Category: Faith

Connecting the dots between faith and current happenings, Msgr. Charles Pope shares the light of Christ’s teachings.

Posted on

Simply Catholic: Why the Faith Ought to Trump Politics

I have long observed that many if not most Catholics are more passionate about their politics than their faith. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum and for moderates too. I will not say  that I am immune from the tendency either. It’s just so much easier to speak of the faith when it conforms to something in our political mindset or worldview, and it’s so easy to doubt it if it offends against it.

Instead of being the light by which we see all things, the Faith tends to get “tucked under” our worldview and political view, our careers and preferences. The world should be seen through faith. The world should be on trial by the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. But as it usually happens, the Church, and the Scriptures end up being on trial instead. In this situation Faith is not the priority, politics and the world are. In any conflict between the two, guess what usually has to give way?

Some examples and stories:

1. Abortion– The most common and perhaps most egregious example is the horrible scourge of abortion. Too many Catholics allow their politics to trump what they know is the consistent teaching of their Faith and the Church. It is a horrible thing too when we consider that 70 million Catholics in agreement on this issue would be hard to ignore politically. If even 10% showed up in Washington for the Pro-life March that would be 7 million people on the Mall and no media bias could ignore that many people. As it is we are woefully divided and the usual cause of this is politics. Most people of any political persuasion know Abortion is indefensible. But they line up on the issue more on political than moral reasoning. Saying that they merely want to stay out of people’s personal affairs does not add up since EVERY law or legal limit inserts itself into people’s personal affairs. The question is what should the limits be or not be and that gets back to politics. It is a sad truth that many Americans allow politics to over-ride the most crucial moral decision of the day. The Church teaching against abortion is not Republican, it is Catholic.

2. A Story– As a priest in Washington DC I am called on numerous occasions to meet with members of the DC City Council and also on fewer occasions, with Federal officials. Most recently I was meeting with a certain City official over the issue of recognizing so-called Same-sex “Marriage.” I explained to him why the Church opposed such a change in the Law. I remember well what he said to me and though the quote is not exact it’s pretty close, “Father, I know what your Church teaches. But I am a politician, I was not born yesterday and I have read the polls. Almost half of your people don’t agree with your teachings about homosexuality. You claim to speak for them but you don’t speak for at least half,  and I think,  more than half. Don’t tell me how your people are going to vote. I already know how they are going to vote. You don’t represent most of them and surely not the votes I count on to win.” I guess I could have gone on to distinguish between the beliefs and voting patterns of Church-going vs. non-Church- going Catholics but that would merely have led to the fact that we rather pathetically can count on only 30% of Catholics to even come to Church, let alone vote with us. Truth was he DID know his business and he can count votes better than I can. How different would this scenario have been if Catholics were Catholics first before anything else and did vote based on their faith and what the Church teaches about marriage rather than other things such as the wallet or politcal party or personal views? Had that been the case he probably would have asked to me with me and other clergy.

3. What party is the Catholic Church?– Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats.”

Now I hear the objections even now that go something like: “Abortion is doctrinal, Capital Punishment is not. True enough. But it is only solemn and doctrinal things that should claim our loyalties? What if the Pope and Bishops as our teachers and leaders are asking us to stand together on an important issue in the battle against the culture of death?…an issue that affects our credibility (rightly or wrongly) with the world on the matter of abortion? Even if there are proper distinctions to be made, what if the Pope and bishops have determined that, as a pastoral strategy, we ought to oppose the State taking life under either of these circumstances?  Does that have any bearing on the issue? And if not, why not? I am aware that some would not attribute their disagreement here to politics at all but rather are clinging to distinction that the Church does not absolutely forbid capital punishment. But is absolute forbiddance the only source of our unity? Is it not enough that the Catechism, recent Popes and the Bishops see the need for recourse to capital punishment as practically non existent (cf  CCC # 2267). Scripture does ascribe the right of capital punishment to the State. But the Church, through her leaders,  has asked the State to have little or no recourse to this right. What if our stance on capital punishment was not rooted in liberalism but in Catholicism? And what if we stood together with the Church on this issue out of respect for what our legitimate teachers and leaders have asked us to do as a prudential rather than a doctrinal matter? Not as democrats, but as Catholics.

And as regards immigration. I can almost guarantee you that even Bishop’s who are predictably conservative on many issues aren’t going to line up with a strong law and order approach to this issue. There are Catholic and Biblical principles which call us to welcome the stranger and the foreigner. Legality is an important issue as well but it is complicated. Many who are currently here illegally came here legally and their status expired and the process of legalization is bewildering. Not all illegal immigrants have flagrantly violated the law in coming here. Hence, while upholding a respect for law the instinct of the Church is also to attend to the humanity of the problem which is often complex. The Catholic position on this will not be (cannot be) strict, law and order, enforcement. The posture for a Catholic ought to be, why does the Church teach in this manner and why are the Bishops as teachers of the faith taking this position? The reasons are Catholic not Democratic.

4. A story– Some few ago when I was pastor of St. Thomas More Parish I joshed with the congregation there, who, by the way, love me exceedingly more that I deserved. But I said, in jest but not without some truth: “When I preached against abortion some said, ‘He is a Republican.’ When I spoke against Capital Punishment some here said, ‘He is a Democrat.’ When I said, Gay marriage is wrong and that Children should not be given condoms some said, ‘See, he is a Republican!’ Then I preached along with the Pope and Bishops expressing concern about going to War in Iraq so quickly, and when we raised millions to build a new Recreation Center for the kids of Southeast, some said, ‘He is a Democrat!’  And all this time I just thought I was a Catholic Christian. “

Well, I may have stirred up a hornet’s nest here. But true Catholicism is radical. It cannot be tamed by any political party or mindset. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate it, and some will come to love the faith as it is and the Church as she is. In the end we are to be those who are “simply Catholic.”  Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt.

You will surely want to add some distinctions, and a few “yes-buts.”  That’s what comments are for. But be careful not to distinguish the main point to death which is that in the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.

In this video, Cardinal George and the Chicago Archdiocese are making a similar point very creatively:

Posted on

The Price of Our Faith: Do You Know How the Apostles Were Martyred?

It is too easy to take our faith for granted. We can complain at the slightest requirement. Perhaps the Mass is “too long.” Perhaps the air conditioning or PA system is less than ideal. Perhaps the Church’s moral teaching seems too demanding or “out of touch” with modern thinking. Perhaps some  aspect of the Liturgy seems “boring.” And so forth.

But have you recalled that martyrs died so you could have this faith? Every one of the Apostles except St. John the Evangelist died a martyr’s death for our capacity to know that Jesus is Lord and that he died and rose for us.

  1. Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross after being scourged. He preached to his tormentors to his last breath.
  2. Bartholomew had his skin flayed off
  3. James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded
  4. James the Younger was cast off the Southeast pinnacle of the Temple. When the 100 foot drop did not fully kill him he was beat to death with clubs.
  5. John the Evangelist was thrown into a vat of boiling oil and when he miraculously survived he was sent to prison on the Isle where Patmos where he died years later.
  6. Jude was shot through with arrows
  7. Simon was Crucified
  8. Matthew was killed with a sword
  9. Phillip was beheaded
  10. Peter was crucified upside down.
  11. Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear
  12. St. Matthias was stoned then beheaded.
  13. Mark was dragged to death by horses.
  14. Paul was beheaded
  15. Luke was Hanged to death

What will you suffer for handing on the faith? The martyrs went to death to proclaim Christ but some us cannot bear if some one merely raises an eyebrow at us or scoffs. Merely being less popular or excluded from  the world’s admiration is too high a price for many. The next time you recite the Creed at Mass remember those words are written with blood. The next time you kids protest going to Church or your teenager scorns the faith you insist they practice, remember that others have faced far more formidable does than an unhappy child. The next time you are challenged for your faith and merely have to  risk ridicule, remember others suffered (and still suffer) prison. Many were (and still are) killed for it.

Remember the Martyrs and stay faithful, dedicated and courageous. Stand firm in the Faith and never give up.

Posted on

Why am I here?

Last week, a colleague asked me, “If there is one truth that you want young adults to know, what would it be?”

My answer?

“God has created me for some definite service. He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another.” -Cardinal Newman

Young adulthood is one of transition, uncertainty, and longing. It may be moving to a new city, searching for employment after graduation, or praying God sends you your spouse…soon!

Many young adults make life decision on their own, determine what success is on their own, pursue relationships with their own criteria without asking what God wills. And often, they end up feeling lost, empty, and hurt.

If young adults (or anyone for that matter) knew in their hearts that God loves them and has a unique plan for them, they could move forward into adulthood with confidence and joy! Here are some tips to consider if you are at a crossroad in your life:

* Remove mortal sin from your life with the help of a spiritual director and/or Catholic psychotherapist. It’s impossible for grace to get in if sin is blocking the way.

* Develop a prayer life through daily Scripture meditation, weekly Mass (or more often), and monthly confession (or more often). Jesus is in the sacraments; go find Him there!

* Learn to correctly discern how the Holy Spirit is guiding you. Recommended reading includes: “Finding God’s Will For You” by St. Francis de Sales and “What Does God Want?: A Practical Guide to Making Decisions” by Fr. Michael Scanlan.

Feel free to share with the blog how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have guided you toward God’s Will!

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.” John 14:16

Posted on

A Distinction without a Difference, Or a Distinction to Die For? Wrestling with the Subtleties of John 21:16 – Peter Do you Love Me

One of the great indoor sports of New Testament Biblical Scholarship is how to interpret the subtleties in the dialogue between Jesus and Peter in today’s Gospel. It is the classic interaction wherein Jesus asks, “Peter do you love me?” And Peter responds “Yes, Lord you know that I love you.” This exchange occurs three times. But to us who read the passage in English some of the subtle distinctions in vocabulary are lost. There is an interplay between two Greek words for love, Agapas and Philo. Jesus asks of Peter’s love with one word, but Peter responds with another. There is also a subtle shift in the use of another verb meaning “to know.” Peter moves from odias  to ginoskeis. Both can be translated “you know” but again the question is why the shift and how should this be interpreted?

No one disputes these  facts about the Greek text. Allow me to reproduce the well known dialogue with the distinctions stitched in:

Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileis) me?”
Peter: “Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I love (philo) You.”

But there are the facts. But here is where the debate begins. The central questions are these:

  1. Is there any real distinction to be made between agapas and philo? Or is it a distinction without a difference?
  2. Although modern Christians make a sharp distinction between agape love and filial (philo) love, was such a distinction operative in ancient Greek or where these words merely synonyms that were simply interchangeable?
  3. If so, why does John and the Holy Spirit record these different words for love? Is there really no purpose at all?
  4. And why does John shift from using the verb odias (you know) to ginoskeis? the same questions would prevail.

The answers to these questions admit of many possible answers. Now if you put three Greek scholars (or three scripture scholars) in a room together you’re going to have at least 17 opinions. But for the sake of brevity let me set forth two basic opinions or interpretations:

1. The use of different words for love is highly significant. Jesus is asking Peter for agape love. Agape love being  the highest and most spiritual love wherein Peter is called to Love Jesus above all things and all people, including himself. But Peter, finally being honest says to Jesus in effect, Lord you know that I love you (only) with brotherly love (philo se).  Jesus is not disappointed for entrusts the role of chief Shepherd to Peter anyway. But again he asks for agape love and Peter answers the same. A third time Jesus asks, but this time he comes to Peter’s level and says, in effect, “OK Peter then do you love me with brotherly love (phileis me)?”

And this all makes Peter sad who now becomes more emphatic and says  Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I (only) love with brotherly love (philo). Note here that Peter’s exasperation includes a shift in the verb “know.” He shifts from the verb oidas (meaning more literally “you have seen”) to the verb ginoskeis (meaning a deeper sort or perception that includes understanding).

So perhaps the final sentence translated with these distinctions in mind would read: “Lord! You have seen everything; and you understand that I (only) love you with brotherly love.”  The Lord then goes on to tell Peter that one day he will die a martyr’s death. Almost as if to say, “Peter I DO understand that you only love me now with brotherly love. But there will come a day when you will finally be willing to die for me and you will give over your life. Then you will truly be able to say that you love me with Agape love.”

This first opinion obviously takes the distinctions in the Greek text as very significant and interprets them to the max. It results in a beautifully pastoral scene wherein Jesus and Peter have a very poignant and honest conversation.

2. The second opinion or interpretation is there is no significance in the use of different Greek verbs for love or know. The main reason for this opinion is rooted in the view that among Greek speakers of the First Century there is no evidence that they used these verbs to mean significantly different things. It is claimed that Agape was not understood in the early Centuries of the Church as God-like, unconditional love. That meaning came only later and then only among Christians, not among pagans.

There seems to be a scriptural basis for the fact that the early Christians had not reserved apape and philo for the exclusive meanings they had later. For example “agapao” is sometimes used in the New Testament  for less God-like loves. Two examples are the Pharisees loving the front seats in the synagogues (Luke 11:43) and Paul’s indication that Demas had deserted him, because he loved this world (2 Tim 4:10). Further, God’s love is sometimes described using “phileo“, as when he is said to love humanity (John 16:27) or even once when the Father is said to love Jesus (John 5:20).

More evidence is also deduced from the silence of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church who do not make mention of this distinction in the verbs for love when they comment on this passage. One would think that had the subtle distinctions been significant they would surely have dwelt upon it.

 Hence, rooting itself in historical data this second opinion and interpretation sees little significance if any in the fact that Jesus and Peter are using different words for love.

So there it is. The great indoor sport of Scripture Scholarship: understanding and interpreting the subtleties of John 21:15ff. For myself I will say that while number 2 seems a compelling argument against opinion 1, I will also say that I cannot wholly reject that,  if opinion 1 isn’t true,  it OUGHT to be. I find it strange that these different verbs are being used and that we are to conclude absolutely nothing from it. The subtle details of John’s Gospel are almost never without purpose. SOMETHING is going on here that we ought not ignore. Peter and Jesus are subtly interacting here. There is a movement in their conversation that involves a give and take that is instructive for us.

It also remains a fact that not all Greek Scholars accept that Agape and Philo were simply synonyms in the First Century.

The silence of the Greek speaking Fathers is surely significant. But it also remains true that Scriptural interpretation did not end with the death of the last Father. Further, I have found that I, who speak a little German am sometimes better able to appreciate the clever subtleties of German vocabulary than the those for whom  it is the mother tongue. At a certain point we can become rather unreflective about the subtle distinctions of the words we use and it takes an outsider to call them to our attention. I never really appreciated the more subtle meanings of English words until I studied Latin.

Hence, for me it is still helpful to see the distinctions in this text even if some historical purists find no room for them. I simply cannot avoid that a key message is available to us in the subtle shifts in vocabulary here. As always, I value your comments and additions to this post. Do we have here a distinction without a difference, a distinction to die for or something in between? Let me know what you think!

Posted on

Seeing is NOT Believing. It is Only Seeing

Some people say that if they could see they would believe. But seeing is not believing, seeing is only seeing. Scripture says Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). It also says Although you have not seen him you love him; even though you do not see him now yet believe in him  (1 Peter 1:8). It is true that Jesus says to Thomas, You believe in me Thomas becuase you have seen me, but blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Yet as both St. Gregory (Homilia26) and St. Thomas Aquinas (II, IIae 1.4) point out, Thomas saw one thing and believed another. He saw the man which required no faith, but confessed Jesus to be Lord and God which required faith and cannot be “seen.” So again, as Scripture says, We walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7)

And yet  many people often say, if only I could have been alive and have seen Jesus workmiracles, I would believe more. Maybe, maybe not, because seeing is only seeing. Seeing even impossible things doesn’t necessarily make a person believe. Consider the video just below. What you will see in it will look impossible. And yet it is happening before your very eyes. I have been to live magic shows and seen the same thing. People seem to vanish into thin air or instantly change appearance. Is it a miracle or just some fancy illusion? Most people, even upon seeing what looks like it can only be a miracle, usually conclude that it is a trick or that there is “some way they do that.”

Now remove these magicians in the video and go with me back in time as Jesus works a miracle. Presume for a moment that you’ve never met Jesus or heard of him. Yet watch him cast out blindness or enable a paralyzed man to walk. Is it a miracle, or is it a clever trick? Should you really believe his claims to be from God and to be God based on these wonderful works? Has Jesus staged this well or is he really the Son of God? You see? It still takes faith doesn’t it? Simply seeing miracles isn’t enough. You just can’t substitute for faith, it is an absolute requirement to accept who Jesus is. Miracles can help but seeing is not believing, it’s only seeing. In the end you have to decide: fancy trick or real miracle? Son of God or just a skilled illusionist?

Remember too, Jesus did not work miracles to “cause” faith but to confirm it. When faith was lacking Jesus did not work miracles. For example it is said of him when he was in Nazareth, He could work no miracles there except to cure a few sick, so much did their lack of faith disturb him. (Mk 6:5). Further, Jesus would often inquire of a person’s faith or draw it out before working a miracle (eg. Mat 9:28; Jn 11:26; Mat 15:27; Matt 8:10; inter al.) In the end miracles are not the cause of faith, they are the result of it. Likewise, seeing is not the cause of faith but does result from it to some extent. We see many things by faith.

Watch this video and see what look like realmiracles before your very eyes. But pay attention to what your mind does and how quickly you can dismiss the visual evidence. You do not conclude that these people are gods because of what they do. Seeing even fantastic things just isn’t enough. In this case they likely are not miracles, just very well done illusions. But many saw  Jesus work wonders which really were miracles and it was not enough. In the end you have to have faith. In other words, some people think if only God would work miracles in their life, they could believe. But miracles alone cannot bring faith because seeing is not believing it is only seeing.

Cumulative evidence can bring us to accept God’s existence as a reasonable proposition but only faith can really lead us to believe all that God has said. Pray for the gift of faith and you will see miracles, and more!

Posted on

Reducing Faith to a Flu Shot?

It is tragic to me as a Catholic priest that many parents bring their children to baptism but nothing else and think all the while that they have done all that they should. Almost as though baptism was no more than a flu shot: Take it and forget it. As you might imagine I am very firm in my pre-baptismal catechesis to rebuke such a notion.

Baptism is the beginning, not the end: Let me ask you, is it enough to give birth to a child and think your work is over?  Hah!…It has just begun!  We cannot simply bring children to birth, we have to feed, cloth, teach and care for them for years. It is the same with baptism, we cannot simply think that bringing  them to new life in baptism is all that is required. These children need to be taught about God and prayer, nourished on the Eucharist, bathed in confession, strengthened in confirmation, fed every Sunday at God’s altar, brought to maturity in Christ. Real faith is  not about a half-hour ritual many years ago. It begins there but it does not end there. The work for a Catholic parent has just begun. It is a work that is costly and cannot simply be reduced to a half-hour baptismal ceremony.

And if you’re a baptized Catholic don’t tell me that just getting baptized is all it took. If you get born and never eat your life is doomed. If you get born and never grow, learn to walk and talk, never reach maturity, something is terribly wrong.  Likewise, if you get baptized and never grow, never feed on the Eucharist, never learn of Jesus Christ and begin to speak of him, something is seriously wrong. You can’t reduce your faith to a simple half-hour ceremony, as though it were simply a flu shot. Real faith costs something, it demands change and effort from us. We have to die, so that Christ can live in us. This is costly.

The Protestant Version- Once Saved Always Saved: Some of the Protestants (but not all!) have a strange and quite unbiblical notion called “Once saved, always saved.” That is, once you get saved, you can never lose that salvation no matter what. Well, I don’t have time to tell you all the biblical texts that such a notion violates but really, tell me if that makes any sense at all. We all know that we can make commitments and sadly walk away from them. But here too, on display is the nation that faith costs nothing more than walking up in a service and saying the “sinners prayer” or some little ritual. No indeed, faith is more costly than that, we are called to give our life to Jesus.

We do not get our faith “on sale.” The kind of work Jesus has to do in our life is not inexpensive or minor. It cost Jesus his life, and, I’ve got news for you, it will cost you your life too. It’s not some simple ritual, not like a simple flu shot. The Catholic Theology of baptism is that we die with Christ and rise with him to new life. Did you hear that? We die. Truth be told, we all have a lot of things to die to: sin, ego, possessions, popularity, greed, resentments, hatred, sensuality and on and on. Give your heart to Jesus but realize, it’s not just some sort of inexpensive, harmless ritual. To embrace our baptism is to die to this world and all its pomp and glory, to die to our ego and all its exaggerated needs.

Watch this video, if you dare, it’s not for the lukewarm. The speaker is a Southern Baptist, Paul Washer. He is rebuking his fellow Baptists some of whom think God’s grace is cheap and can be reduced to a simple altar call or to a “Once saved always saved” notion. But we Catholics do it too. Some of us think all we need are a few rituals and an occasional prayer. But the sacraments are more than this, they are not mere rituals, they are meant to be transformative realities. Sacraments cost Jesus everything, and, if you are serious about them, they will cost you too, and effect a radical transformation that isn’t always easy and costs us something. Faith and the sacraments  are more than a flu shot.

Posted on

Rescuing Hope

Hope is one of those words (like love) that has to be rescued from a world that has overused and misused it for so long that its original meaning is almost lost. Hope has come to mean something amounting to a vague wish for something or a substitute for the word “maybe.” For example a person might say, “I hope it doesn’t rain tomorrow.” Usually what hope means here is that “I wish it wouldn’t rain,” or “It probably will rain but it sure would be nice if it didn’t.”  Another example: A person is asked, “Will you be at the meeting tomorrow?”  And they respond, “I hope so.” But what this expression most often means “Maybe I’ll be there.” In both examples, doubt clouds the use of the word, the desired outcome seems unlikely. It is true the word hope is not always used in rather doubtful situations but too often it merely expresses a wish whose outcome is more doubtful than likely, when things could go either way.

I cannot set forth a whole treatise on hope here but would like to set forth certain teaching to try and rescue hope from it’s secular meaning or at least distinguish the Theological Virtue of Hope from secular hope.

The Theological Virtue of Hope is Confident Expectation – And this brings us to the theological meaning of the word hope which is a much more vigorous word in its religious setting. The definition I memorized of hope back in Seminary is the older one in use prior to the current Catechism but I list it here since it captures the vigorous quality of the word:

Hope is the Theological Virtue wherein one confidently expects God’s help in attaining eternal salvation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Defines Hope in the following way :

The theological virtue by which we desire and expect from God both eternal life and the grace we need to attain it (Glossary, cf # 1817)

Notice first of all how much more vigorous hope is in these definition. It is a “confident expectation.”  The Catechism in # 1817 quotes from the letter to the Hebrews which says, Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Heb 10:23). This is more than a vague wish of something that is unlikely or could possibly go either way. This is more than a “maybe God will save us.” Rather it is vigorous because the One who has promised is trustworthy, true and able. It is also vigorous because true hope is a Theological Virtue. That is to say it is infused into the soul of the believer by God himself. Hence, although it interacts with our human nature and builds on it, it does not wholly depend on our mood or temperament.

The Theological Virtue of Hope has God for its proper object – St. Thomas Aquinas makes it very clear that eternal happiness with God  is the proper and true object and purpose of hope: The hope of which we now speak attains God by leaning on his help….[and] the good which we ought to hope for from God properly and chiefly is the infinite good…For we should hope from Him nothing less that Himself….Therefore the proper and principle object of hope is eternal happiness (II,IIae, 17.2). Both definitions above also make this clear. With this in mind we can see that “hope” has suffered the same fate as the word “love.” Too often people say, “I Love God…..I love my wife….I love my new car.” Obviously love has lost its meaning through overuse and misuse. So to with hope. We say, “I hope in God and to be with him eternally.” And then we say, “I hope it doesn’t rain.”  But theologically hope does not pertain to things like rain, the outcome of  football games, or to getting a raise, etc. Hope in Theology always has God for it’s object. I have no thought that we will ever  get love and hope back to their proper objects and context but mention their origin so that we can understand that when the Church and Scripture use these words they do not mean them in the flat and often vacuous way the world does.

The Theological Virtue of Hope pertains to what we do not yet fully see or possess. – Though hope is confident expectation it is not absolute fact or current possession which some of our Protestant Brethren assert when they claim a “once saved, always saved” philosophy. St. Paul writes of hope this way: For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Rom 8:24-25) In other words, if I were to say, “I hope I find my Bible.” and I then I find it and am holding it, hope vanishes. I don’t hope for what I already have. Hope pertains only to what I currently do not yet have or fully possess. I confidently expect that I will possess it one day for God has promised it, but I do not yet have it. I am not “saved” (past tense) as some Protestants assert but am justified through the Blood of Christ and am being saved (present active participle) as long as I hold to God’s unchanging hand by his Grace. Hence, hope is confident expectation,  but not possession.

This then leads us to the two primary sins against hope – As the previous point demonstrates, a careful balance is necessary. Confident expectation of God’s help is to be vigorous. But this vigorous and confident expectation must not suffer due to either excess or defect. St. Thomas as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguish two sins against hope: Despair and Presumption.

  1. Despair – By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice – for the Lord is faithful to his promises – and to his mercy. (CCC # 2091) While despair may have many complicated psychological motives it ultimately concludes that God cannot or will not save me or give the graces necessary to obtain the life he offers. Despair can pertain to thinking I will not go to heaven or, more immediately, that it is not possible live the holy life to which God summons us. Our modern world considers things like chastity, forgiveness, self control  etc.  to be unrealistic if not practically impossible. This is a form of despair because it denies  that God’s grace can equip, empower and enable people to live holy lives. But hope confidently expects from God the graces necessary to attain to eternal life. Hence this type of despair is a sin against hope. In final despair a person rejects the gift of confident expectation of God’s help by denying that God is willing or able to save them. Thus he or she sins against hope. St. Thomas in the Summa also links despair to the captial sins of lust and sloth.  The object of hope is a good that is possible by God’s grace but arduous to some extent. Now if bodily pleasures and preoccupations cause one to have a distaste for spiritual goods and thus cause a person to reject spiritual goods as “not worth the effort”  then he ceases to hope for them through lust. On the other hand there are some who,  seeing that something is possible but arduous,  grow sad and downcast and come to see it as impossible due to this sadness or aversion to significant change required. Thus they despair through sloth (cf II IIae 20.4).
  2. Presumption – There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit) (CCC # 2092) Among many in the house of faith (both Protestant and Catholic) the second form of presumption is quite evident. We have talked at great length in this blog about the standing presumption by many if not most that just about every one goes to heaven. At too many funerals bold canonizations take place. Confident expectation of God’s help is essential to hope but presumption sins against hope by in effect claiming to already have “in the bag” what God offers on condition. We must freely accept his transformative grace and by it attain to the holiness without which no one will see God (Heb 12:14). This requires a profound work of God to take place in us. It is freely and unconditionally offered but it must be fully accept by us. Our acceptance will lead to changes that many resist and God will not force. Presumption rejects the arduous nature of what we hope for and claims to already “have”  what is offered. In this way presumption sins against hope for once one has what they hope for,  hope ceases. Although they DO NOT have it, by claiming they DO have it,  hope dies in them, for who hopes for what he already has? (Rom 8:24). Clearly balance is required! Confidence yes, current possession or possession without condition, no. One of the best Scriptures against presumption is from Sirach:

Rely not on your strength in following the desires of your heart. Say not: “Who can prevail against me?” for the LORD will exact the punishment. Say not: “I have sinned, yet what has befallen me?” for the LORD bides his time. Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not: “Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.” For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath. Delay not your conversion to the LORD, put it not off from day to day; For suddenly his wrath flames forth; at the time of vengeance, you will be destroyed. Rely not upon deceitful wealth, for it will be no help on the day of wrath. Sirach 5:1-10

An Act of Hope:

O my God,
relying on Your almighty power
and infinite mercy and promises,
I hope to obtain
pardon for my sins,
the help of Your grace,
and life everlasting,
through the merits of Jesus Christ,
my Lord and Redeemer. Amen.

Posted on

Set Your House in Order! (in four easy steps)

There’s  a Gospel song written back in the 1950’s called “Jesus Hits Like an Atom Bomb!” It is a warning to be prepared for death. Here are a few of the lyrics:

Every body’s worried ’bout that Atom Bomb. No one seems worried about the Day my Lord shall come! Better set your house in order, He may be coming soon, and He’ll hit like an Atom Bomb when He comes!

Playful yet clear. But what does it mean to set your house in order? If we’re not careful we might come up with a long list of things to which we should attend. A long list might  tend to overwhelm and be difficult to remember. Perhaps this why Scripture gives a clear four-point plan that seems to well describe the Christian life. It is found in Acts 2. Peter has just preached a sermon where he warns his listeners to repent and believe the Good News. He said to them: “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:40-41). Now they are baptized and in the Church of the Living of God. (Notice too, that the verse does not say they said the “sinners prayer” to be saved, it says they were baptized). And unlike some of our Protestant brethren who hold a kind of “once saved, always saved” mentality, the text does not stop there.   These new disciples now have a life to lead that will help them be ready to meet God, that will help them to set their house in order. And so in the very next verse we read:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42)

So here is our “four-point plan” for setting our house in order once we have come to faith. There  are four components listed below, four pillars if you will. Please note that the text says that they devoted themselves to these four pillars of the Christian life. They did not merely do them occasionally, or when they felt like it, or when the time seemed right. They were consistent, they were devoted to this four-fold rule of life. Lets look at each pillar in turn as we consider how to set our house in order:

  1. The Apostles Teaching– This first pillar of the Christian life is fascinating not only for what  it says but also what it does not say. When we think of the “Apostles’ Teaching” we first think of the four Gospels and the the New Testament Epistles. And these would surely be true components of the Apostles’ teaching for a modern Christian. But notice that the text does not say that they devoted themselves to Scripture, but rather to the Apostles’  Teaching. For a Catholic,  the Apostolic Teaching consists not only in the New Testament Scriptures but also the Sacred Tradition which comes to us from the Apostles and which has been understood and articulated by the living Magisterium of the Church. The Protestants would largely interpret this first pillar as an exhortation to  read our Bible every day and base our lives on it. This is a true understanding but only partial .  The early Christians as you recall did not have the New Testament in final form from day one and could not have lived this text in such as way. The Bible as we now have it was not yet completed edited or canonized.  Yet they had received the Apostolic teaching through having it preached to them by the Apostles and their deputed representatives, the bishops, priests and deacons. St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter  (2 Thess 2:15). Therefore the Catholic application of this first pillar is truer and fuller wherein we are devoted to the Apostles teaching not in Scripture alone but also in Sacred Tradition as passed down and interpreted by the living magisterium of the Church. To live this first pillar with devotion means to set our house in order by carefully and diligently studying what the apostles handed on to us. We do this by the daily and devoted reading of Scripture and/or the diligent study of the faith through the Catechism or other approved manuals. We should make it a daily habit that we are reading scripture and studying the faith, attempting to grow in our knowledge of what God has revealed through his prophets and apostles and then basing our life on what we learn and repenting of what is not in line with the revealed truth.  Pillar number 1 is being devoted to the Apostles teaching.
  2. The  Fellowship – the word fellowship may be a little weak here as a translation of the Greek: τῇ κοινωνίᾳ (te koinonia). The more theological or sacred way of translating this word is probably ” a communion.” It would seem that members of a bowling league could have fellowship but the sacred gathering of the faithful in the reality called the “ekklesia” or “Church”  is better termed a “communion.” or in Latin “communio.” It is  a gathering into one of the members of Christ’s Body the Church, a communion also of Christ with his Bride the Church. The early Christians, according to this text devoted themselves to this communal gathering. Hence the second pillar of the Christian life whereby we are helped to get our house in order is “fellowship,”  or better, “communio.”   The Commandment is clear: Keep holy the Sabbath.  It doesn’t make sense to think that we can disregard one of the Ten Commandments and then claim our house is  in order. Some argue that this commandment does not say explicitly that we should be in Church on Sunday. But Leviticus 23:3 says regarding this Commandment, “You shall do no work and you shall keep sacred assembly, it is the Sabbath of the Lord.” Sacred assembly means “Church” it is the fellowship, the koinonia, the communio. No way around it. God expects us to be in his house on our Sabbath which is Sunday. The Book of Hebrews also says, “And let us not neglect to meet together regularly and to encourage one another, all the more since the Day draws near.”  See here how the Last “Day” and being prepared for it is linked to “meeting together regularly.”  So the second pillar of the Christian life is to get our house in order by getting to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day. In the Mass we both encourage others and are encouraged by them. We also receive instruction in the Word of God by the anointed and deputed ministers of that Word, the bishops, priests and deacons. We also fulfill the third pillar to which we now turn our attention
  3. The Breaking of the Bread – The phrase “the breaking of the bread” in the New Testament usually meant the reception of Holy Communion, or the Eucharist. The worthy receptionof Holy communion is directly connected to having our House in Order for there ae wonderful promises made to those who are faithful in this regard. Jesus makes a promise in John 6:40  that Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I will raise him up on the last day. That’s quite a promise in terms of being ready! Jesus is saying that frequent reception of the Eucharist is essential preparation for the Last Day. Jesus also warns us not to stay away from “the breaking of the bread” or Holy communion: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you (Jn 6:53). Without Holy Communion we’re not going to make it. Gotta receive regularly to be ready! We cannot claim that our house is in order i we willfully stay away from Holy Communion. By extension we must allow this reference to one sacrament (Holy Communion) to be a reference to all the Sacraments.  Clearly a Catholic approach to this third pillar of preparation would include bein baptized and confirmed. It would include weekly reception of Holy Communion, regular confession, anointing of the sick when necessary, and, where possible, the reception of Holy Matrimony or Holy Orders. The Sacraments are our spiritual medicine. We have a bad condition called concupiscence (a string inclination to sin). It is like spiritual high blood pressure or diabetes. Hence we have to take our medicine and be properly nourished. The sacraments, as our medicine help us to avoid dying from our sinful condition. So the Third pillar of the Christian life is to get our house in order by receiving Holy Communion worthily every Sunday and the other Sacraments at proper times.
  4. Prayer– This final pillar requires more of us than just saying our prayers in some sort of ritual sense. The Greek word here is προσευχαῖς (Proseuchais) and is best translated just as we have it here: “Prayers”  However the Greek root  proseuche is from pros = toward or immediately before + euchomai= to pray or vow.  But the prefix pros would convey the sense of being immediately before Him and hence the ideas of adoration, devotion, and worship are included. So prayer is understood more than just verbally uttering or saying one’s prayers. What is called for is worshipful, attentive and adoring prayer. Prayer is experiencing God’s presence. Jesus says of prayer that it is necessary for us lest we fall: Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation  (Matt 26:41). Hence the fourth pillar is prayer whereby we putt our house in order through regular, worshipful, attentive and adoring prayer of God which serves as a kind of medicine lest we fall deeply into temptation.

So here are four basic pillars of preparation for the day of Judgment. Follow them and even if Jesus “hits like an atom bomb” you’ll look up and be ready and know that your redemption is at hand.

Enjoy this video. Observe in it all the readiness preparations for the nuclear bombs that some of us who are older may remember. In a way all the preparations you see in the video are a little silly since diving under a desk wouldn’t  help much if an atom bomb really hit! But the preparations I have mentioned above ARE helpful since God gives them to us. If the people in this video we’re getting ready with measures that probably wouldn’t help much, how much more so for us who DO stand a chance since God himself instructs us!  Set your house in order!