First Reading:                    Sirach 3:17-18, 21, 29-30  (for documentation see 126C for 2004)

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 68:4-5, 6-7, 10-11 (cf. 11)

Second Reading:               Hebrews 12:18-19, 24  (for documentation see 126C for 2004)

Alleluia:                             Matthew 11:29ab

Gospel:                             Luke 14:1, 7-147



This Sunday, the Responsorial is, God, in your goodness, you have made a home for the poor.  Vainly do I look for this home for the poor with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN television.[1]  Arroyo acts like a Wall Street Branch of the Republican National Party.

On Friday, June 18, Arroyo began by pitting the United States Catholic Bishops Conference against the Catholic Health Association,[2] meeting approximately the same time.  The bishops stated they were right because they were right, that is, only they had the authority to speak for the Church, and not the Sisters.  The Sisters never claimed to speak for the Church.  To the credit of Arroyo, he played enough of a clip from President Barack Obama to make the case for why the Sisters supported the Health Care bill, namely, making a home for the poor.  Republicans are actively opposing the Health Care reform policy, while Democrats are actively supporting the same policy.

Where I remain irritated is with EWTN promotion of George Schwartz and his “morally responsible” mutual funds.  Schwartz came out actively to campaign for Republicans in the coming November elections, because that would be good for his Ave Maria funds.  Schwartz defined “morally responsible” in contrast to “socially responsible.”  By “morally responsible,” Schwartz meant nothing illegal, but without concern for a home for the poor—let alone healthcare, food, and pursuit of happiness.  That would be “socially responsible” and Democratic.

At a risk of over-simplification, Schwartz further defined “morally responsible” as anti-health care and anti-abortion.  Building bombs did not bother Schwartz as possibly morally reprehensible.  Schwartz cited Cardinal Adam Maida and the Magisterium as his guides for what was morally responsible.  Schwartz can be excused for thinking money first, last, and always, always morally responsible; but are the Cardinal and Magisterium correct to be drawn into that spider’s web?  I sensed an active distaste for Black Catholics and a home for the poor.



Annotated Bibliography

Material above the double line draws from material below the double line.  Those uninterested in scholarly and tangential details should stop reading here.  If they do, however, they may miss some interesting details.


Sirach 3:17-18, 21, 29-30

For documentation of the verses see 126C for 2004.


Psalm 68:4-5, 6-7, 10-11 (cf. 11)

Psalm 68:1-9

Matthew J. Lynch, "Zion's Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b—63:6 in Isaiah's Zion Traditions"[3]

Lynch asserts, “in many OT texts, Mount Sinai and later Mount Zion [used here] are understood to symbolize two important realities—the redemptive victories on which Yhwh’s suzerain claim existed over Israel and Yhwh’s universal kingship.”


Hebrews 12:18-19, 24

For documentation of the verses see 126C for 2004.


Different languages perceive reality differently.  The ancient Greeks used pronouns for emphasis.  Translating this emphasis from the original Greek into English is an object of the highlighting on the last page of the hard copy, not found on the web site.  The purpose of the highlighting is to transfer the Greek emphasis on personal pronouns into the English translation.  Pronouns highlighted in blue have greater emphasis than in English, but are not as intense as the words marked in red. 

Words marked with a vertical line, rather than fully highlighted, indicate places where the English translation lacks a pronoun corresponding to a pronoun in the Greek.  Words underlined with a horizontal line, indicate places where the English translation uses a noun, corresponding to a pronoun in the Greek. 

Anyone wanting a copy of the highlighted verses, please ask me at  Thank you.


In the Greek, only two words have a different emphasis from English:  Hebrews 12:19, be further addressed to them and 23, God the judge of all.



Heb 12:18-29

Gabriella Gelardini, review of James W. Thompson, Hebrews[4]

Gabriella reports that Thompson ignores vast amount of feminist scholarship on Hebrews.  Thompson ignores the scholarship that argues that Hebrews was attributed to Paul, but not written by him.  Thompson is unconvincing that Hebrews is addressed to a second generation Christian that has grown lethargic.  In this regard, Thompson does not account for Hebrews 12:18-29 [used here].


Heb 12:22

Christl M. Maier, "Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in Galatians 4:26"[5]

Maier argues that the Greek presents the earthly city of Jerusalem as contemporaneous with the heavenly Jerusalem.  My problem is that Maier bases his argument on Greek, ana, which I do not find in this passage.  For Maier the heavenly Jerusalem is not something in the future.


Heb 12:24

Joel N. Lohr, “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1-16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament”[6]

Joel argues that the New Testament Hebrews 12:24 [used here] and Matthew 23:34-36 make the blood of Abel sacred, for the first time.


Matthew 11:29ab

The Greek has different emphasis from the English.  Take my yoke upon you … and learn from me


Luke 14:1, 7-147

In the Greek, verse 1 has two anomalies:  in Jesus went to dine, the Greek uses a pronoun for Jesus; later in the verse, the Greek also uses a pronoun for the word people.  The end-copy of the readings has three vertical blue marks and one vertical red mark.  In verse 9 for the host who invited both of you, the Greek has the host who invited both you and him.  In verse 10 for when the host comes to you he may say, the Greek adds to you, later in the same verse the esteem of your companions is the esteem of all your companions in the Greek.  These are technical matters that should not affect the reading.

The following three words in verse 11, however, are more intense.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.


Luke 14:1-14

Jane S. Webster, review of Robert J. Karris, O.F.M., Eating Your Way through Luke's Gospel[7]

Webster writes that Karris writes with a light but scholarly touch.  Luke is the only Evangelist to write about Jesus eating with Pharisees, with whom Luke is sympathetic; pointing out that Paul was a Pharisee and omitting the role of the Pharisees in condemning Jesus to death.


Luke 14:10

Charles L. Quarles, "The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Research on the Historical Jesus of John Dominic Crossan"[8]

Quarles uses a grammatical argument to assert that purpose clauses in Luke, such as so that, are not necessarily products of Lucan redaction.  Lucan redaction is an argument used that Luke changed what happened to fit the argument.  Lucan redaction, therefore, does not suit the historical Jesus.  Quarles argues that purpose clauses in Luke are insufficient to deny historicity.



For more on sources see the Appendix file.  Personal Notes are on the web site at

[1] Raymond Arroyo, the Encore Presentation on ETWN, “The World Over,” Saturday, June 19, 2010.  I do not own the technology required to record this program, and accept the risk associated therewith.


[3] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 2 (April 2008) 248.


[4] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 2 (April 2010) 393.


[5] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3 (April 2007) 485.


[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 3 (April 2009) 494.


[7] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1 (April 2008) 151.


[8] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3 (April 2007) 533.