Posts

Posted on

But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken….” A Reflection on the Sin of Gossip

One of the more under-rated categories of sin are the sins of speech. There are many ways we sin, but perhaps the most common way is by speech. Too easily, almost without thought, do we engage in gossip, idle chatter, lies, exaggerations, harsh attacks, uncharitable observations and remarks. With our tongue we can spread hatred, incite fear and maliciousness, spread misinformation, cause temptation, discourage, teach error, and ruin reputations. We can surely cause great harm with a gift capable of such good!

And not only do we sin by commission but also by omission. For frequently we are silent when we should speak. We do not correct when we should. In our age the triumph of evil and bad behavior has been assisted by our silence as a Christian people. Prophets are to speak God’s word but too often we fulfill Isaiah 56:10 which says, Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep.

Well did James say: Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect! (James 3:2) And too easily do we dismiss sins of speech as of little account. While it may be true that not every sin of speech is serious or mortal, it is possible to inflict great harm with speech and thus have the matter become very serious, even mortal. Jesus warns, But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken (Matt 12:36)

With this in mind, it may be of value to focus in on one aspect of the sins of speech commonly called “gossip.” (I was privileged to be on Catholic Answers Live last night and speak with Patrick Coffin and listeners on this very topic. You can listen to the hour-long broadcast here: Catholic Answers Podcast)

In defining gossip in a general way, the term can merely apply to talk of a personal or trivial nature. But the sin of gossip is more specifically considered to be idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It usually involves uncharitable or inappropriate conversation about others, not present and has a reputation for the introduction of errors and variations into the information transmitted. St Thomas includes it in his treatise on justice (II, IIae 72-76) in the Summa since, by it, we unjustly harm the reputation of others, through either lies or truths shared inappropriately. The Catechism of the Catholic Church includes gossip under its treatment of the 8th Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

As he most often does, St. Thomas well distinguishes a number of different forms of gossip (injustice in speech) and we can look at them one by one.

1. Reviling – dishonoring a person, usually to their face, and often in the hearing of others. It is done openly, audibly and is usually rooted in anger and personal disrespect. It may include name-calling, caricature, profanity and even cursing (which will also be treated later). For the most part, we do not consider reviling to be a form of gossip per se, (since gossip is usually conducted apart from the offended person and reviling to their face). But reviling is a sin of speech that ought to be mentioned here, since it is annexed to the general dishonor and harming of the reputation of others that is at the heart of gossip. Reviling as such is intended to cause personal embarrassment or dishonor.

2. Backbiting – Generally we call this today, “talking behind someone’s back.” Backbiting is the secret and quiet injuring of a person’s good name to others. Here the key point is that the injured person is not present either to defend or clarify what is said. There are two forms of backbiting that St Thomas distinguishes:

A. Calumny – which is telling lies about someone behind their back. The written form of this is called slander.
B. Detraction – which is passing on harmful truths about others. What is said is true, but is not necessary information to be shared, and the information has the effect of diminishing a person’s reputation or harming their good name before others. For example, it may be true that Joe has a drinking problem, but it is not necessary information to share.

There may be times when it is important to share certain truths about others because it is necessary information but such information should be shared only by those who need to know it for a just cause. Further, the information must be certainly true and not merely hearsay. Finally, only the necessary information should be shared, avoiding a full rendering of everything you ever wanted to know about Joe.

3. Tale -Bearing – also called tale whispering – This may sound like backbiting, but St Thomas makes a distinction here. Whereas a backbiter seeks to harm the reputation of another absent person, the tale bearer seeks to stir up trouble and arouse people to action against a person. Perhaps he seeks to have others end professional, business, or personal relationships with the one gossiped about. Perhaps his goal is to incite angry responses toward him, or even violence. Perhaps too, some legal action is the desired outcome. But the tale-bearer seeks to incite some action against the one he gossips about, hence it goes further than the harming of reputation, to include the harming of relationships, finances, legal standing, and so forth.

4. Derision – is making fun of a person, perhaps of their mannerisms, perhaps of a physical trait, or personal quality. While some of this can be light-hearted, it often strays into hurtful and humiliating actions or words that diminish someone else’s standing or honor within the community.

5. Cursing – a spoken wish or command that another person be afflicted with some evil or harm. This may or may not be spoken to their face. Here too we see a dishonoring of a person in the presence of others. The usual goal is to incite from others, anger and dishonor towards the injured person. The cursing of a person is considered in the realm of gossip, whereas the cursing of irrational things is considered merely vain or futile speech, though not wholly sin-free.

How serious these sins of speech (forms of gossip) are will depend on a number of factors including the degree of harm caused to a person’s reputation, who and how many overhear, and circumstances of place, time and language used. Lack of intent to harm may lessen the culpability of the sinner, but not the fact of sinfulness of the act. However, to dishonor a person, especially with the intent of harming their reputation or necessary standing before others, can easily become a very serious sin.

One of the most precious things a person has is their reputation, for, on it rests their capacity to interrelate with others and engage in just about every other form of human interaction. It is a very serious thing, therefore, to harm the reputation of another. And while this harm may sometimes be mild, we ought not easily dismiss the possibility that, what we think to be a small matter, might actually cause greater harm that we imagine. St James says of the gossiping tongue: Consider how a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell (James 3:11).

It remains true that we sometimes must have necessary conversations about others who are not present. Perhaps we are seeking advice about how to handle a delicate situation. Perhaps we need encouragement in dealing with a difficult person, or need to do legitimate fact-checking. Perhaps, especially in professional settings, we are asked to make and give evaluations of colleagues, employees, or situations. However, in cases like these we need to limit the scope our conversations to what is necessary and include only those who certainly ought to be included.

In seeking personal advice or encouragement we also ought to speak only with others who are trustworthy and can reasonably be of help. Where possible we should exclude unnecessary details, even the name of the person being discussed, (if feasible). Discretion is the key word in these necessary conversations.

It may also be important to balance the avoidance of gossip with a reminder that extreme secrecy may also be unhelpful in a community. There are times when egregious situations must be directly addressed. In cases like these we ought to follow the norms set forth by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony 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, treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Hence, discretion must also give way to some transparency in given circumstances, and communities may need to address some matters publicly and clearly.

But as a consistent rule, we ought to be very careful about sins of speech. Too easily and carelessly we risk ruining the reputation and standing of others by our gossip. Idle chatter about others can bring great harm and draw many others into sin. Scripture says, Set a guard over my mouth, O LORD; keep watch over the door of my lips. (Psalm 141:3). Indeed, Help Lord! keep Your arm around my shoulder and Your hand over my mouth! Put your word in my heart, so that when I do speak, it’s really you.

Painting above by Agostino Carracci

While this video features the ladies, men gossip too:

Posted on

Rejoice, Be Challenged, and Commit (St. Andrew Kim)

Whenever I think of religion in Asia, Buddhism and Confucianism automatically spring to my mind. How surprised I was to learn that in South Korea today, a tiny fraction of the population is Confucian, 26% is Buddhist, and 26% is Christian- 10% of whom are Catholic. This means that Christianity is tied, numerically speaking, as the largest religion in that Asian nation. Which is remarkable, considering that Christianity was introduced there just over 200 years ago, and the first native-born priest was ordained only in 1846.

That priest was St. Andrew Kim Taegon, whose feast we celebrate today. But it’s not just his feast. We also honor St. Paul Chong Hasang, who was a lay catechist, and his companions, the 103 Korean martyrs of the 19th century, the vast majority of whom were lay people. Indeed, it was the laity who first introduced Catholicism to Korea. It was lay leaders who helped it flourish before the first priests arrived decades later. And Korean Catholicism continues to flourish with a strong and committed laity.

Today’s celebration gives us the opportunity to rejoice, be challenged, and make a commitment. We can rejoice in the Church’s growth amongst the Korean people; we (as clergy and clergy candidates) can be challenged by the fact that the Korean church’s strength has come largely from faithful lay people; and we can commit ourselves to build up the Church in our nation, that the fruits of the Spirit manifested in Korea, may be enjoyed in the United States.

Photo Credit: (statue of St. Andrew Kim): Wikipedia Commons

Posted on

“But worldly sorrow brings death…” On Distinguishing a Good and Healthy Guilt From Morbid and Harmful Guilt

On of the trickier terrains to navigate in the moral world is the experience of guilt. Guilt is understood here as a kind of sorrow for sin.

On the one hand there is an appropriate sorrow for sin we ought to experience. Yet there are also types of guilt that can set up, either from our flesh or from the devil which are self destructive and inauthentic. Some forms of morbid or harmful guilt can cause great harm and actually increase the frequency of sin due to the way they render a person discouraged and self disparaging rather, rather than chastened but confident of mercy, healing and help. It may be of some value to make some distinctions so that we can discern what sort of guilt is healthy, and what is not.

St. Paul makes an important initial distinction for us to consider in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Paul had rebuked the Corinthians in an earlier letter (esp. 1 Cor 5) for sinning, and tolerating sin their midst. Evidently his rebuke stung many of them significantly with 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.” And the way we can distinguish them, according to Paul is by their fruits.

For Godly sorrow has for it fruits:

  1. A repentance
  2. An earnestness to do what is right. The Greek word is σπουδή (spoude) which refers also a kind of swiftness rooted in enthusiasm.
  3. A longing for what is right. The Greek text speaks of how this Godly sorrow gave them ἐπιπόθησις (epipothesis): not just an eager longing but also understood as a strong affection for what is good and just.
  4. It also produced in them a kind of indignation for sin,
  5. And a kind of holy fear of it.

So, 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 it does not harm us in any way. Further it leaves no regrets.

We might also add that Godly sorrow is rooted in love, our 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 we have offended, rather than from Him, as we sulk.

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

I think I once experienced something close to Godly sorrow, approaching perfect contrition, as a child, but somewhat in relation to a human person, my mother. It was my 8th birthday, and Mom knew I loved tall buildings. So she took me to the top of the new John Hancock building in Chicago where we lived and I was thrilled to look out from the 100th floor visitors’ center. Then we had a nice lunch and returned home. I remember going to the cookie jar and reaching for one, but mom said, “Not now, you’ll spoil your birthday dinner.” I must have been tired from the long day for I looked at her and said, “You’re mean and I hate you!” As I ran from the room I realized what I had done, and was deeply sorry. I was not afraid she would punish me, I just knew I had said something terrible to my mother, something I didn’t mean. In my love and sorrow I cried and went back to tell her how sorry I felt. But love, made my sorrow a Godly sorrow and it drew me back to my mother in a way that increased my love and made me adverse to ever speaking to her like that again. I eagerly helped her set the table and told her I really loved her.

What of “worldly sorrow” as Paul puts it? He says only it “brings death.” Here we must surmise that, whereas Godly sorrow gives live, 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 we hate, so much as our self that we hate.

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 often pride wherein a person may think, in effect, “How could I have done such a thing?”

If we can know something by its fruits, then we also do well to observe that worldly sorrow will often make us run from God in avoidance, rather than to him in love. Further it will often provoke anger in us making us resentful of God’s law, and that we should have to seek mercy and humble ourselves to God, or to another person we have offended. Rather than make us eager to repent, we will often delay repentance out of embarrassment or resentment. Further, these sorts of attitudes can lead us to rationalizing sin and minimizing its significance.

Others go in a very different direction of self-loathing and despair. They may hyper-magnify what they have done or over-correct by descending into an unhealthy scrupulosity, rooted in fear of punishment, more than love of God.

All of these negative fruits, though they often masquerade as something pious, tend only to make sin even more frequent. For if one is self-loathing and despairing of one’s capacity to live in God’s love, and experience his correction, then there is little strength for them to draw on. They see only weakness and guilt, but miss love and the splendor of grace. Perceiving no basis out of which to get better, they descend deeper into sin, run further from God in unholy fear, and the cycle 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 certain we are dealing with worldly sorrow which produces all these death-directed drives. A confessor or spiritual director will often have to work long and hard to break some of these negative cycles and help a person 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. Thankfully we are given some good principles by St. Paul and encouraged to distinguish these very different sorrows (Godly and worldly) by their fruits. Satan loves cheap imitations. He, wolf that he is, loves to masquerade in sheep’s clothing. But learn to know his cheap “imitation sorrow” by its fruits, which are death-directed, rather than God-directed.

After a serious topic here is a a humorous and remarkable video depicting “guilt” in a dog. I have to say, I remain fascinated how the dogs and cats I have had all seem to know when they’ve messed up. Their guilt, I am sure is rooted more in fear of punishment than love of me, God or the truth. But one nice thing about animals, they run back pretty fast and make friends again. Enjoy this remarkable video that has over 12 million views.

Posted on

"But worldly sorrow brings death…" On Distinguishing a Good and Healthy Guilt From Morbid and Harmful Guilt

On of the trickier terrains to navigate in the moral world is the experience  of guilt. Guilt is understood here as a kind of sorrow for sin.

On the one hand there is an appropriate sorrow for sin we ought to experience. Yet there are also types of guilt that can set up, either from our flesh or from the devil which are self destructive and inauthentic. Some forms of morbid or harmful guilt can cause great harm and actually increase the frequency of sin due to the way they render a person discouraged and self disparaging rather, rather than chastened but confident of mercy, healing and help.   It may be of some value to make some distinctions so that we can discern what sort of guilt is healthy, and what is not.

St. Paul makes an important initial distinction for us to consider in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Paul had rebuked the Corinthians in an earlier letter (esp. 1 Cor 5) for sinning, and tolerating sin their midst. Evidently his rebuke stung many of them significantly with 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.” And the way we can distinguish them, according to Paul is by their fruits.

For Godly sorrow has for it fruits:

  1. A repentance
  2. An earnestness to do what is right. The Greek word is σπουδή (spoude) which refers also a kind of swiftness rooted in enthusiasm.
  3. A longing for what is right. The Greek text speaks of how this Godly sorrow gave them ἐπιπόθησις (epipothesis): not just an eager longing but also understood as a strong affection for what is good and just.
  4. It also produced in them a kind of indignation for sin,
  5. And a kind of holy fear of it.

So, 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 it does not harm us in any way. Further it leaves no regrets.

We might also add that Godly sorrow is rooted in love, our 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 we have offended, rather than from Him, as we sulk.

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

I think I once experienced something close to Godly sorrow, approaching perfect contrition, as a child, but somewhat in relation to a human person, my mother. It was my 8th birthday, and Mom knew I loved tall buildings. So she took me to the top of the new John Hancock building in Chicago where we lived and I was thrilled to look out from the 100th floor visitors’ center. Then we had a nice lunch and returned home. I remember going to the cookie jar and reaching for one, but mom said, “Not now, you’ll spoil your birthday dinner.” I must have been tired from the long day for I looked at her and said, “You’re mean and I hate you!” As I ran from the room I realized what I had done, and was deeply sorry. I was not afraid she would punish me, I just knew I had said something terrible to my mother, something I didn’t mean. In my love and sorrow I cried and went back to tell her how sorry I felt. But love, made my sorrow a Godly sorrow and it drew me back to my mother  in a way that increased my love and made me adverse to ever speaking to her like that again. I eagerly helped her set the table and told her I really loved her.

What of “worldly sorrow” as Paul puts it? He says only it “brings death.” Here we must surmise that, whereas Godly sorrow gives live, 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 we hate, so much as our self that we hate.

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 often pride wherein a person may think, in effect, “How could I have done such a thing?”

If we can know something by its fruits, then we also do well to observe that worldly sorrow will often make us run from God in avoidance, rather than to him in love. Further it will often provoke anger in us making us resentful of God’s law, and that we should have to seek mercy and humble ourselves to God, or to another person we have offended. Rather than make us eager to repent, we will often delay repentance out of embarrassment or resentment.  Further, these sorts of attitudes can lead us to rationalizing sin and minimizing its significance.

Others go in a very different direction of self-loathing and despair. They may hyper-magnify what they have done or over-correct by descending into an unhealthy scrupulosity, rooted in fear of punishment, more than love of God.

All of these negative fruits, though they often masquerade as something pious, tend only to make sin even more frequent. For if one is self-loathing and despairing of one’s capacity to live in God’s love, and experience his correction, then there is little strength for them to draw on. They see only weakness and guilt, but miss love and the splendor of grace. Perceiving no basis out of which to get better, they descend deeper into sin, run further from God in unholy fear, and the cycle 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 certain we are dealing with worldly sorrow which produces all these death-directed drives. A confessor or spiritual director will often have to work long and hard to break some of these negative cycles and help a person 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. Thankfully we are given some good principles by St. Paul and encouraged to distinguish these very different sorrows (Godly and worldly) by their fruits. Satan loves cheap imitations. He, wolf that he is,  loves to masquerade in sheep’s clothing. But learn to know his cheap “imitation sorrow” by its fruits, which are death-directed, rather than God-directed.

After a serious topic here is a a humorous and remarkable video depicting “guilt” in a dog. I have to say, I remain fascinated how the dogs and cats I have had all seem to know when they’ve messed up. Their guilt, I am sure is rooted more in fear of punishment than love of me, God or the truth. But one nice thing about animals, they run back pretty fast and make friends again. Enjoy this remarkable video that has over 12 million views.

Posted on

Prophets, not Profits

A few years back, I wrote a children’s poem about the Christmas story. As it took shape, I thought that my little poem wasn’t half bad. That’s when the temptation arose for me to switch my focus from writing it for the benefit of my family, to writing it so I could make some extra dough. In writing, I was using a gift God had given me, but with the wrong intention.

God gives to each of us special gifts, talents, and opportunities. They’re given so that we might serve God, bless our neighbors, and grow as people. In receiving them, the question we should ask is, “How can I use them to glorify God?” Sadly, in our materialistic culture, the question we typically ask is: “How can I use them to make some money?” That may be good capitalism, but it’s poor Christianity.

God wants us to use the gifts he gives us. That’s what Jesus meant when he said that we need to set our light on a lampstand instead of hiding it under a bushel. But, as Jesus continued, we let our light shine, not so that we might be able to see, but so that “those who enter may see the light.”

In other words, God’s gifts aren’t simply for our own benefit, but are for the benefit of others. They’re to be used primarily to help people, instead of helping our bottom line. They’re given that might be prophets, instead of seeking a profit.

Today’s gospel challenges us to see and use all of what God has given us, not to build up our bank accounts, but to build up the kingdom of God.

Readings for today’s Mass: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/091911.cfm

Photo Credit: epSos.de via Creative Commons

Posted on

Catholic Orthodoxy is Not Bigotry: A Response to the Hate-Filled Comments Received by a Catholic Blogger

Over at the very fine Accepting Abundance blog, authored by Stacy Trasancos, a rather remarkable display of hatefulness has erupted in the combox. Now just guess what the issue might be that has generated this storm of protest against a Catholic blogger on a Catholic blog. Sure enough it was the issue of homosexuality.

Stacy blogged on concerns she had over increasing public displays of affection between homosexual couples in her nearby park. Her concerns centered especially on the how such things affected her seven children who, with her, frequent the park.

The post was picked up by a couple “Gay” websites such as “Pink News” and “Queer Magazine” and this resulted in almost 1000 responses to Stacy’s post, many of them extremely vile. To be fair, many of the dissenting remarks were also respectful and to the point. But far too many were so vulgar, hateful and personally attacking of Stacy, her family, the Church, and Christians in general, that even editing the profanities cannot save them from the category of pure hate. In one comment it is wished that Stacy’s children be kidnapped, raped and murdered, and she is called two names that, even using asterisks, I will not publish on this site.

I too have be “treated” to this when I have published on the issue of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching (which accords with Scripture). I also get some extremely hateful replies, laced with personal attacks, when I blog on topics related to atheism, and the interplay between science and faith. Just let topics like these make their way to the wrong site and unbelievable comments pour in that I must either severely edit, or trash altogether. So much for the “tolerance” of many of our interlocutors. And yet it is we who are called hateful, bigoted, phobic and so forth.

What of these charges…that that we are supposedly hateful and bigoted?

It is true that believing Catholics and many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, consider homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. And on account of our disapproval of such things, especially homosexual behavior, we are often called “intolerant,” homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).

But what if our objections do not simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance? What if our objections come from a disciplined and principled reading of Scripture: a text we sincerely believe to be revealed by God, and which cannot be changed by us to suit our needs, a sacred text which clearly and consistently states that homosexual acts are gravely sinful and displeasing to God, a text which also condemn all illicit heterosexual activity.

These biblical principles and the Sacred text are not something we can simply set aside. We venerate the Scripture as the Word of God and we venerate both the Scripture and Sacred Tradition that go back to the Christ and the Apostles and then some seven thousand years of the full Judeo-Christian heritage. A principled reading of this does not simply permit us to start tearing pages from the Sacred text. Now this is principled, not bigoted, heartfelt, not hateful.

Some will argue that the biblical text has some pretty shocking things in it, for example that homosexuals should be killed (e.g. Lev 20). But Catholics do not read Scripture in a crudely mechanistic or piecemeal way, rather we draw our teaching and understanding from the Scripture considered in full and from the principle that the New Testament interprets and fulfills the Old Testament.

For example, some things in the Old Testament are fulfilled and transposed (e.g. Passover becomes Easter). Some things are abrogated (set aside) by later clarifications or by being overruled by Jesus himself (e.g. dietary laws, certain Sabbath regulations, some ceremonial precepts, divorce, and many of the harsh punishments such as stoning). But other things, such as the Ten Commandments and the Moral Law are carried forward without alteration.

Now homosexual acts and illicit heterosexual acts are in this last category. They are clearly and consistently spoken again at every stage of Biblical revelation, from begin to the very end. And even if some of the punishments, (e.g. stoning of adulterers and those guilty of homosexual acts), have been set aside, the teaching remains in force. By way of analogy, it was also said that children who disobeyed their parents could be stoned (Deut 21:18). This penalty has been set aside, but that children should obey their parents is no less taught.

As Catholics we strive to act out of a principled reading of the Sacred Scriptures that is both comprehensive and respectful of the fact that God is its author. Though some may wish to call us hateful, that does not make us so. I am not aware that I hate anyone. But I cannot therefore give blanket approval for everything that everyone does, including myself. Even our opponents in this matter do not do that. That I do not approve of something does not ipso facto make me a hateful, bigoted or phobic.

This does not exclude the fact that there may be some in our world who are in fact bigots, but it is wrong to lump together all who oppose the homosexual agenda into this category. In the end, I cannot and will not over rule Sacred Scripture and God for the sake of pleasing man or being thought politically correct.

The Catholic Church does not hate homosexuals. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly enough

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC 2357-2359)

Now for some, who equate love and tolerance with a full and complete approval of all they do, such a statement will simply be dismissed. In their “all or nothing world,” a failure to approve wholeheartedly equals hate and bigotry. Little can be done to satisfy those such as these, except to point out the extremity of their judgment and the lack of tolerance they themselves exhibit.

As for the Church, we continue to welcome those with a homosexual orientation but must teach in love that, in accord with Scripture, they are called to live chastely, that is, in the celibate state, as in anyone who is unmarried. There are even support groups without Church auspices that provide encouragement such as Courage. It also remains true we cannot support Gay “marriage” for the same principled reasons that Scripture sets forth.

More than this we cannot do. But I will say, I know more than a few lay people with homosexual orientation who have embraced the Church teaching and live it well. They are good and faithful Catholics and many have leadership roles, and are valued members of their parishes. The Catholic Church does not hate homosexuals.

And this leads us finally back to Stacy Trasanco’s blog post. Some will argue that there is no harm in public displays of affection (PDAs) by homosexual couples, and that we should learn to be more tolerant.

Tolerance has its place but it also has its limits. As Catholics we are not wholly intolerant in the sense that we seek to force an end to private behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to enter bedrooms and make arrests. But we ought not be asked to approve of public acts we consider wrong.

Almost every law in this country enshrines some sort of limit to tolerance, so limited tolerance is not unique to Bible-believing Christians. And we will, and must ask that others curb public behaviors we consider to be sinful.

We may lose this battle culturally, and PDAs by homosexual couples may become more common, but it is not hateful for us to enter the discussion and express our displeasure over this and seek to influence others in that discussion.

There are many questionable things that all Americans are willing to overlook if they are done in private. But when they become public, there is a legitimate discussion that must be allowed to take place. And that discussion will need to include not just a lot of talk about what my “rights” are, but also what has historically been the norm in given communities.

Further some respect for the general consensus needs to be considered. Frankly most Americans are currently not happy to see public displays of affection from homosexual couples and the reason for this may be something other than mere bigotry.

When things start going public, public discussions are necessarily going to follow. And personal threats, name calling, curses, generalizations, caricatures, lies, and the presumption of hate and bigotry are not legitimate ways to have this  discussion. Too often those who demand tolerance are the last to show it. Stacy has surely experienced this, as have I and not a few others.

Image Credit: Accepting Abundance

This video shows, in a humorous way how those who hold up tolerance sometimes run afoul of it themselves.

Posted on

Five Dispositions for Discipleship: A Meditation on the Gospel for the 25th Sunday of the Year

When we read a gospel like the one for today’s Mass we are tempted to side with the laborers who were hired first and who worked the longest. When we find out that they got paid the same as the men who only worked an hour the thought occurs to us that this is unfair somehow. And Jesus deals in his own way about the objections of unfairness issue, indicating simply that it is not for us to say how he will “spend” his grace. It’s his and the rest of it is none of our business.

I would further add the caution that we ought to be very careful before we ask God to be “fair.” Really what we want to ask from God is that he be merciful. For, if he were fair we’d all be in hell right now. The fact is we have no innate capacity to stand before God in pure justice, we simply cannot measure up to that. It is only grace and mercy that will win the day for us. So be very careful before trying to play the fairness card on God. In fact when we see Him being merciful to some one else, we ought to rejoice, for is also means we might stand a chance.

But another aspect of this Gospel that is important to learn from are the various dispositions of discipleship that are taught as the parable unfolds. Lets look at them each in turn.

I. The AVAILABILITY of discipleship – the text says, A landowner went at dawn to hire laborers to work in his field….He went later and found others standing idle….Why do you stand idle here all day?

Now it is clear that what we have described here are “day workers.” These were men, much like the Latino men of our day, who stood in public places hoping to be hired for the day. It was a tough life for, if you worked, you ate, if you didn’t you’d have little or nothing to eat. They were (are) called day laborers because they were hired only on a day to day basis, as needed. This is a terrible form of poverty for its vicissitude and men like these were (are) the poorest of the poor.

But note how their poverty, their hunger, makes them available. Each morning they show up and are ready, are available to be hired. Their poverty also motivates them to seek out the land owner and indicate that they are ready and willing to work. The well fed, and otherwise employed, do not show up, are not available. There’s something about poverty that makes these men available. Because their glass is empty, it is able to be filled.

But these men are us. We are the poor who depend on God for everything. Sometimes we don’t want to admit that, but we are. And every now and then it is made plain to us how poor, vulnerable and needy we really are. And this tends to make us seek God. In our emptiness, poverty and powerlessness, suddenly, there is room for God. Suddenly our glass, too often filled with the world, is now empty enough for God to find room. And in our pain we stand ready for God to usher us into the vineyard of his kingdom. An old gospel song says, Lord, I’m available to you, my storage is empty and I am available to you. It is our troubles that make us get up and go out with the poor to seek the Lord and be available to him. When things are going too well, Lord knows where we are to be found! Another gospel song says, Lord don’t move my mountain but give me the strength to climb it. Don’t take away my stumbling block but lead me all around. Cause Lord when my get a little too easy you know I tend to stray from thee.

Yes, we might wish for a trouble free life, but then, where would we be? Would we seek the Lord, would we make ourselves available to God, would we ever call on him at all?

II. The CALL of Discipleship – The text says, The Land OWNER said, “Go into my vineyard”….HE sent them into HIS vineyard.

So notice that it is the land owner who calls the shots. Too many, who call themselves the Lord’s disciples, rush into his vineyard with great ideas and biggie-wow projects that they have never really asked God about. But this passage teaches us that entrance into the vineyard requires the owners permission. If we expect to see fruits (wages for the work) at the end of the day, we have to be on the list of approved workers.

Fruitful discipleship is based on a call from the Lord. Scripture says, Unless the Lord builds the House, they that labor to build it labor in vain (Ps 127:1). Too many people run off and get married, take new jobs, accept promotions, start projects, etc., without ever asking God.

But true discipleship requires the Lord’s call first: “Go into my vineyard.” Got a bright idea? Ask God first. Discern his call with the Church, and a good spiritual director, guide, or pastor.

III. The TIMING of Discipleship. The text says, The vineyard owner came at Dawn, 9:00 am, Noon, 3:00 pm, 5:00pm

We may puzzle as to why God call some early, others late; none of our business. But he does call at different times. And even those he calls early, he does not always call us to do everything now. There is a timing to discipleship.

Moses thought he was ready at age 40, and in his haste, he murdered a man. God said, “Not now!” and made him wait until he was 80.

Sometimes we’ve got something we want to do but the Lord says, “Not yet.” And we think, “But Lord! This is a great project and many will benefit!” But the Lord says, “Not yet.” And we say, “But Lord I’m ready to do it now!” And the Lord says, “Not yet.”

Sometimes we think we’re ready, but we’re not. An old gospel song says, God is preparing me. He’s Preparing me for something I cannot handle right now. He’s making me ready, just because he cares. He’s providing me with what I’ll need to carry out the next matter in my life. God is preparing me. Just because he cares for me. He’s: maturing me. arranging me, realigning my attitude. He’s training me, teaching me, tuning me, purging me, pruning me, He’s preparing me.

IV. The PERSEVERANCE of Discipleship – The text says, When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to foreman…summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.

Notice the wage is paid in the evening and in the order determined by the land owner (who is God). The lesson is simple, we’ve got to stay in the vineyard. Some start things, but do not finish them. But if you’re not there at six, no pay.

Scripture says that we must persevere. Jesus says, But he who perseveres to the end will be saved (Mat 24:13). We also read To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life (Rom 2:7). And again, You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. (Heb 10:36).

Yes, we must work till evening comes. Saying we had faith when we were young and that we got all our sacraments when we were young will not suffice. We have to work till evening. An old spiritual says, Some go to Church for to sing and shout. Before six months they’s all turned out. How about you?

V. The GIFT of discipleship – The text says, Those hired first grumbled…we bore the heat of the day and burdens thereof.

Notice how the early workers think of their entrance into the vineyard and its labors as a “burden.” Of course the vineyard is really the Kingdom of God. And, it reamains true that many “cradle Catholics,” of a lukewarm nature, consider the faith to be a burden and think, somehow, that “sinners have all the fun.” Never mind that this is a completely perverted thinking, it is held anyway, consciously and unconsciously, by many.

But consider the laborers hired last. Were they having a picnic? Not exactly. Most were resigning themselves to the fact that they and their family will have little or nothing to eat tonight. Similarly, most sinners do not live the life of Reilly. Repeated and life-long sin brings many griefs: disease, dissipation of wealth, regrets, loss of family, addiction and so forth. Sinners do no have all the fun, no matter what they tell you.

Further, being a Christian is not a burden. If accepted, we receive a whole new life from Christ, a life of: freedom, purity, simplicity, victory over sin, joy, serenity, vision and destiny.

How do you view the Christian life? Is it a gift, a treasure beyond compare no matter its difficulties? Or is it a burden, a bearing of the labor in the heat of the day? Scripture says, For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God. It goes on to describe our “works” not as burdens but as something God enables us to do: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10)

So here are five dispositions of discipleship which the Lord teaches in this parable: Availability, Call, Timing, Perseverance, and Gift.

Note well what the Lord teaches, for too often, we want to decide what it means to be a disciple. Beware, for the worst kind of disciple is the kind that gets out ahead of the Lord and self-defines his or her role. Jesus is Lord, let him lead.

This Song says, “I’m available to you…” And it reminds us that the owner of the vineyard still seeks souls to enter his vineyard and he wants to use your voice to say to someone: “You too, go into my vineyard!”

Posted on

A Mother’s Dream (St. Robert Bellarmine)

St. Robert Bellarmine’s parents had vastly different visions of what they wanted their son to be when he grew up. His father wanted him to become a wealthy politician. His mother, a devout woman and a niece of a pope, had other plans. She dreamed her son would become a Jesuit.

Guess who won? St. Robert did indeed become a Jesuit. Even more, he was appointed a cardinal and distinguished himself as one of the most influential theologians of late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, advising popes and engaging kings, Protestant leaders, and scientists in the pressing debates of his day. In honor of his work, he was named a Doctor of the Church.

But I wonder if things might have turned out differently, had St. Robert been born in 2011, instead of 1542? I wonder if his mother would have hoped he’d become a priest at all. Parents today are far less willing than they were in the past to encourage their sons to be priests, or their daughters to be sisters, in part because they fear that they would wind up being unhappy people. Scientific studies have shown, however, that on average, priests and sisters are among the happiest people in America, because, first and foremost, they understand themselves as servants of the Lord. Yet that’s an understanding that all of us can apply to ourselves, whether we’re priests or not, because we’re all called and created, in whatever we do, to be servants of God. As St. Robert himself said: “If you are wise, then know that you have been created for the glory of God and your eternal salvation. This is your good; this is the center of your life; this is the treasure of your heart.”

Readings for today’s Mass: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/091711.cfm

Photo Credit: PeterJBellis via CreativeCommons