Comments on: June Agitator

By: Guillermo Velazquez

Guillermo Velazquez — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:37:42 +0000

Well done jeff in your article “Exorcising the demons from jesus” it send me to the time when,
Jusus whas perseived as an outcast an “Agitator’, somebody that hang with the bad people. and it
gives me the set of mind of that time. beeing poesecuted and with a price on his head,himself running all the thime dealing with the lowest of the low. robbers an murderers.prostitutes him beeing looked as a demonm himself ( I see what you mean).He is thinking very insane and lowest toughts .thank you for this corageous and powerfull message jeff.

By: joyce parkhurst

joyce parkhurst — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:04:21 +0000

I enjoyed the article on The Jailing of Willie Koads by Allison McGillvry very much. The stories and reflections about our friends on the street and the guests in the house are very meaningful for me. Thank you Allison.

By: M.Driscoll

M.Driscoll — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:38:34 +0000

What an insightful commentary on the Cannanite woman. I’ve always loved her effrontery; now I have a fuller context, exorcising Jesus’ male bias. Thank you Jeff!

By: Ross S. Heckmann

Ross S. Heckmann — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:12:41 +0000

The Catholic Agitator is one of the extremely few publications I get which I read from cover to cover. Ordinarly I get a lot out of it. (Sorry I haven’t said so before!) I was therefore very disappointed to get the June 2008 issue, in particular, the artwork and article regarding Jesus’ healing of the Canannite woman (Matt. 15:21-28). (The article was entitled “Exorcising the Demons from Jesus.”) Jesus stated to her, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (NRSV). Why must it be assumed that Jesus stated this because he had demons that needed to be exorcised (particulary because it would involve a sudden change in attitudes he expressed before and after her healing)? Why shouldn’t it be assumed instead that he was testing her faith? Doesn’t God do that all the time, in many ways, some of them far rougher and more protracted than that experienced by the Canaanite woman who was healed (something I’m sure you would know better than I)? When actions have more than one possible explanation, charity generally requires that we adopt the more charitable explanation. Isn’t God entitled to at least the same consideration (and, indeed, a lot more than that)? I would be interested in any other comments and any replies to the comments. Thanks.