Herculean bending and twisting of the Word.
    God gave us the 10 Commandments written on stone, short, sweet and to the point. He knew what would happen if he left humans even small windows of opportunity for creative interpretation . Parents tell children what they are capable of understanding and leave it at that until they are more mature.
    Popular culture in it’s technologically advanced maturity is increasingly opposed to the principles of the Church and “Middle Age thinking”. Over generations the prevailing culture has worn down good folk . People no longer recognize sin and that disease has invaded the Church.
    Twisting the Word is very dangerous stuff. Many souls will be lost through misdirection.

  12. jaykay says:

    Matt Robare: yep, that chimes with me, as a hiker! And he also “accompanied” the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, but it wasn’t long before He put them on the right path, fairly robustly as I recall: ” O foolish and slow of heart…”

  13. Kerry says:

    The Eye of the Tiber could have a lot of fun recasting the America article. Switch out the woman at the well with Christ in the wilderness for 40 days and his meeting with Satan. They might not know who is supposed to accompany whom.

  14. Deacon Ed Peitler says:

    Does anyone doubt for one minute that Canelli is acting as an agent and unofficial spokesman for a more nefarious churchman?

  15. Blas says:

    Father, I see in that episode even more contradiction with chapter VIII of AL. The episode start with the discussion about who can give water and what kind of water, at one point the samaritan challenge Jesus “well give me that water”. It is at that point that Jesus ask “Go, call your husband, and come back” and with that call start the conversion of the samaritan, Jesus is giving her the water that will make her will never be thirsty again. That is living in God grace.

  16. JonPatrick says:

    MrTipsNZ, Chicago has St. John Cantius with wonderful music and liturgy. It also has fine restaurants, the Art Institute, Millenium Park, and the world champion Chicago Cubs!

  17. Unwilling says:

    “By eating with them He was not [and it would be absurd to think he was] acquiescing to their sin.”
    The implicit reductio ad absurdum probably has no traction with them; for, contrary to traditional expectation, they would accept the analogy of the two cases and embrace the conclusion that Jesus found no problem with her pseudo-pentagamy. [To argue against this kind of nonsense risks casting pearls….]

  18. WVC says:

    Also, MrTipsNZ , don’t forget that Chicago is home to the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest. Also, without Chicago we wouldn’t have gotten the Blues Brothers movie, and that would be a real travesty.

  19. Titus says:

    Interestingly, the Fathers whom St. Thomas excerpts in the Catena Aurea regarding this passage say almost nothing about the Samaritan woman’s marital situation vis-a-vis the nature of marriage. Their commentary focuses overwhelmingly on the spiritual symbolism of the conversation. Attempting to utilize the passage to change the understanding of the nature of marriage and the law governing it that flows from other elements of Scripture would appear, then, to be contrary to the sense of the Fathers, if St. Thomas has been representative in his selections.

  20. un-ionized says:

    what does pseudo-pentagamy mean?

  21. retiredtobedlam says:

    As soon as I’m elected the new Pope (we’ll work out the details of that step later) I will appoint the 4 Cardinals to do a Fraternal Visitation to the Jesuit Order, and appoint Wilson Miscamble of the Holy Cross Fathers as their deputy to look at “Catholic” Jesuit Universities in the USA. We haven’t had a good “suppression” since the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and its about time.

  22. benedetta says:

    A lot of these folks talk a good game but the reality is sadly aberrant to their self representations of pastoral and merciful. Their counsels are often found to be personally bitter towards women, unhelpful to marriages, discouraging of faith in youth, willing to cause suffering in others for the sake of being ideologically righteous prideful and power mongering and geared toward the convenience of making persons in need who deserve guidance and aid from a Church that represents itself as administering these just feel that the only solution for them is to shut up go away and cease to exist.

  23. The Masked Chicken says:

    I cannot stand this twisting of Scripture. Christ is not accompanying the woman. To accompany means that the person one is accompanying is LEADING the journey. There is an old Ignatian quote, that I can’t find, to the effect that one must lead another by using their own means, but that sort of spiritual jujitsu can backfire in horrible ways. In Ignatian spirituality, the notion of, “accompaniment,” has a certain pedigree. There is a review article by Fr. Simon Decloux, SJ, from 2005:

    http://www.sjweb.info/documents/cis/pdfenglish/200510802en.pdf

    I must, however, in fairness, discuss in detail John 4: 1 – 42 (The Woman at the Well), to show why it is the woman who is accompanying Jesus, not the other way, around. In Ignatian spirituality, as I understand it, at least, the one accompanying is, really, a crypto-leader and not really accompanying the other person as the term is, ordinarily, used. The article by Decloux makes that clear. That may be a source of some of the confusion. There is no real accompaniment going on, except in the sense that a teacher “accompanies” a student as the student struggles – but that is a trick of language, which even Scripture rejects (“No student is above his Master.”). This is not accompaniment, but course-correcting, when the student goes off track. Obviously, it is the teacher who has to take over the controls at that point, so it is the teacher who is leading. The student accompanies him. Again, to my mind, this way of phrasing the venerable Ignatian spirituality obscures what is really going on. It is a very poor way to explain the relationship between a spiritual director (he directs) and a directee (he is dirrected), which is, essentially, what all of this accompanying nonsense is supposed to capture.

    So, let’s dissect the passage. This whole chapter of St. John’s Gospel is not about accompanying. It is about, well, actually, it is about water (not well water!). It begins:

    [1]Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
    [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),
    [3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

    Why did Jesus leave when he knew that the Pharisees had heard that he making and baptizing more disciples than John? This was the baptism of John the Baptist, not sacramental baptism, yet (this is pre-Pentecost), so it involved immersion in water. In the preceding two chapters, Jesus turns water into wine at Cana in Galilee, then goes to Jerusalem for Passover, where he meets Nicodemus and discuss worshipping in Spirit and about being born again, from above (this will be recalled in the Woman at the Well). Jesus, then goes about cleansing the Temple and baptizing (or, at least his disciples did) with water near where John the Baptist was baptizing. He had already angered the Pharisees by cleansing the Temple and, now, with the public baptisms, his fame was beginning to spread. Thus, to prevent confrontation with the Pharisees before it was time (this was at the beginning of his ministry), he decided to go back to Galilee.

    [4] He had to pass through Samar’ia.
    [5] So he came to a city of Samar’ia, called Sy’char, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
    [6] Jacob’s well was there, and so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.

    Jacob’s well was on the land Jacob gave to Joseph (Genesis 48:22). The well is about 135 ft. deep and is a source of water in exceptional cases. There is, in fact, a spring near-by from which most people get their water. It is possible that the woman came to the well because she did not want to be seen. So, that the woman was in an embarrassing situation could be inferred from her behavior. Also, she was UNACCOMPANIED by a man. This will become important, later. This is the only mention of the town of Sychar in Scripture. Jesus sitting down is, almost alway, a sign that he will be teaching. It is about noon.

    [7]There came a woman of Samar’ia to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.”
    [8] For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.

    This is reminiscent of Elijah asking the widow for a cake. Now, clearly, Jesus is leading. He is not accompanying, here.

    [9] The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar’ia?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.

    How did the woman know that Jesus was a Jew and not a Samaritan man? It could be by his language or from this baptizing fame. If Jesus told her, it is not recorded.

    [10] Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, `Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
    [11] The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?
    [12] Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?”
    [13] Jesus said to her, “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again,
    [14] but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
    [15] The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”

    This is virtually identical to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.:

    [25] When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?”
    [26] Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
    [27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal….”
    [31] Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'”
    [32] Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
    [33] For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”
    [34] They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
    [35] Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst….
    [47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
    [48] I am the bread of life.
    [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
    [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
    [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
    [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
    [53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
    [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
    [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
    [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
    [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
    [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever…”
    [63]It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

    This is sacramental language. At the beginning of this chapter, Jesus is baptizing and the living water if baptism is being foreshadowed, here, just as the Eucharist will be in chapter 6.

    Then, Jesus does something, apparently unrelated.

    [16]Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
    [17] The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, `I have no husband’;
    [18] for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.”

    Jesus did not ask the woman to get her husband because she was unaccompanied. He was more than willing to ask her for a drink long before this. Jesus is not accompanying her. He is about to talk about spirit and truth, so he asks her a question to see if she will speak the truth. He is testing her, not accompanying her.

    This is the second reference to sacraments. In this chapter, the only two sacraments which can be administered without a priest in an emergency are mentioned – baptism and marriage. Baptism gives new spiritual life and marriage lead to new physical life. These are the sacraments of birthing. They both involve bring washed in water, either in a pool or in the womb.

    [19] The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
    [20] Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
    [21] Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
    [22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
    [23] But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him.
    [24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
    [25] The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things.”
    [26] Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

    This is a straight up mirroring of the dialogue Jesus has with Nathaniel, when he told him something about himself (seeing him under a fig tree) that he could not know, leading Nathaniel to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. In this case, Jesus show the woman, “all things,” so as to not leave any doubt in her mind that he is the Messiah. This is, also, the first time that Jesus explicitly states that he is the Messiah.

    Obviously, Jesus is leading the woman. He is not accompanying her. There is revelation, here, but not accompaniment. Notice that she never did give him a drink of water.

    [27] Just then his disciples came. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but none said, “What do you wish?” or, “Why are you talking with her?”
    [28] So the woman left her water jar, and went away into the city, and said to the people,
    [29] “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?”
    [30] They went out of the city and were coming to him.

    Again, this is reminiscent of Nathaniel or being sought out by their cousins.

    [31]Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
    [32] But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
    [33] So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?”
    [34] Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.
    [35] Do you not say, `There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.
    [36] He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together.
    [37] For here the saying holds true, `One sows and another reaps.’
    [38] I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

    This is at once a foreshadowing of the Bread of Life discourse, priestly ordination, and baptism. This is sacramental language. Jesus, at every moment, is leading the conversation.

    [39]Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”
    [40] So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days.
    [41] And many more believed because of his word.
    [42] They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”
    [43]After the two days he departed to Galilee.

    Again, more Nathaniel mirroring.

    [44] For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.
    [45] So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they too had gone to the feast.
    [46]So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Caper’na-um there was an official whose son was ill.

    Finally, Jesus returns to Galilee, where the water was made wine.

    There is no accompanying going on, here. This is pure prophetic and sacramental language. If, if there had been accompaniment of the woman – if that had been the purpose of this chapter, then it would have reported that the woman either left her boyfriend or married him (if she could). Nowhere is this discussed. This cannot be the purpose of this chapter, so using this as an example of accompanying in the sense of a problem marriage is silly. This does not even satisfy the Ignatian model of direction, since Jesus says nowhere in this passage that living with a man out of wedlock is wrong. That is not non-judgmentalism. The Samaritan woman already knew that.

    The Chicken

  24. Unwilling says:

    [silly wry neologism] gamy=marriage; penta=five; pseudo=not real

  25. The Masked Chicken says:

    Andrew Guernsey, over at Rorate Caeli, has compiled a Denzinger-like list of historical pronouncements on divorce, remarriage, and the sacraments going from Biblical times to the present:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XKimKuzgHgbE9YsJXojwhiufsDosCURraly6mMXIxDE/edit

    The Chicken

  26. Y2Y says:

    “The Johannine account of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well has always been a favorite of mine for three reasons. First: (and I think this addresses some of the attempts at interpretation of “accompaniment”): the German theologian Rudolph Schnackenburg dissected the interaction in an article “Biblical Perspectives of Faith”; Jesus accompanies the woman on her journey to recognition; just look at her “labels” for Jesus: Jew, Sir, greater than our father Jacob, you are a prophet, can this be the Messiah. That’s what I think “accompany” means here. Second: this, I think, is the only account where Jesus meets a sinner and doesn’t admonish “sin no more.” Third: this is another example from the Scriptures where “those people” – outcasts – are the ones who have true faith.”

    Absolutely vile.

  27. benedetta says:

    In real life, meaning, reality, most of these guys never counsel or speak with women having crises of conscience. If they do they are terrifically snide, condescending, and even rant that one should do whatever they want, as if they are highly offended that they would be invited into a moral dilemma as the Church advertises and they themselves hold themselves out as doing. This is bad clericalism that is stating in advance that any person who gives thought to a moral issue here or of conscience should go away and not bother them and do whatever they wish. It’s like VII was great and people were enthused and then the bitter and harsh reality was mother and family hating in real time and being told to go away, the verbal back of the hand…told to you know, grow up, and get over, it, abort the child and leave us alone to forcefully demand of you what we wish and call it being active for “social justice”, whatever they define that as. Look, the reality is that these are the same folks who will not deign to get their hands dirty and take on the smell of the sheep. They dispense this mercy and leave others to pick up the pieces and clean up after their omissions and avoidance, and walk through smelling like roses. Give me a break.