Posts

Posted on

All Together Now: What the Catechism Has to Say on Assessing Moral Acts

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following regarding moral acts:

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts (CCC # 1750).

Note, therefore, that in assessing a particular moral act we must look not only to what is done, but also to the circumstances under which it is done, and to the intention of the one doing it.

For example, to steal is wrong. However, one’s culpability can be lessened if one is starving and takes food from another person who has more than enough. This does not make stealing good or virtuous, but it can lessen the blame, at times reducing it to a minimum. Acting out of grave fear (such as death), or acting when under great duress, pressure, or strong influence of the passions and the force of evil may, at times, lessen guilt. Further, invincible ignorance, error, or confusion about the facts of a situation or how the moral law applies may, at times, lessen guilt.

Another example would be failing to attend Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation. Of itself, such an omission is taught to be a grave sin (see Catechism # 2181). This is so because of the gifts one misses (e.g., Holy Communion and instruction in the Word of God), the duty that is set aside (e.g., the obligation to praise and thank God), and the failure to fulfill the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath. However, three feet of snow, or serious illness, or the care of the sick, can be circumstances that would reduce guilt or the obligation to attend significantly if not entirely. Further, given the ignorance of many due to poor catechesis and the hindrances of secular culture (which often requires work and other activities), a person’s guilt may be less than mortal in missing Mass. Thus, while failing to attend Mass without a serious reason remains a grave sin, it does not necessarily follow that everyone who missed Mass this past Sunday is in a state of mortal sin.

So in assessing a moral act, as the Catechism and long-standing Catholic teaching assert, we cannot as a general rule look merely to what is done, but must also assess, in so far as possible, the intention of the one doing it, and the circumstances under which it was done.

However, as the Catechism states quite clearly, as does the moral tradition of the Church:

It is an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress, or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it (CCC # 1756).

It is very common today for moral assessments to focus merely on the intentions and feelings of the person involved. What is actually being done seems less significant; as long as a person “means well” or feels that the act is right then it is OK for them and we should make no further moral discernment.

But as the Catechism states, such criteria are not enough. Moral uprightness consists in doing well, not just meaning well, or feeling good about one’s actions. Intentionality and circumstances are not wholly insignificant, especially when it comes to assigning a level of culpability, but they cannot be the only determining factors in assessing the morality of an act. We must look at the act itself as the primary consideration in assessing its morality. We cannot simply say that something is good, it must actually be good.

Let me provide a few examples in which the actual, concrete act is essential and, in a way, overrules whatever feelings or intentions we have:

  1. Intentions alone do not turn locks, keys do. Every day I move between the buildings that make up our parish complex. Going in and out of buildings requires the use of keys. Now many of these keys look alike. As I approach the Church door, I take out my keys and put what I think is the Church key into the lock. I do this with best of intentions. I think that I am doing what is right. I feel that what I am doing is right. But if I actually put the rectory key into the Church lock, despite my good intentions, despite the fact that I think and feel that I am doing what was right, the lock won’t turn.

All the good intentions, thoughts, and feelings in the world will not make that lock turn. I actually have to do what is right to get the proper result. The right key has to go in the right lock to get the right result. What I actually do is the determining factor. Feelings, thoughts, and intentions cannot win the day.

  1. Good intentions alone do not get me there, following the directions does. To get to your house you tell me to turn right on Park Ave., but instead I turn left. I may think that you said left. I may sense or feel that I’m going in the proper direction. I may intend to be doing what is right. But none of that is going to change the fact that I’m heading in the wrong direction and won’t get to your house until I actually do what is right.
  2. Accidents happen, but there’s still a mess. There is a can of paint on the floor in the hallway. I kick the can of paint over and paint spills all over the floor. Whether I did so intentionally or not does not change the fact that there’s now paint all over the floor that needs to be cleaned up. What I intended is important in determining how blameworthy I am. If my act was purely accidental (perhaps I was unaware that the hallway was being painted and could not see the can as I rounded the corner) then my culpability is probably very low if not nonexistent. But if I knew that there was painting going on and failed to exercise proper caution, then I kicked the can of paint over through carelessness and so bear some blame. Now suppose that I saw the can of paint and (perhaps out of anger) deliberately kicked it over; in this case my blame is full.

So intentions, knowledge, and feelings are important in assessing a person’s culpability. But these things cannot render a bad thing good. Regardless of my intentions, thoughts, or feelings, there is still a big mess to clean up. The objective truth is that there is paint all over the floor. Simply saying that I had good intentions or didn’t know any better doesn’t make the mess go away.

Rectitude is tied to reality. Too many people today use flawed or incomplete reasoning in assessing the morality of acts. While good intentions, how a person feels about his actions, and what he thinks or knows, can all affect culpability, they cannot make a bad thing good. They cannot make an evil act upright. They cannot remove the harm or negative result of an incorrect, bad, or evil act: there is still paint to clean up; there is still a U-turn to be made; there is still a proper key to find. Reality sets in.

So, there is a lot of flawed moral reasoning today around the issue of intentionality, feelings, and thoughts. Important though these factors are, they cannot undo reality. They cannot alone and apart from the act itself form the basis for judging its uprightness or wrongness.

Such factors are important, though, in dealing with people who have sinned, struggle with sin, or are in sinful situations. Assisting a person in extricating himself from such situations is an essential act of mercy. Condemnations that look only to the sinful act without regard for the circumstances or intentions (even if flawed) may fail pastorally to help people. Sympathy, understanding, and love for the sinner are often essential in bring healing to him and in helping him to do better and get better.

However, having no regard for the sinfulness the act itself is not a proper pastoral stance either. Doing so would be like a doctor denying the existence of disease and limiting himself to reassuring people or telling them that they were good and decent people. Meanwhile, the disease (which does actually exist despite his denials) continues to grow and get worse. Such a doctor lacks true compassion and is guilty of malpractice. Such is also true of those who would deny that sin is sin. Despite their false reassurances the actual damage that sin and error cause continue, because good intentions cannot make a bad act good, or an error true. Lies, flattery, and illusion are never good pastoral practices.

There may be some who have sought to read the recent synodal exhortation apart from the Catholic framework from which it emerges. This is an error. One cannot and should not interpret the Pope’s appeal for good pastoral practice apart from the long-standing Catholic understanding of how to assess moral acts. It is this tradition from which the Pope speaks. Intentions and circumstances are important, especially as regards culpability. They are an important part of pastoral practice. Pastors and confessors must work carefully with each penitent, guiding him to ever greater fidelity and conformity to moral truth. It is a delicate work that requires patience and persistence. It requires a compassion that considers the person’s intentions and circumstances, but does not ignore the act itself or “recast” it based simply on good intentions or difficult circumstances. Morality consists in doing well, not just meaning well. We are summoned to actually do what is right not just think or feel right. True compassion leads people to greater conformity to God’s design.

Posted on

What Did Jesus Call Me? A Homily for the 4th Sunday of Easter

blog4.16The Lord says, “My sheep hear my voice…” That’s right, He called you a sheep. Now come on, get a little indignant with me here! The Lord is comparing us, not to the swift eagle, the beautiful gazelle, the swift horse, the powerful bear, the mighty lion, or the clever dog. No, He looks at us as says we’re like sheep. Hmm … While reality may hurt, the truth can also liberate. For the fact is that although sheep are lowly animals, they are valuable as well. Let’s consider today’s Gospel in three stages: the sign of the sheep, the safety of the sheep, and the salvation of the sheep.

I. The SIGN of the sheep – The text of today’s Gospel begins, Jesus said: “My sheep …” What does the Lord mean in using sheep as a sign for us? Let’s consider some qualities of sheep that may help to illustrate what the Lord is teaching.

  1. Sheep are WAYWARD. They just tend to wander off. A sheep just grazes awhile and then looks up and thinks, in effect, “Where am I?” A sheep will nibble here and there and get lost. It doesn’t know how to get back to the sheepfold unless the shepherd goes out and brings him back. Sheep just keep on going and don’t come back. Dogs and cats can find their way home. Horses can find the barn. But not sheep. They don’t know how find the sheepfold without the shepherd guiding them.

Now don’t tell me that this doesn’t describe us! Like sheep, we have gone astray, each following his own way (Isaiah 53:6). This is how it is with us. We get lost easily. We need the sheepfold of the Church and we need the Shepherd, who is Christ, ministering through the Pope, bishops, and priests. Otherwise, we just wander around.

  1. Sheep are WITLESS. – That is to say, they are just plain dumb. Have you ever heard of a trained sheep? I haven’t. We train dogs, birds, horses, and even lions. But sheep cannot be trained!

We human sheep like to think that we are so smart. We’ve been to the moon. We have all this technical computer stuff. But too many of us aren’t even smart enough to pray every day, go to Mass on Sunday, or follow God’s basic directions for life.

We’re so witless that we even do things that we know harm us. Even when it comes to the simplest directions from God, we either get confused or become downright stubborn. We cop an attitude and say, “Well we know a few things, too.” That’s exactly right; we know a very few things!

We’re so dumb that we think we’re smarter than God! We think we have a better way than His way. Now that is really dumb!

  1. Sheep are WEAK. A sheep just has no way to protect itself. A mule can kick, a cat can scratch, a dog can bite, a rabbit can run, and a skunk … well, you know what it can do. But a sheep? Without the care of the shepherd and the sheepdogs, a sheep is history. When a wolf comes all a sheep can do is stand there and get killed.

And so it is with us. If it were not for the care of Jesus the Good Shepherd, the world, the flesh, and the devil would have us cornered. If it were not for the Lord and the power of His grace, we would be toast!

We like to think that we’re strong. We have armies. We amass political power, monetary power, and “star power.” All of this gives us the illusion that we are strong. But then the slightest temptation arises and we fall. We need the Lord. Without His grace and mercy, we don’t stand a chance because alone, we are weak and prone to sin.

And yet …

  1. Sheep are WORTHWHILE animals. In Jesus’ day, many a man counted his wealth by the number of sheep he had. Sheep produce lambs and provide us with milk, wool, and meat. Shepherds made many sacrifices in Jesus’ day to breed, herd, and protect these valuable animals. And so it is with us. We may not feel worthy at times, but apparently we were worth saving, because the Lord paid the price of our redemption. He saw the price and paid it all. And He didn’t pay it with silver and gold but with His own precious blood (1 Peter 1:18-19).
  2. Sheep WALK together. Sheep flock together for safety. To be a solitary sheep is dangerous; it’s a good way to get devoured.

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). The scriptures also say, Woe to the solitary man! For if he should fall, he has no one to lift him up (Eccles 4:10). Sheep are not supposed to go off on their own; neither are we.

We are called to part of a flock and to be under the care of a shepherd. Most of us realize this in a parish setting. But in the wider sense, we are under a bishop’s care and ultimately the care of the Pope, who is the chief shepherd and the Vicar of Christ the Good Shepherd.

The Lord Jesus said there is to be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16). God wants us to be in the protection of the flock with a shepherd watching over us. An old spiritual says, “Walk together children. Don’t you get weary. There’s a great camp meeting in the promised land.” Too many people like to say, “That old pope doesn’t know this or that.” But again, please consider that to wander from the care of the flock and the Shepherd is a mighty dangerous thing.

  1. Sheep are WARY. Jesus says, He who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers (John 10:11-14).

Sheep have the remarkable ability to know their master’s voice and to instinctively fear and flee any other.

In this matter, sheep are smarter than are most of us. For we often do not flee voices contrary to Christ. Instead, we draw close and say, “Tell me more.” In fact, we spend a lot of time and money to listen to other voices. We buy big televisions that give the enemy a medium through which to influence us and our children. We spend large amounts of time watching television, listening to the radio, and surfing the Internet.

Yes, we can so easily be drawn to the enemy’s voice. And not only do we not flee it, we feast on it. Instead of rebuking it, we turn and rebuke the voice of God, putting His Word rather than the world on trial.

The goal for us is to be more wary, like sheep; to recognize only one voice, that of the Lord speaking though His Church, and to flee every other voice.

II. The SAFETY of the sheep – The Gospel continues, My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. No one can take them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.

Note the promise that Jesus will not be overpowered; no one can snatch from His hand. Daniel 7:14 says, His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that shall not be destroyed, his kingship shall not be destroyed. In other words, the devil can’t steal sheep; in no way can he have power over Jesus or His flock.

But this is all predicated on what has been said: if we want protection and safety, we have to know only Jesus’ voice. We must stop running after false shepherds and enticing voices. We have to stay with the true Shepherd, Jesus, and remain in the protection of the flock. Do you want safety? Then stay in the shelter of Jesus’ shepherding.

Let us be clear on this point: no weapon fashioned against us can ever prevail (Isaiah 54:17).  Satan cannot harm any of us, unless we open the door. Satan is like a dog on a leash: he can only harm us if we get too close (through our own foolish decisions). Satan is a chained dog; he does not stray out of his range or territory!

Yet so many people do open the door! They savor pop culture (with all its darkness), peruse pornographic websites, live on a steady diet of revenge-filled “action” movies, and watch endless commercials telling them to buy the latest product with its promises of empty fulfillment. They swim in polluted water and then wonder why they are sick and weak, infested with the parasites of sin.

Is it any wonder that our thinking is distorted, dark, unbiblical, and foolish? At least sheep know enough to flee a false shepherd! What about us? Too many of us are intrigued by the ranting of false shepherds. We glamorize evil and fill our minds with false teaching and improper priorities.

And thus while no one can snatch from Jesus’ hand, this does not provide some magical protection that prevents us from foolishly and sinfully walking away from Him. And if we do walk away, woe unto us. If we stray, our strength will fail!

Pay attention, fellow sheep: do not stray from the Shepherd. He can protect you. But if you want to live a double life or open the door of your heart to Satan, understand that the protection of the Lord is only for those who freely choose it. The Lord is not a slave owner. He is a lover who invites us to accept His offer of new life rooted in a loving and trusting relationship with Him.

Do you know His voice? Do you know only His voice? Do you run form every voice contrary to His? If so, then you have the protection of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and nothing will ever harm you (Luke 10:19). Or do you instead collect counselors who tell you what your itching ears want to hear? (cf 2 Tim 4:3) If you do that, then you shouldn’t be surprised at the presence of wolves.

III. The SALVATION of the sheep – The text goes on to say, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

For the flock of the Lord, there is the gift of eternal life. Too many Christians equate eternal life with some far off, distant future that they vaguely hope to attain.

But eternal life doesn’t refer only to living forever and never dying. Eternal life is so much more than that! It begins now. And eternal refers not only to length of life but to its fullness.

In this sense, eternal life is now, as we become ever more aware that If anyone is in Christ, He is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Of this I am a witness, being far more alive in my fifties than I ever was in my early twenties! My body is aging, but my soul is younger and more vibrant than ever.

And here is the promise to lay hold of: those who are in the Shepherd’s care gradually come to experience life more deeply, to become more fully alive. Jesus our Shepherd promises us eternal life. But this does not wait until Heaven; it is now. We sheep are brought to salvation, to healing, if we will accept it. If we choose freedom and the Shepherd’s care, it is ours! But if we reject some or all of it, then we live apart from His care and vision, and leave ourselves vulnerable to the attacks of savage wolves.

Are you smarter than a sheep? Do you know how to recognize the Shepherd’s voice and follow only Him? Or are you foolishly running after worldly advice and pursuing sinful priorities? On this Good Shepherd Sunday, strive to be a good sheep.

Yes, He called us sheep. But sheep have this much going for them: they recognize only their shepherd’s voice and run from any other.

Posted on

The Power God’s Breath and Spirit, as Seen in a Commercial

Holy-SpiritThe commercial in the video below is a strange one. But what it promises, only God can deliver. In this fanciful ad, Nike claims that it collects the “air” of the best athletes in the world and makes it available to you in their Nike Air shoes. But what it promises is something that only God can deliver.

Unfortunately, as Scripture rightly notes, our air or breath is passing: What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes (James 4:14).

In contrast, God’s breath sustains and gives life:

  1. The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (Gen 2:7).
  2. The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life (Job 33:4).
  3. This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these dry bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life (Ez 37:5).
  4. And when Jesus had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained” (John 20:22-23).
  5. But after three and a half days, God breathed life into [the two slain witnesses], and they
    stood up! Terror struck all who were staring at them     (Rev 11:11).
  6. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, … (2 Tim 3:16).
  7. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host (Ps 33:6).

What this Nike ad promises, only can God deliver. He is the true “Nike.” (In Greek mythology, Nike was a goddess who personified victory.) His breath gives us new life and empowers us to new things. Ruah Adonai (the Breath of God): it gives life, empowers us, and bestows upon us new strength. Come, Holy Spirit; Come, Holy Breath of God!

Nike makes fine shoes, but God is the author of all that is fine.

Posted on

There Has Been No Loss of Wonders, Only a Loss of Wonder – A Brief Summons to Awe

wonderA big problem today is that of rampant boredom. One would think, with all the diversions available to us, we would be one of the least bored generations in history. There are various forms of entertainment available to us quite literally at our fingertips: television, radio, the Internet, Netflix, video games, and more.

Yet it still seems that we moderns are often bored. The reason for this, I think, is that we are overstimulated.

The loud and frantic pace of even our recreational activities leaves most of us incapable of appreciating the subtler, gentler, and more hidden things of life.

Dale Ahlquist, the great commentator on G.K. Chesterton, writes,

There is no excuse for being bored. … And yet the modern world is bored. … Our entertainment grows louder, flashier, and more bizarre in ever more desperate attempts just to keep our attention.

As G.K. Chesterton proclaims (in Tremendous Trifles, p.7): “The world will never starve for want of wonders; but only for want of wonder.” There are no dreary sites, he declares, only dreary sightseers (Common Sense 101, p. 27).

Boredom is a problem on the inside. And happiness, too, is an inside job. We should all seek the great gifts of wonder and awe. We should strive to appreciate God’s glories and wonders, which are on display at every moment: in everything we see and in everyone we encounter.

But the gift of wonder also depends on other gifts, in particular, humility and gratitude.

Ahlquist further writes,

The key to happiness and the key to wonder is humility. … Humility means being small enough to see the greatness of something and to feel unworthy of it, and privileged to be able to enjoy it (Common Sense 101, p. 33).

Consider well the meaning of this wonderful yet simple reflection, and the relationship between humility, wonder, and gratitude. Yes, to be humble is to feel unworthy of the glories that are ever before us, to wonder at them and to feel privileged just to be permitted to enjoy them.

Indeed, even the word “consider” invites us to a kind of awestruck and grateful mysticism. The word “consider” comes from the Latin words cum (with) and sidera (stars), so that its literal roots convey “with the stars.”  In other words, to consider something is to think upon it, regard it, and gaze upon it with the wonder with which one would look at the night sky filled with stars!

So, “consider” well the glories that are on display for us every moment and behold them with humility, wonder, and gratitude.

Posted on

Priest and Victim Are One and the Same – A Meditation on Offering Our Lives to God as Members of a Royal Priesthood

Blog 4-13A key aspect of the priesthood, set forth by Jesus in the New Covenant, is that priest and victim are one and the same. Prior to this, the priests of the Old Covenant sacrificed animals: lambs, bulls, goats, turtle doves, etc. But in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, the priesthood of the New Covenant, the priest offers himself as victim.

Regarding Jesus and His priesthood, Scripture says,

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb 10:4-10).

So priest and victim are one and the same. Christ does not offer animals (which cannot take away sin) but offers Himself as the Lamb of God.

This insight is essential for us who share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, whether as ministerial priests or as those who share in the royal priesthood of Christ given to all believers at baptism (see Catechism # 1268). Although the royal and ministerial priesthoods are different in kind (not merely in degree), they have in common the fact that every priest offers sacrifice. The New Testament priest (royal or ministerial) is called to offer himself, not merely an animal, or money, or time, etc.

But what does this mean on a daily basis? How can we bring such a concept in for a landing, so to speak, so that it is not merely an abstract notion?

In the reading this past Sunday in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass there is a passage from First Peter which helps to specify three examples of how we offer a sacrifice to God not merely distinct from us (such as money or time or talent) but also one which is personal. The text says,

Dearly beloved, Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow His steps who did no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth. Who when He was reviled, did not revile: when He suffered, He threatened not, but delivered Himself to him that judged Him unjustly: who His own self bore our sins in His body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice; by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray: but you are now converted to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls (1 Pet 2:21-25).

Note the reference to Christ’s priesthood, in which He is both priest and victim:

He delivered Himself to him that judged Him unjustly: who His own self bore our sins in His body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice; by whose stripes you were healed.

That there are three ways that describe how Christ offered His very self. They are ways that we are called to imitate as well, for priest and victim are one and the same.

I. Resisting Temptation – The text of 1 Peter above speaks of Jesus as one who did no sin. It is easy to sin, to give in to temptation. It is much harder not to sin, to resist temptation.

Here, then, is our first sacrifice: that we engage in the difficult act of resisting temptation and sin. Sin does offer pleasures, but the bill comes later. The sacrifice is to refuse those pleasures, offered to us by the world, the flesh, and the devil. We sacrifice pleasures or we postpone them until there are sinless ways to gain them.

The royal priesthood of believers is called to offer this personal sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of obedience to which the Old Testament pointed:

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams (1 Sam 15:22).

Better to draw near in obedience than to offer the sacrifice as fools do (Eccl 5:1).

Here is our first priestly sacrifice: the sacrifice of our will, of our obedience to God.

Priest and victim are one and the same.

II. Reverencing the Truth – The text also says of Jesus, neither was deceit found in His mouth. There was in Jesus no duplicity; he did not gainsay the truth. Even His opponents said of Him, Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are (Mat 22:16). Ultimately, Christ would pay the supreme sacrifice for this and be led out to the cross.

We, who would be members of the royal priesthood of believers, must likewise be willing to sacrifice our safety, our popularity, our access to higher places, our very lives in order to speak the truth. It is easy to compromise, to go along with what is popular. It is easy to quote trendy sayings. It is easy to be silent when the truth is scoffed at or ridiculed. It is harder—sacrificial—to speak the truth and to defend what is true.

And indeed we will pay a price for it in most cases. Some people will merely raise an eyebrow or scoff at us; others will ridicule us or label us as haters, bigots, and the like. Still others will seek to exclude us, compel us to change, or even criminalize us.

And herein lie the sacrifices we must be willing to make. Often they will be small sacrifices, but at times they will be costly. The martyrs of all ages are witnesses to the personal cost of speaking and living the truth. Those of the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ must be willing to attest to the truth, even at great cost.

Priest and victim are one and the same.

III. Resisting Retaliation – The text further says of Jesus the High Priest, Who when He was reviled, did not revile: when He suffered, He threatened not, but delivered Himself. The most instinctual human response is to retaliate against those who scoff at or seek to harm us. It is easy to hate; it is hard to love. It is easy to strike back; it is hard and sacrificial to absorb the hit but let the cycle of anger and hatred end with me.

Satan wants to see hatred and vengeance cascade through the human family and history. But Jesus put the cross in his way. It was as if He threw a wrench in the gears of Satan’s hate machine so as to grind it to a halt.

We, too, are asked to sacrifice a significant degree of our honor and become like sand in the gears of the cycle of hate and vengeance. It is a sacrifice to say, “The cycle of retribution ends with me. I will not perpetuate it. I will absorb the blow and not retaliate. I will not flee evil; I will confront it without entering its world or adopting its tactics. I will likely suffer for this, but I will not become what I must resist. I will fight it with the paradoxical weapons of love and the cross.”

We make this sacrifice because in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, priest and victim are one and the same.

Here, then, is a brief summary (with examples) of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, in which priest and victim are one and the same. Again, the royal priesthood of all the baptized, while different in kind (not merely in degree) from the ministerial priesthood, shares this truth with it: priest and victim are one and the same.

Offer the sacrifice of your very self to God.

Posted on

Pondering the Great Reversal Announced in Scripture

blog2-25One of the strong traditions of Scripture is of the great reversal that will one day come for many. I have often been sobered by it when I consider how blessed I have been in this life. I have also been consoled by it when I struggle to understand why some people in this world seem to suffer so much more that I do, or others do.

Life seems a very uneven proposition if we only look at this side of the equation. Only God sees the whole picture, but to some extent, he has revealed that those who have suffered much in this life will be more than rewarded in the life to come and that there will be a great reversal.

The theme of the great reversal is most fully developed in the New Testament where the understanding of the life to come is also most developed. Consider the following texts:

  1. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first (Matt 19:30, Mark 10:31).
  2. He has cast down the mighty from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; but the rich he has sent away empty (Lk 1:52-53).
  3. Abraham replied [to the rich man], “My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented …” (Luke 16:25).
  4. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way (Luke 6:21-26).
  5. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more (Luke 12:48).
  6. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us (Rom 8:18).
  7. For this momentary light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Cor 4:17-18).

There are other examples, and I invite you to add to this list. But, for now, let these suffice. As I have said, I am both challenged and consoled by these texts.

I am consoled because I have suffered and experienced setbacks in this life, as I’m sure have you. But the Lord promises that if these are endured with faith, they ultimately lead to profit, not loss. And while much of this benefit may wait until Heaven, sufferings endured with faith are like treasure stored up in Heaven. First the cross, but then the crown. Hallelujah!

I am also consoled on behalf of others. I know many people who have suffered far more than seems fair. They have experienced loss after loss: lost health, lost jobs, lost homes, lost family members. My humanity recoils at this and I often cry to God on the behalf of these people who seem to suffer so much more than others. Why, O Lord?

But I am also challenged. I am certainly among those who are first. What does this say for me in the great reversal that is coming upon this world? My health is good; I enjoy bountiful blessings. I am more blessed that I deserve. I live in the richest and most powerful country in the world. My needs are largely provided for. I am here in my temperature-controlled room with plenty of time to write and to ponder things. I live far above mere subsistence level. I am surely among the first, the rich. Even the poorest in this country are blessed compared to many in other parts of the world.

Where shall I be when the first trumpet sounds, when the great reversal sets in?

Not everything is as it appears. We crave wealth, power, and access, considering those to be blessings. We want to be first. But God warns that it may well be a curse:

Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains (1 Tim 6:9-10).

Even though we are familiar with texts like this we still want to be rich, on top, first. We are very obtuse!

And so I am challenged. I am not, however, defeated or fatalistic. God has not utterly forsaken those who are first. He has left us a way. He has given us instruction on how to avoid the “curse” of our wealth and good fortune: use our position as “first” in order to bless others; place our many gifts at the service of the human family. A few texts come to mind:

  1. I tell you, make friends for yourselves with deceitful wealth, so that when it fails, they [likely the poor whom we befriended] will welcome you into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).
  2. Tell the rich in the present age not to be proud and not to rely on so uncertain a thing as wealth but rather on God, who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share, thus accumulating as treasure a good foundation for the future, so as to win the life that is true life (1 Tim 6:17-19).

And so it is that the Lord instructs those who are cursed to be first to store up our true treasure in Heaven (Matt 6:19). Of course we do not store up our treasure in Heaven by sending it up in a balloon or rocket! Rather, we store it up by generously dispensing it to the poor and needy. We may do this through a simple gift. Perhaps we provide jobs and economic opportunity for others. Maybe we share our knowledge, talents, or time. In doing such things, perhaps our curse of being among the first will be overcome.

The great reversal is coming! Where will I be when the first trumpet sounds?

This Chant of the Funeral Mass refers to the great reversal but prays that the deceased will be found with Lazarus, who once was poor. The text says, In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem. Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem. (May the angels lead you to paradise and at your coming may the martyrs receive you and may they lead you into the Holy City Jerusalem. May a choir of Angels receive you and with Lazarus who once was poor, may you have eternal rest.)

Posted on

The Passion of Anger and the “Miserable Truce” of the Modern Age

blog4-11Here in the Western world, we live in a culture that tends to treat anger as taboo. A common tactic to unsettle an opponent today is to accuse him or her of being angry. It is amazing how easily humiliated and/or defensive an adversary can become in response to such an accusation. Yes, it is remarkable how quickly the one accused of anger can feel the need to resort to denials such as these:

  1. I am not angry! (Note that this is usually said angrily, thus demonstrating its falsehood.)
  2. I’m not angry; I’m just frustrated. (Note that frustrated is just a nicer way of saying angry.)
  3. I’m not angry; You’re the one who’s angry! (Note that the “terrible” charge of being angry is denied instead of owned and appreciated as an expression of passion for something that matters.)
  4. Of course I’m angry, but who wouldn’t be angry when talking to an idiot! (Note that in saying this, one is tacitly accepting the accusation while at the same time excusing it.)

Rare indeed in the West is someone who will respond in a way that both admits anger and owns it as something positive and important. One way to do this would be to say, “You’re right; I am angry. I’m angry because I really care about this matter; I’m not just a neutral observer. I fully admit that I have an agenda, an agenda I believe in passionately. I experience grief and anger when what I value is disparaged. Yes, I’m angry; I care about this.”

Of itself, anger is just a passion, an energy that is aroused in us when we sense that something is wrong or that something is threatening us. This anger energizes us for action, mental and/or physical. The body becomes involved in this as adrenaline is released into our system.

The Bible does condemn vengeful anger, but it also describes anger that is not sinful: Be angry, but sin not (Eph 4:26). The sinless Jesus exhibits quite a bit of anger in several Bible passages (e.g., Luke 11; Mark 10; Matthew 17:17; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 26:8; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:4; John 2; and John 8). His indignation shows us that anger is sometimes an appropriate response.

Despite this, we seem to be felled quite easily by the charge that we are angry. We live in soft, thin-skinned times. The pervasive relativism of today suggests that even if we are going to believe in something, we ought not to believe in it too strongly, because that might mean that we have an “agenda,” that we think there is an objective truth to be upheld and insisted upon. And according to modern “rules,” having an “agenda” (i.e., thinking that certain things are surely true) is wrong with a capital ‘W.’ There is also today an inordinate emphasis on tolerance, a necessary component in a pluralistic setting but not an absolute virtue.

Whatever the reasons, anger, an ordinary and necessary human passion, is humiliating to most modern Westerners. The response of most to the charge of being angry is to try to squirm out of it.

And yet I say that we need more of it. Now I’m not talking about fisticuffs coming in a violent outburst, nor am I referring to the ugliness and personal disrespect rampant on the Internet (usually issued from behind the anonymous safety of a personal computer). Rather, I speak of an anger rooted in love and a deep commitment to the truth, an anger that arises from seeing the harm caused by lies, deception, error, sin, and injustice.

Lovers fight. Lovers get angry; and well they should. For when love is in the mix, things matter. Truth matters; error and harm matter. Lovers want what is best for their beloved, not merely what is expedient or convenient.

Author Dale Ahlquist expresses a lot of this better than I can. In his recent book The Complete Thinker, where he analyzes the thoughts of G.K. Chesterton, Ahlquist writes,

Chesterton illustrates the point about “the twin elements of loving and fighting.” … Modern philosophies have tried to do away with this paradox … but fighting and loving actually go together. You cannot love a thing without wanting to fight for it. … To love a thing without wishing to fight for it is not love at all. …

The connection between two such apparent opposites points to the idea that truth is always an amazing balancing act. … If we lean too far in one direction or the other, we lose our balance. Thus, both militarism and pacifism represent a loss of balance.

Militarism is simply bullying, the strong having their own way. Pacifism is a lack of loyalty, a promise not to defend the innocent, the helpless, the defenseless.

The Church has always had to maintain the precarious balance of truth, whether in war or in anything else. …

Sometimes the only way to stop the fighting is to fight. Sometimes the only way to end a war is to win it—but only as an act of defense, not as an act of aggression. …

The sword is an important symbol of Christianity. It is not only in the shape of a cross; it is the scriptural symbol of truth, which cuts both ways—because error comes from opposite sides.

Chesterton also says he likes swords because “they come to a point,” unlike most modern art and philosophy.

Yes, lovers fight and get angry. And the anger of the greatest lover of them all, God, is evident in the downward thrust of the cross into the soil of this world, with its manifold lies and half-truths. The cross is the downward thrust, like that of a sword, of God’s non placet to the rebellion of this world and to the error it holds so arrogantly.

And yet that downward thrust is also open in love, as can be seen in the outward arms of the cross, the outstretched arms of Christ. At the very center of the cross, where anger and love unite, is the heart of Christ.

Yes, love and anger are closer to each other than we moderns often realize or admit. Love says that there are certain things worth fighting for and being angry about. But the anger coming from love is not egocentric, it is “other-centric.” It is focused on God, the truth, and the dignity of those who are meant to walk in truth. Ahlquist says, “In loving our enemies, we want to convert them so they are not our enemies anymore. Ultimately, we want to get our enemies to join our side.”

Yes, some things are worth fighting for and about. Ahlquist continues,

No sane man has ever held, that war is a good thing. … But the … occasion may arise when it is better for a man to fight than to surrender …. War is not the direst calamity that can befall a people. There is one worse state, at least: the state of slavery.

While a good peace is better than a good war, even a good war is better than a bad peace.

[And thus the] Church on earth is called the Church Militant. War is a metaphor, and it would not work as a metaphor if it were not a reality, a reality that we have to live with.

This life of ours is a very enjoyable fight, but a very miserable truce.

That last line is a very telling description of the modern age: a miserable truce. Everyone is walking on eggshells, afraid of offending anyone, and suppressing the truth on account of this fear. And thus our anger gets suppressed, renamed, and turned inward. It has been said that the definition of depression is “anger turned inward.” That’s not a bad definition in times like these, when large numbers of people are on anti-depressants and other psychotropic medicines to manage the “miserable truce” that is the false peace of these times. It is a peace rooted not in the truth, but in the compelled silence of political correctness and under the cloak of euphemisms and thinly veiled politeness.

Perhaps that is why such ugliness erupts from time to time, especially in relatively anonymous settings like social media and blog comment boxes. Here, we, who have forgotten how to have a good argument in person or how to manage and appreciate our anger in normal ways, can resort to the ugliness of savage and unkind personal attacks.

This sort of anger, often seen in political settings as well, is not about truth or love. It is about scoring points; it is about winning with little regard for truth or love. But the Church Militant without love is not the Church.

At the end of the day, though, anger has its place in the context of love. Decent, fair fights are necessary for those who love. Without a proper appreciation for these, we end up with the gray fog of a “miserable truce” that is evident in the modern West.

Just for fun, here’s a music video of the Bobby McFerrin song “Don’t Worry Be Happy.”

 

Posted on

Eradicating Poverty Is Not a Gospel Value – A Reflection on a Teaching by Cardinal Sarah

homeless-blog-postThe eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!

The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?

I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.

Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:

How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?

In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.

The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.

Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …

Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.

The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …

But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …

[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …

Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …

The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).

We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience (Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).

Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”

The Cardinal replies,

It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).

This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.

So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.

While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.

The word “arrogance” comes to mind. We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.

We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.

Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).

I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so. We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.