Category: Moral Life

Posted on

Distinguishing Between Healthy and Unhealthy Guilt

One of the trickier terrains to navigate in the moral world is the experience of guilt, in its sense of sorrow for sin.

On the one hand, we should experience an appropriate for sorrow, but on the other there are types of guilt that are self-destructive and inauthentic; these come either from our flesh or from the devil. Some forms of guilt can cause great harm and actually increase the frequency of sin due to the way they engender discouragement and self-disparagement rather than a chastened attitude confident of mercy, healing, and help. It is valuable to make some distinctions so that we can discern what sort of guilt is healthy and what sort is not.

St. Paul makes an important initial distinction in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Paul had rebuked the Corinthians in an earlier letter (esp. 1 Cor 5) both for sinning and for tolerating sin their midst. Evidently his rebuke stung many of them and caused them significant sorrow. Paul writes,

Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done (2 Cor 7:8-11).

Notice how Paul distinguishes between “Godly sorrow” and “worldly sorrow.” The way we can distinguish them, according to Paul, is by their fruits.

Godly sorrow has these fruits:

  1. Repentance
  2. Earnestness to do what is right – the Greek word used is σπουδή (spoude), which refers also to a kind of swiftness rooted in enthusiasm.
  3. Longing for what is right – the Greek text speaks of how this Godly sorrow gave them ἐπιπόθησις (epipothesis), which is not just an eager longing but also a strong affection for what is good and just.
  4. Indignation for sin
  5. Holy fear of sin

It’s not a bad harvest, to be sure! Godly sorrow brings forth good things and will be known by its fruits. Paul goes on to say that Godly sorrow is a sorrow that God intends and that does not harm us in any way. Further, it leaves no regrets.

We might also add that Godly sorrow is rooted in love: love for God and others and our experience of God’s love for us. The sorrow is real and often quite sharp, but since it is rooted in love, it makes us run to the beloved whom we have offended, rather than from Him (as we sulk).

“Godly sorrow” would also seem to be related to perfect contrition, to which we refer in the Act of Contrition when we say, I detest all of my sins, not only because I fear the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell, but most of all, because I have offended Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. Perfect contrition regards love whereas imperfect contrition is related to fear of punishment. Hence Godly sorrow would also seem to assist and increasingly to perfect contrition.

What of “worldly sorrow,” as Paul calls it? He says only that it “brings death.” Here we must surmise that whereas Godly sorrow gives life and restores relationship and love, worldly sorrow and guilt sever these things. When we have this kind of guilt or “worldly sorrow” it is not our sins that we hate so much as our own self.

In worldly sorrow, Satan has us where he wants us. Indeed, worldly sorrow is most often a fraud, for though it masquerades as humility it is often really pride, wherein a person thinks, in effect, how could I have done such a thing?

If we can know something by its fruits, then we should note that worldly sorrow often makes us run from God in avoidance rather than to Him in love. Further, it often provokes anger in us, making us resentful of God’s law and of the fact that we should have to seek mercy and humble ourselves to God or to a person whom we have offended. Rather than making us eager to repent, it often causes us to delay repentance out of embarrassment or resentment. Further, these sorts of attitudes can lead us to rationalizing our sin and minimizing its significance.

Other people go in a very different direction, one of self-loathing and despair. They may magnify what they have done or overcorrect by descending into an unhealthy scrupulosity, rooted in fear of punishment more than in the love of God.

These negative fruits, though they often masquerade as piety, tend to make sin even more frequent. If a person is self-loathing, despairing of his capacity to live in God’s love and experience His correction, then he has little strength upon which to draw. He sees only weakness and guilt, missing the love and the splendor of grace. Perceiving no basis from which to get better, he descends deeper into sin, running further from God in unholy fear; the cycle just gets deeper and darker. Thus St. Paul describes worldly sorrow as bringing death.

When one starts to see “fruits” of this sort, it is increasingly likely that it is worldly sorry, which produces all these death-directed drives. A confessor or spiritual director will often have to work long and hard to break these negative cycles and help the person to find and experience Godly sorrow, which brings with it real progress. Godly sorrow is a sorrow to be sure, but one rooted in love.

Discernment in regard to guilt, to sorrow for sin, is essential. St. Paul gives us some good principles by which to distinguish the very different sorrows, Godly and worldly: by their fruits. Satan loves cheap imitations. Wolf that he is, he loves to masquerade in sheep’s clothing. Learn to recognize Satan’s cheap, “imitation sorrow” by its fruits, which are death-directed rather than God-directed.

Posted on

Two Tragic Sins Seen in One Gospel Passage

The tragic Gospel passage about the death of St. John Baptist (which we read in daily Mass on Tuesday) is a study in two common sins that afflict most of us. While the results of these sinful tendencies may not always be this dire, the damage wrought is often significant. Let’s take a look at each in turn.

The sin of human respect – This is a sin wherein we fear human beings and their opinions of us more than we fear God and what He thinks of us.

John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” Herodias harbored a grudge against him and wanted to kill him but she was unable to do so. Herod feared John, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man, and kept him in custody. When he heard him speak he was very much perplexed, yet he liked to listen to him. She had an opportunity one day when Herod, on his birthday, gave a banquet for his courtiers, his military officers, and the leading men of Galilee. Herodias’ own daughter came in and performed a dance that delighted Herod and his guests. The king said to the girl, “Ask of me whatever you wish and I will grant it to you.” He even swore many things to her, “I will grant you whatever you ask of me, even to half of my kingdom.” … She replied … “I want you to give me at once on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was deeply distressed, but because of his oaths and the guests he did not wish to break his word to her. So he promptly dispatched an executioner with orders to bring back his head (Mark 6:18-27).

The key insight from this passage is that Herod Antipas (not Herod the Great, who was dead by this time), knew in his conscience that he was wrong and that what John the Baptist had said was right. He was living in an adulterous and legally incestuous relationship with Herodias, his “wife” but who was actually the wife of his brother Philip. Herod was disturbed by what John had said to him and John’s words also harmonized with the voice of God deep within him. Herod’s first sin was fearing Herodias’ wrath more than God’s righteous judgement. Because of this, he imprisoned John.

Herod then made things worse at a critical moment when his “wife,” through her daughter, demanded an evil thing: murder. Herod was deeply troubled by the request, knowing it to be wrong. But again, because he feared the opinion of his guests, Herodias, and her daughter, Herod consented to this evil act and had John beheaded. Herod feared man (his guests, Herodias, her daughter) more than God. This is the sin of human respect.

I have written more on that sin here: What Is the Sin of Human Respect?  For today’s reflection, however, simply note that this is a widespread human problem. It is amazing how afraid we are. Our fear is not so much of physical danger, but rather of being ridiculed, scorned, or rejected by others. Many people will do almost anything to be liked, to be esteemed, and to “belong.” A great many of our sins spring from this desperate “need” to please and to be respected by others. Meanwhile, we marginalize the Lord; His truth is suppressed or ignored and the reality that He alone will judge us one day is conveniently forgotten. This is the sin of human respect.

One might think that Herod, a powerful king, would not have been very concerned by what people thought of him. But how did he rise to such a position? Most likely by making compromises, ingratiating himself to others, and conforming to what was politic and prudent in a cunning and worldly way. One who spends his life doing such things does not suddenly find a spine. So Herod heard the voice of God in his conscience, but feared human beings even more.

The sin of “harboring a grudge”

John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” And so, Herodias harbored a grudge against him and wanted to kill him but was unable to do so (Mk 6:18-19).

Sadly, harboring grudges is a common problem for us. If not addressed, a grudge (which is a form of hatred or wrath) grows like a cancer.

The Greek text describes Herodias as ἐνεῖχεν αὐτῷ (eneichen auto). The Greek root enecho means “to hold in.” Auto is an intensifying pronoun. Thus, a rather literal translation is that Herodias “held in, within her deepest self” an anger against John. A Latin expression for having a grudge is estuans interius ira vehementi, which means “to be seething inside with destructive anger.”

Yes, Herodias was harboring a grudge, nursing wrath until the day when she could exact her revenge. Her simmering wrath grew until it burst forth in a murderous rage.

We have all harbored grudges against others, often as a response to having been hurt. Many stifle their rage just beneath the surface and continue to feed it. Though it robs them of internal peace, they somehow feel righteous in doing so, thinking that it honors the pain they have experienced in some strange way. In nursing this grudge, they encourage it to grow and draw energy from other more profitable human activity. They lie in wait for an opportunity to wound the one who hurt them, whether in small or large ways. It can even lead to wishing the other dead or to violent acts. Communities, families, races, and nations harbor grudges, too. The horrifying effects are seen in hatred, violence, war, and genocide.

Sometimes we are the victims of grudges. Others seem to hate us without cause. What was an unintentional offense, a misunderstanding, or a simple disagreement is wrathfully held by another who will not let go. No amount of clarification or even an apology will suffice.

Identity politics and the sharp political and ideological divisions of our time also contribute to a “take no prisoners” mentality, rooted in grudges and exceptionally harsh criticism.

One of the solutions to this tendency is to strive to cast our cares on God. If we have been hurt in some way, especially if we think it undeserved, God asks us to give it to Him. In effect He says, “I saw everything that happened. Give me your pain. I promise that if the person who hurt you dies unrepentant, he will answer to me for what he has done. Lay down your anger now and give it to me. I will carry it. I know where the truth lies” (see Rom 12:19, inter al).

Therefore, we should neither harbor grudges nor be too angry with those who harbor grudges against us. Give it all to God. Be free of the wrath of holding a grudge. Harboring a grudge or being unforgiving is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. 

Posted on

Is Anger Always a Sin?

In the Gospel for Wednesday of the 21st week of the year, we see Jesus make some pretty angry denunciations of the religious leaders of His day. In fact, throughout the Gospels Jesus manifests quite a lot of anger and issues many denunciations, often accompanied by the phrase, “Woe to you!” In this way, He spoke in much the same way as did all the prophets before Him.

We live in a culture that tends to be shocked by anger; it is almost reflexively rejected as counterproductive and usually sinful. But is anger always a sin?

The simple answer is no. In fact, in some situations anger is the appropriate response. Jesus displays quite a lot of anger in the Gospels, so we should be a bit more thoughtful about anger and make some distinctions.

Let’s begin with some of those distinctions.

  1. The internal experience or feeling of anger must be distinguished from its external manifestation. The internal experience of anger as a response to some external stimulus is not sinful because we cannot typically control the arising of feelings or passions. Anger usually arises out of some sense of threat. It signals to us that something is wrong, threatening, or inappropriate. Sometimes our perceptions are incorrect, but often they are not. In this sense, anger is not only sinless, but necessary, as it alerts us to the need to respond to something and gives us the energy to address it. It is a passion and an energy to set things right or to address a threatening situation.
  2. Anger can arise from less than holy reasons. Some of the things we fear we should not. Some of our fears are rooted in pride or an inordinate need for status and affirmation; some come from misplaced priorities. For example, we may be excessively concerned with money, property, popularity, or material things; this triggers inordinate fears about things that should not matter so much. This fear gives rise to feeling threatened with loss or diminishment. This in turn triggers anger, because we sense that something is wrong or threatening. But we ought not to be so concerned with such things because they are rooted in pride, vanity, and materialism. In this case, the anger may have a sinful dimension. The sin, though, is more rooted in the inordinate drives than in the anger itself. Even when anger arises from poor motives, it is still not an entirely voluntary response.
  3. External manifestations of anger can and do sometimes have a sinful dimension, particularly when they are beyond what is reasonable. If we express anger by hurling insults or physically injuring someone, we may well have sinned. Even here, though, there can be exceptions. For example, it is appropriate at times to physically defend oneself. However, it remains true that we live in thin-skinned times and people often take offense when they should not. Jesus did not often hesitate to describe his opponents in rather “vivid” ways.

Hence, of itself, anger is not a sin. The Scriptures say, Be angry but sin not (Ps 4:4). So anger is not the sin, but the expression of anger may be. Further, it is possible that some of our anger springs from less than holy sources.

When is the external manifestation of anger appropriate? Most simply put, when its object is appropriate and reasonable.

For example, it is appropriate to be angry when we see injustice. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. harnessed the appropriate anger of Americans toward the injustice of racism. He elicited it and focused its energy in productive ways. However, he was very careful to teach against violence and revenge. Anger did not give the civil rights protesters the right to hate. What Dr. King did was to bring out a just anger in many Americans. This anger in turn gave them the motivation to act creatively and energetically to resist injustice and effect change through non-violence. This sort of angry response was appropriate, reasonable, and even holy. The tradition of non-violent resistance to injustice remains strong in those who protest abortion and other sins, crimes, and social injustices. It is the anger that motivates within us the desire to speak out and the zeal to take action to rectify injustice.

There are, however, also those persons today who sadly respond to injustice with violent protests, and express hatred. In such protests, anger is no longer a creative energy that summons one to prophetically call for change and justice. Rather, it is vented as violent anger that manifests hate and often ends in destruction of property, harm to and even the death of other human beings. This is not worthy of any Christian notion of appropriate anger.

Anger is also appropriate and even necessary in some forms of fraternal correction. To fail to manifest some level of anger may lead to the false conclusion that the offense in question is not really all that significant. For example, if a child punches his brother in the mouth and knocks out a tooth, a parent ought to display an appropriate amount of anger in order to make it very clear that this behavior is unacceptable. Gently correcting the child in a smooth and dispassionate voice might lead to the impression that this action really wasn’t so bad. Proper anger has a way of bringing the point home and making a lasting impression. The display of anger should be at the proper level, neither excessively strong nor too weak. This of course requires a good bit of self-mastery.

Meekness – This is an important beatitude and fruit of the Holy Spirit that helps us to master anger. Today, we think of a meek person as one who is a bit of a pushover, easily taken advantage of. But the original meaning of meekness describes the vigorous virtue through which one gains authority over his anger. Aristotle defined meekness (πραΰτης) as the mean between being too angry and not being angry enough. The meek person has authority over their anger and is thus able to summon its energy but control its extremes. The meek are far from weak; in fact, they show their strength in their ability to control their anger. St. John Chrysostom said this regarding anger: He who is not angry when he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is a hotbed of many vices (Homily 11). St Thomas Aquinas said, Consequently, lack of the passion of anger is also a vice, [for it is] a lack of movement in the will directed to punishment by the judgment of reason (Summa Theologica II, IIae 158.8).

What, then, should we make of Jesus’ manifestation of anger? On the one hand Jesus seems to have taught very strongly against anger:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell (Matt 5:21-22).

Taking the passage at face value, it would seem that Jesus condemns anger without exception. However, if that is the case then Jesus clearly broke his own rule because as we know He exhibited a lot of anger in the Gospels. What Jesus does clearly condemn here is unrighteous and wrathful anger. The two examples in this passage show the kind of anger He means. The first example is use of the term Raca, an epithet that displayed utter contempt for the recipient. Notice that Jesus links this kind of anger to murder because by using the term, the other person is so stripped of any human dignity that to murder him would be no different than killing an ox or mule. This sort of anger depersonalizes the other and disregards him as a child of God. Using the term fool has a similar, though less egregious, purpose. Hence, it would seem that the Lord is not condemning all anger but rather the anger of contempt and depersonalization. To absolutize Jesus’ teaching here to include any anger would seem unreasonable given Jesus’ own example, which included not a little anger.

Most people are familiar with Jesus’ display of anger in the cleansing of the temple, but there were other times when He also manifested significant anger. Today’s Gospel is certainly an example.

Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matt 23:29-33)

On many other occasions Jesus said similar things. Here is another:

Jesus said, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire! He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God!” (John 8:44-47)

Passages like these do not exhibit the “Mr. Rogers” kind of Jesus that is common in the modern imagination; Jesus was no Caspar Milquetoast.

What should we make of these angry displays?

  1. They are not sinful. Clearly they are not sinful displays of anger because Scripture assures us that Jesus never sinned (e.g., Heb 4:15).
  2. The culture in Jesus’ time was different than it is today. In the culture of the ancient Jews there seems to have been a wider acceptance of the expression of anger than there is in American society today. Even within the United States there is a wide variance in the acceptance of anger. When I was in college, I dated an Italian girl; she and her mother could really set to it—lots of loud shouting in Italian! But then a moment later it was over and they were on to the next topic. In their family, strong expressions of anger were much more accepted than I was used to. The cleansing of the Temple by Jesus was also an expression more acceptable in the culture of that time than it would be today. Turning over tables was a “prophetic action.” Prophets did things like this in those days. Even we find a place for civil disobedience today. We may not always like it, but we respect that it has a place.
  3. Jesus was clearly angry. He was grieved at the hard-heartedness of His opponents. His strong tone was an authoritative summons to repent. A soft, lowered voice might not have conveyed the urgency of the situation. These were hardened men who needed pointed, passionate denunciation. Jesus’ anger was righteous anger.

We ought to be careful, however, before simply using Jesus’ angry tone ourselves. There are two reasons for this: First, Jesus was able to see into their hearts and determine the appropriate tactics; we may not always be able to do this. Second, the wider Western culture in which many of us live may not be as prepared to accept such an angry tone; it may be less effective in our setting. Prudential judgment is a necessary precursor to using such tactics.

In the end, anger is not sinful or wrong per se. It is sometimes the proper and necessary response. We do well to be careful with our anger, however, for it is an unruly passion. Above all we ought to seek the fruit of the Spirit that is meekness and to ask the Lord to give us authority over our anger and prudence in its use.

These videos show some displays of Jesus’ anger. In one it is more obvious; in the other it is more subtle:

 

Posted on

Insightful Images of Sin in a Short Cartoon

The animated short below is a dramatization (sort of) of the story of Samson and Delilah as well as a commentary on lust and power. (If you would like to review the story of Samson and Delilah, click here.)

As the video opens, two superheroes are summoned to an emergency. They rush to the scene, but do so recklessly; a great crash occurs. This is symbolic of our pride, for too often we rush headlong into solving problems without considering other problems that might be created in the process. For example, the quest to “end poverty in our time” has led to the demise of the family; the quest to liberate the world from tyranny (through violence, drone strikes, and war) has more often led to even more violence and the rise of new villainies.

The superheroes try to blame each other for the accident. This is symbolic of our tendency to shift blame and avoid personal responsibility. We speak endlessly of our rights and our freedom to do as we please, but we want none of the responsibility; and of course any consequences are someone else’s fault.

Each of them then tries to take control of the situation. This is an image of our desire for power over others. This only serves to usher in a struggle that ultimately no one can win. Rather, all suffer devastating loss. Even victory is fleeting because the cycle of violence soon begins again.

At first, our male superhero (let’s call him Samson) seems to have the upper hand; but the female superhero (let’s call her Delilah) is not to be undone. Delilah tries to overcome Samson through her feminine charms. This symbolizes our lust. Whatever his strengths, Samson has a fatal flaw, one that destroys many men: lust. Many men (and women) and have ruined their lives due to lust. This has resulted in poverty, STDs, abortion, teenage pregnancy, shattered dreams, broken families, and broken hearts.

The end of both of these superheroes is death and destruction. Pride, irresponsibility, unrestrained power, and lust unleash only devastation, destruction, and death—both individually and collectively.

In the biblical story of Samson and Delilah, Delilah only “won” for a brief moment. So it is with every worldly victory; it is temporary at best. Only heavenly victory and treasure stored up there will prevail. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Posted on

Who is Really on Trial in Our Life?

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI possesses a keen ability to summarize the ideas and problems of our times both cogently and succinctly. Consider the following assessment of our age that he made during a 2015 interview:

For the man of today…. things are, in a certain sense, inverted, or rather, man no longer believes he needs justification before God, but rather he is of the opinion that God is obliged to justify himself because of all the horrible things in the world and in the face of the misery of being human, all of which ultimately depend on Him (Benedict XVI, Interview with Jacques Servais, L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, March 2016).

This is quite a profound diagnosis of the hubris of our times. This hubris is apparent among both unbelievers and believers. While Benedict sets the problem in the context of the mystery of evil and suffering, my own experience is that the problem is wider than that. Many people don’t merely demand an accounting from God for the existence of evil, they also demand justification from Him for any teaching of His Scripture or the Church that does not accord with their views. The premise is that the teachings of Scripture and the Church must conform to modern notions or else stand convicted of being out-of-touch, useless, irrelevant, or even intolerant, harsh, and hurtful.

All of this is completely backwards. For any Catholic, it is the world and its views that should be on trial. God should not need to justify His teachings or render an account to us, rather it is the world that should be required to explain how its views do not contradict God.

Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit comes to us, He will convict the world in regard to sin (Jn 16:8). Therefore, every Catholic should have the world on trial, not God. We should demand that the world justify its views and square them with God’s teachings. Anything that does not agree with what God teaches is to be rejected by us, convicted of being erroneous and set aside in favor of God’s law and teaching.

St. Paul says, Test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess 5:21-22). In other words, square everything with the measure of God’s Word and reject anything that is contrary to it while retaining what is good.

Is this what most Catholics do? Sadly, many do just the opposite. The Word of God and the teachings of the Church are put on trial and convicted if they do not conform to worldly thinking, to what is currently popular. If one talks about a text that speaks a truth contrary to modern notions, there is a wide range of reactions: raised eyebrows; objections; scoffing; accusations of insensitivity, intolerance, or hate; demands for retractions and apologies.

This begs the question, “Who is on trial here, God or the world?” Yes, Benedict’s observation about our times stands true. Whereas we once sought grace to be justified before God, many now demand that God justify Himself to us.

In our hubris, we’ve turned the tables on God. It’s time to turn them back in humility. St. Paul reminds us who the true judge is to whom we must render an account:

It matters little to me that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For though I am not aware of anything against myself, I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me (1 Cor 4:5-6).

Make sure you’re on the right side of the judge’s bench.

This portion of Mozart’s Requiem says (translated),

Wondrous sound the trumpet flingeth
Through earth’s sepulchers it ringeth
All before the throne it bringeth

When the judge his seat attaineth
And each hidden deed arraigneth
Nothing unavenged remaineth.

Posted on

The Power of Repentance to Rewrite the Record

This animated short contrasts the consuming quality of envy, anger, and hate with the overwhelming power of love and forgiveness. It also depicts the possibility of repentance upon recognizing the damage caused.

In the video, a little girl’s written resentments of her older sister spring forth from her diary to wreak their havoc. Witnessing the frightening result and trying to halt the damage, the young girl tears the passages from her journal. She then attempts to create a repentant, loving message from the shredded remnants. It is a very creative illustration of how God puts our sins behind Him and remembers them no more. Enjoy!

“>

Posted on

Greed: A Meditation on an Underreported Sin

One of the more underreported sins is greed. It is easy to conclude that greed is something manifested by “that other person,” who has more than I do. Yes, that rich guy over there, the one who earns a dollar more per hour than I do; he’s greedy, but I’m not.

But honestly, does any one of us ever come to a point in our life when we say, “I earn more than enough money. I’ll just give the rest away”? Not on your life!

Almost never would such a thought even occur to the average person. Instead, most of us respond to a pay increase, for example, by expanding our lifestyle and continuing to complain that we don’t have enough. At some point, we ought to admit that we do cross over into greed.

What is greed? It is the insatiable desire for more. It is a deep drive in us that, no matter how much we have, makes us think that it’s not enough. We still want more, and if we get more we want more still. This is the experience of greed.

Familiar though this sounds, too few of us are willing to consider that greed is really a problem for us. Greed is always something that other guy has.

Of course it doesn’t help that we live in a culture of consumption, which constantly tells us that we don’t have enough. Commercials tell us that the car we’re driving isn’t as good as this other car we could be driving. And so even though we have a perfectly good car, one with four wheels, a working engine, and probably even air conditioning, it still it isn’t good enough. So it is with almost every other product or amenity that is sold to us on a daily basis. The clever marketing experts of Madison Avenue are great at making us feel deprived. As a result, it almost never occurs to most of us that we may have crossed the line into greed. Despite having even six- and seven-figure incomes, many still feel that they don’t have enough.

This is all the more reason that we should spend some time reflecting on the nature of greed. Greed is a deep drive of sin, one of the deadly sins, and it brings with it a kind of blindness that causes us to mistake mere wants for true needs. As we entertain this illusion, there’s very little to prompt us to consider that we actually have more than enough. There’s very little to cause me to say, “Gee, I’ve gotten greedy” or to work toward curbing this insatiable desire for more.

No, it’s the other guy who’s greedy; I’m not. It’s a problem that those nasty rich and powerful people have. Never mind that I’m pretty darned rich myself, living in a home with running water, air conditioning, and maybe even luxuries like granite countertops and widescreen TVs.

When was the last time you heard a sermon on greed? If you did, it was probably the priest talking about some abstract group of people (not those present, of course) who probably also hold the “wrong” political opinions, etc. Yes, greed is always someone else’s problem.

When do I honestly look at myself and wonder if I am greedy? When do I ever conclude that I have more than enough and need to be more generous with what has become excessive in my life? When do I ever apply the old precept that if I have two coats, one of them belongs to the poor? I do understand that it’s good to have something laid up for a rainy day, but do I ever ask myself if I’m really trusting in God or just in my rainy day fund? When do I ever wonder if I’ve crossed the line into greed?

I realize that some of you who read this post will find it disturbing. So do I. These are uncomfortable questions.

Let me assure you that I do not write this post from a political perspective. I do not want the government mandating how much I can or should earn, and how much I can or should give away. I am referring to a very personal moral assessment that we all should make.

I also do not write as an economist. I realize that market-based economies are complex and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with meeting people’s needs with products and services. I am also aware that markets supply jobs. But still, I must insist that we all ask ourselves some personal questions about limits. We cannot simply conclude that greed is the other guy’s problem.

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins; we ought to take it more seriously than many of us do. Somewhere there’s room for most of us to reflect on one of the most underreported sins: greed.

Posted on

Who Am I Not to Judge? Correcting the Sinner Is an Essential Work of Charity

fraternal correctionIn the Gospel for Monday of the 12th Week in Ordinary Time, there is a Scripture passage that is almost too well known. I say this because the world has wielded it like a club to swing at Christians. The text is quoted almost as if it represented the entirety of the Bible’s teaching; it is often used to shut down discussions of what is right vs. wrong, what is virtuous vs. sinful. Even many Christians misinterpret the passage as a mandate to be silent in the face of sin and evil. I say that it is too well known because it is remembered while everything else in the Scriptures that balances or clarifies it is forgotten. Here is the passage:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye (Matt 7:1-5).

Anytime the Church or an individual Christian labels a particular behavior as wrong or sinful, wagging fingers are raised. This is followed, in an indignant tone, with something like this: “You’re being judgmental! The Bible says, ‘Judge not.’ Who are you to judge your neighbor?” This is clearly an attempt to shut down discussion and to shame Christians, or the Church, into silence.

To a large degree this tactic has worked. Modern culture has succeeded in shaming many Christians from this essential work: correcting the sinner. Too many are terrified when they are said to be “judging” someone by calling attention to sin or wrongdoing. In a culture in which tolerance (a mistaken notion of tolerance at that) is one of the only virtues left, “judging” is deemed one of the worst offenses.

Pay careful attention to what this Gospel text is actually saying. The judgment spoken of does not refer to discerning between right and wrong. Rather, it refers to determining punishment or condemnation. The next sentence makes this clear when it speaks of the measure we use, the level of condemnation, harshness, or punishment. A parallel passage in Luke’s Gospel makes this clear:

Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. … For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you (Luke 6:36-38).

The judgment here refers to unnecessarily harsh and punitive condemnation. To paraphrase the opening verses colloquially, “Be careful not to condemn, because if you lower the boom on others, you will have the boom lowered on you. If you throw the book at others, it will be thrown at you.”

Further, the parable that follows in the passage above from the Gospel of Matthew does not say that we should refrain from correcting sinners. Rather, it says that we should get right with God and understand our own sin in order that we will see clearly enough to be able to correct our brother. Far from forbidding the correction of the sinner, the passage actually emphasizes the importance of correction by underscoring the importance of doing it well and with humility and integrity.

One of the most forgotten obligations we have is that of correcting the sinner. It is listed among the Spiritual Works of Mercy. St. Thomas Aquinas lists it in the Summa Theologica as a work of Charity:

[F]raternal correction properly so called, is directed to the amendment of the sinner. Now to do away with anyone’s evil is the same as to procure his good: and to procure a person’s good is an act of charity, whereby we wish and do our friend well (Summa Thelogica II, IIae, 33.1).

Go be sure, there are some judgments that are forbidden us.

  1. We cannot assess that we are better or worse than someone else before God.
  2. We cannot always understand the ultimate culpability or inner intentions of another person as though we were God. Scripture says regarding judgments such as these, Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the LORD looks into the heart (1 Sam 16:7).
  3. We cannot make the judgment of condemnation. That is to say, we do not have the power or knowledge to condemn someone to Hell. God alone is judge in this sense.
  4. We must not be unnecessarily harsh or punitive. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven … For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you (Luke 6:36-38).

Scripture both commends and commands fraternal correction: I remarked above that the Gospel from today’s Mass is too well known because it has been embraced to the exclusion of everything else in the Bible on the subject of correcting sinners. Over and over again Scripture tells us to correct the sinner. Far from forbidding fraternal correction, the Scriptures command and commend it. I would like to share some of those texts here and add a little commentary of my own in red text.

  1. If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 18:15-18). Jesus instructs us to speak to a sinning brother and summon him to repentance. If private rebuke does not work (assuming the matter is serious), others who are trustworthy should be summoned to the task. As a final resort, the Church should be informed. If he will not listen even to the Church, then he should be excommunicated (treated as a tax collector or Gentile). In serious matters, excommunication should be considered as a kind of medicine that will inform the sinner of just how serious the situation is. Sadly, this “medicine” is seldom used today, even though Jesus clearly prescribes it (at least in serious matters).
  2. It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened … I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you (1 Cor 5:1-13). The Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, commands that we “judge” the evildoer. In this case the matter is very serious (incest). Notice how the text says that he should be excommunicated (handed over to Satan). Here, too, the purpose is medicinal. It is hoped that Satan will beat him up enough that he will come to his senses and repent before the Day of Judgment. It is also medicinal in the sense that the community is protected from bad example, scandal, and the presence of evil. The text also requires us to be able to size people up. There are immoral and unrepentant people in the world and it is harmful for us to associate with them. We are instructed not to keep company with people who can mislead us or tempt us to sin. This requires a judgment on our part. Some judgements are actually required of us.
  3. Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any sin, you who are spiritual should recall him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal 6:1-2). We are called to notice when a person has been overtaken in sin and to correct him. The text cautions us to do so in a spirit of gentleness, otherwise we risk sinning in the very process of correcting the sinner. We can be prideful or unnecessarily harsh in our words of correction; this is no way to correct. The instruction here is to be gentle and humble, yet clear. It also seems that patience is called for, because we must share in the burdens of one another’s sin. First, we accept the fact that others have imperfections and faults that trouble us; second, we bear the obligation of helping others to know their sin and of helping them to repent.
  4. My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (James 5:19). The text is ambiguous as to whose soul is actually saved, but that is good, because it seems that both the corrected and the corrector are beneficiaries of well-executed fraternal correction.
  5. You shall not hate your brother in your heart: You shall in any case rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him (Lev 19:17). This text teaches us that refusing to correct a sinning neighbor is a form of hatred. Instead we are instructed to love our neighbors by not wanting sin to overtake them.
  6. If anyone refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2 Thess 3:14). The medicine of rebuke, even to the point of refusing fellowship, is commanded here. Note, too, that even a sinner does not lose his dignity; he is still to be regarded as a brother, not as an enemy. A similar text says, We instruct you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who walks in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us (2 Thess 3:6).
  7. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom (Col 3:16). To admonish means to warn. If the word of Christ is rich within us, we will warn when necessary. A similar text says, All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16). Reproof and correction are thus part of what is necessary to equip us for every good work.
  8. And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all (1 Thess 5:14). Fraternal correction is described here as admonishing, encouraging, and helping. We are also exhorted to patience in these works.

There are more of these passages, but I’m sure you get the point by now. Fraternal correction, correcting the sinner, is prescribed and consistently commanded by Scripture. We must resist the shame that the world tries to inflict on us for “judging” people. Not all judgment is forbidden; in fact, some judgment is commanded. Correction of the sinner is both charitable and virtuous.

We have failed to correct – If we are to have any shame about fraternal correction, it should be that we have failed to correct when necessary. Because of our failure in this regard the world is a much more sinful, coarse, and undisciplined place. Too many people today are out of control, undisciplined, and incorrigible. Too many are locked in sin and have never been properly corrected. The world is less pleasant and charitable, less teachable. It is also more sinful and in greater bondage. To fail to correct is to fail in charity and mercy; it is to fail to be virtuous and to fail in calling others to virtue. We are all impoverished by our failure to correct the sinner. He who winks at a fault causes trouble; but he who frankly reproves promotes peace. … A path to life is his who heeds admonition; but he who disregards reproof goes go astray (Proverbs 10:10, 17).

The following video basically captures the problem that Christians face and explains fairly well some of the distinctions I make here: