We often like to read from and quote the prophets. But if you’ve ever met a real prophet you know that being in the presence of a real prophet can be very disturbing. Prophets love God’s people, but they love them too much to gainsay the truth.
Prophets were famous for goring every one’s ox. No one left the presence of a prophet untouched.
So troubling were the prophets of old, including Jesus, that most of them were persecuted, jailed, stoned, exiled and killed. Most of the Biblical prophets were beyond controversial, they were way over the top. Prophets denounced sin and injustice in the strongest language, announcing doom to a nation that refused to repent. Many Israelites thus considered them unpatriotic and downright dangerous. They justified throwing them into prison for their lack of patriotism and for the way their words questioned and upset the status quo and the judgements of those who held power.
To many, these were dangerous men who had to be stopped.
Jesus, though essentially our savior, also adopted the role of a prophet. Listen to these words as he denounces the people of his day for their rejection of his prophetic message. In this they are just like their fore-bearers who rejected the prophets:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you avoid being sentenced to Hell?! (Matt 23:29ff)
Many of us today like to think that, had we lived in Jesus’ time we would surely be on his side. But, truth be told, prophets can be hard to endure and Jesus had “difficult” things to say for everyone.
Honestly, most of us struggle with the truth to some extent. And especially we moderns who prefer a more gentle discourse with large doses of honey, and very little vinegar. We probably would wince as we walked along with Jesus. Jesus was very disconcerting. Jesus was more “plain spoken” than we are usually comfortable with. If we are honest, when we read the prophets and Jesus, we will come away with much to repent of.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this video clip. It is of a modern prophet named Vernon Johns (see photo – upper right). In the early 1950s he was Pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, in Montgomery Alabama. The Black Congregation that hired him was a rather sleepy congregation. In the face of rather awful racial discrimination, they preferred to remain silent and therefore safe. Vernon Johns tried to wake them from their sleep, but to no avail. They were too afraid (yet) to take a prophetic stand. Eventually Vernon Johns was arrested as a trouble maker, and the Board of Deacons fired him.
But Johns had laid a foundation for the next Pastor of Dexter Baptist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Within a few years Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and the Bus Boycott was on. The rest is history.
This clip is of Vernon Johns’ final sermon where, in finest prophetic tradition he denounces racism. But NO ONE escapes his vivid denunciations, even his own congregation. Watch this clip and behold what it must have been like with the prophets of old, even Jesus.
Behold the prophet! No one escapes! In the end of the clip, his daughter who had stood against her Father’s zeal sings “Go Down Moses.” The choir director who had also opposed him likewise stands to sing. The seed is planted even as the prophet is led away by the police.
He was central to some of the most crucial moments in early Church history. He smoothed the entry of Saul, (St. Paul), the recent persecutor, into the Christian community, and summoned him to his first ministry. He sallied forth with Paul on the first great missionary outreach to the Gentiles and gave critical testimony at the Council of Jerusalem that welcomed Gentile converts as Gentiles. And then, quite suddenly, and for a rather sad reason, he disappears and we hear all but nothing of him again.A rift in the Christian community takes him from our sight.
Who was St. Barnabas and what can we learn from his story and near disappearance?
St. Barnabas was a Jew, a native of Cyprus, and was of the tribe of Levi. As such he likely served in the Temple as a priest, depending on his age at his conversion to Christianity. His given name was Joseph, but the Apostles called him Barnabas, which means “Son of Encouragement” (cf Acts 4:36).
Likewise he was probably a wealthy man, for St. Luke presents him early in the book of Acts as a generous man who sold land to support the growing Church.
Most critically, it was he who vouched for the new convert Saul of Tarsus later known as Paul. For Paul was viewed with suspicion by those in Jerusalem, including the Apostles, who only been recently targets of his persecutions (cf Acts 9:26).
Talk about one of the most pivotal introductions in history! Indeed it may be argued that this introduction changed the course of Western History and surely that of the Church. Barnabas smoothed the way for the Church’s most zealous missionary and her greatest Biblical Theologian, St. Paul. After Barnabas’ introduction, Paul was able to move freely about the disciples.
Some time after this, the apostles in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch which was now growing and thriving congregation of both Jews and Gentiles. It seems clear he was not considered yet to be of the rank of apostle or bishop, (for Acts 13:1 calls him a teacher), it appears he went more to observe and be of help. Under his leadership and the leadership of others, the Church there thrived and grew quite quickly.
So Barnabas sent for Paul to come and join him. They work together for the period of at least a year, and it was at Antioch the disciples were called Christians for the first time (Acts 11:26). In so doing he continues to advance and build up Paul’s ministry in the Church. Frankly this too is a stunning moment in Church history, given us by Barnabas. It is not wrong to call St. Paul the protege of Barnabas.
At a certain critical moment leaders at Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Saul. And while it is debated by some, this is the clearest moment when we can now say they are ordained, and given the rank of Bishop and the title “Apostle.”
Missionaries – Having done this, the Church leaders at Antioch, directed by the Holy Spirit, send them forth on missionary work. This journey is what is now come to be known as Paul’s first missionary journey. It is interesting to note, that early in the missionary journey, Barnabas is always listed first, and then Paul. But rather quickly, in Acts 13:43, the order changes, and Paul is always listed first. This suggests a change in leadership.
They took with them on this first journey the cousin of Barnabas, John, who was called Mark. Somewhat early on this missionary journey, Mark decides he can no longer go on and turns away from the missionary trip. This will prove significant later on.
The last major role for Barnabas was in Acts, in the 15th chapter, at the Council of Jerusalem which was called to decide whether Gentile converts could become full members of the church without converting to Judaism. Barnabas, along with Paul, provided important evidence as to the zeal and conversion of the Gentiles.
A Sad moment – After the Council in Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch in triumph, their ministry vindicated. They planned another missionary journey together. But here comes the critical and sad moment, that sets forth our teaching:
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left….(Acts 15:36-40)
A sad moment, but illustrating the human situation. Here are two men who have been like brothers. Paul owes his inclusion in leadership largely to Barnabas, and together they had taught together, and journeyed hundreds of miles by ship and then by foot into the northern mountains making converts in effective ministry together. And, more recently they have just returned from Jerusalem, their vision and ministry approved and vindicated against nay-sayers among the brethren. And yet, at this magnificent moment Paul and Barnabas argue and part company over Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.
One of the things I admire most about the Biblical text is that it does not “clean up” stuff like this. Our heroes are not perfect men, they are flawed, and emblematic of the human condition: gifted and strong, but struggling too with the same issues and demons that haunt us all.
The lesson? God uses us even in our weakness. Who was right and who was wrong here? It is difficult to say. Two gifted men unable to overcome an impasse, alas, the fallen human condition. But God will continue to work. He can make a way out of no way and write straight with crooked lines.
Even more sad, this is the last we hear of Barnabas in any substantial way. He who had been so instrumental in the life of his protege Paul, and in the early Church, now exits the stage in the heat of an argument. The text says he and Mark sailed for Cyprus, then silence……
There is mention of him in Galatians but, given the vague timeline it is difficult to assume it takes place after the disagreement. It likely took place earlier and may illustrate that there were already tensions between Paul and Barnabas before the “Mark incident.” For it would seem that Barnabas was following Peter’s weak example of not eating with Gentiles, and this clearly upset Paul (cf Gal 2:13).
Healing? Yet, It would also seem that Barnabas continued to labor as a missionary for Paul makes mention of him to the Corinthians (cf 1 Cor 9:6). And although his reference is passing, it is not unrespectful. This suggests some healing of the rift, even if it does not mean they labored together again.
More healing? And even for John, called Mark (likely the same Mark who became secretary to Peter and authored the Gospel of Mark), it would seem Paul and he overcame their difficulties. For St Paul wrote to Timothy, likely about the same Mark: Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry (2 Tim 4:11). Something of a redemption here for Mark and a healing for Paul. The “useless” deserter Mark, now one who is helpful to Paul.
So, there is some sadness in the Story of Barnabas, Paul and Mark. Yet, God’s work continues. And, it would seem, healing came later. Yes, even in our weakness God can use us and heal us. And for those who despair of sin in the Church, and sin among the clergy, factions an infighting, always remember that, though sinful it is, God can make a way out of no way. Even in our weakness, (and often only because our weakness keeps us humble), God can do great things.
Maybe Barnabas (“Son of Encouragement”) can encourage us too. For if even saints struggled, were still used by God, and overcame, perhaps for us too. Be encouraged.
There are different ways to look at life. One saying goes: “The good is the enemy of the best.” Meaning, that we sometimes settle for second best when we should aim higher. This statement is not without its place, for excellence is something for which to strive.
And yet, there is another saying that goes: “The Best is the enemy of the good.” For it sometimes happens that, in striving for the perfect thing, we miss the truly good in other things. Frankly this world is in a fallen state, and less the fully perfect. Likewise you and I are incomplete, unfinished, imperfect. Yet this does not mean that we lack anything good, or that this imperfect world has nothing to offer.
I suppose that, being more than midway through my expected life, I have moved from the perfectionist world of the first saying to the contented world of the second saying, though both have their place. But I have come to learn that contentedness is a very great gift, and that true perfection waits till heaven.
There is yet another saying that goes: “Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.” For it frequently happens that many, having an insistence that life should be a peach, are resentful to discover that, even a peach has a pit. And expecting everything to be just peachy is a sure-fire recipe for resentment, discouragement and depression.
I think this is one problem with marriage today. Despite our current tendency to be cynical regarding just about everything, I have noticed that many still have very high ideals about marriage: that it will be romantic, joyful, fulfilling, and that love will solve every problem.
But this not realistic. Marriage is life. And life has ups and downs, things we like, and things we wish were different. There is no perfect spouse, and there is no perfect marriage. There are many good marriages that are far from perfect. Many decent spouses who do not live or act perfectly.
And when one enters a marriage with high expectations, they may be tempted to seize on the negative things, and magnify them, because they are not perfect, and resentments begin to build. And its sad really, but the marriage may not actually be that bad, and the less than ideal spouse not really so awful.
But the best becomes the enemy of the good, and decent things are trampled underfoot in an illusive search for the perfect, the best, the ideal.
Indeed, there is yet another saying that goes: “Many people want their marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal.”
We do a lot of this, discarding the good in an illusive search for the best or the perfect. There is always a better parish, a better Church, a better job, a better boss, a better house, a better car, a better neighborhood, a better deal.
But there is something about being able to accept the good, even the imperfect, and to be content with it. There’s something freeing and serene about not letting the best become the enemy of the good. The perfect will come, but probably not before heaven. In the meantime the good will suffice. And sometimes we don’t see it as good until we accept that the best and the perfect will have to wait.
And all this occurred to me as I watched this video about a “man” who creates a work of art. And he loves it. But then notices an imperfection and goes on a reckless errand to make it perfect. In the end he learns to love what is. To some extent this has been my journey, and I pray yours too.
Back in the early 1980s I was in college, majoring in computer science, and dating a beautiful young woman. An older priest, Msgr. Curlin told me that he thought I was called to be a priest. I was puzzled as to how to react. No one had ever said this to me before. So I asked him if he’d like to meet my girlfriend. He was unfazed and told me stories of other men, now priests, who had said the same. In some ways he spoke like a military recruiter: “The Church needs good men, Chuck. God needs good, strong men.”
I was surprised to hear a priest speak this way. I was born in 1961 but came of age in the Church of the 1970s. It was a time of crossless Christianity. Crosses had literally been removed from my parish church and replaced by a “resurrection Jesus.” Notions of sacrifice and fighting against sin had largely been replaced by a kind of “God is Love, self-acceptance” emphasis. Not wrong, but wholly emphasized. It was a time of “beige Catholicism” which demanded little and saw its main task to be as non-offensive as possible.
As a young man, none of this appealed much to me. I think most young men are “up for a battle.” They want to change the world, or at least make a key difference. Now suddenly a priest was summoning me to manhood and to something sacrificial, something that would take a “strong” man. And my services were needed, God and the Church depended on men like me saying yes. Imagine that!
I didn’t say yes that day. I continued to date and worked toward finishing my Computer Science Degree. But I had heard a summons to a great battle, the ancient battle between Christ and our adversary the Devil. And the call grew. For various reasons my steady girl and I broke up. Saddened though I was, I saw an opened door before me and the call quickened. I walked through and began a process of discernment with the Archdiocese that led to my Ordination to the Priesthood in 1989.
I suppose there are many ways of seeing my priesthood. But one powerful way is that I see myself as a soldier in the army of the Lord. The battle today is fierce. We live in a world increasingly hostile to our holy faith and the teachings of the Church. And the call must go out as never before: The Church needs good men to be priests, strong and courageous. Men who will speak the truth in love, clearly and without compromise and celebrate the sacraments with devotion and faith. Men who know that the eternal salvation of many is dependent on them being zealous priests after God’s own heart. Men who by the grace of God are willing to fight for souls in the battle that matters most.
So there it is men. The Lord is looking for good men to engage the great battle for souls. And there’s an old saying, “If you find a good fight…get in it!”
Vocations for Men: Fr. Carter Griffin 301-853-4580
Here’s a video I stitched together with scenes from Fishers of Men and set to Lyle Lovett’s “I’m A Soldier in the Army of the Lord”
As a priest and pastor I am often called to spend time with people discerning the voice and the will of God in their life. I have about twenty lay people in spiritual direction. There are also times in other people’s lives, where careful guidance is necessary, either due to a crisis, or simply to a moment of decision about career, about vocations, or some other significant event.
And thank God many of the faithful are actually trying to learn what God would have them do. For, too many people run off and make big decisions about things like marriage or major career moves without asking God. It is always refreshing when someone says, “What would God have me do?”
How to discern in moments like these? Are there any rules, or at least a structure to follow in being reasonably certain of what course of action to take? Are there any ways to learn to how to recognize the voice of God and distinguish it from my own voice, the voices of others, or even the voice of the devil? There are of course.
And while many great spiritual masters have written far more eloquently than I of the art of discernment, I would like to offer a few things I have learned in my own discernment, and in walking with others on their own journey. What I offer here is by no means complete, and others will add, distinguish and write more profoundly on these than I. But these principles I have collected based on my study and experience as a parish priest dealing with ordinary members of the lay faithful. Take what you like and leave the rest. For a far richer treatment of the topic of discernment I recommend Fr. Thomas Dubay’s Authenticity: A Biblical Theology of Discernment.
Let’s just begin with a definition of the word discernment. Many people just use discernment as a synonym for “decide.” But discernment is a richer and deeper concept that, while related and antecedent to “deciding” is distinct from it. The goal of discernment is to see beyond the mere external dimensions of something, and to probe to its deeper significance.
The word discern comes from the Latindis- “off, or away” + cernere – “to distinguish, separate, sift, set apart, divide, or distinguish. Thus, to discern is to distinguish or sort out what is of God, and what is of the flesh, the world or even the devil. As such, discernment, in its root meaning is something that ought to precede decision and aid it.
Thus as we discern, either a course of action or simply whether what we think or “hear” is of God or not, we must often admit that, while some things are purely from God, it is also the case that there may be other things admixed, things not of God, which must be sifted or separated out. Discernment regards these sorts of things.
And so we come to some basic norms or principles that I offer, humbly, and not as a spiritual master, just as a simple parish priest. These principles are most often applicable to discern about a course of action, but many of them can also apply to discerning the promptings and urges that the faithful often sense in their walk with God, and which cause them to wonder, is this of God or just me?
Disclaimers. – None of these principles should be read in an absolute sense. They all admit of limits and distinctions. They are merely principles that guide further reflection. In a brief blog, not everything can be said about them, and you may wish to use the comments to elaborate some of your own thoughts and distinctions. Secondly, while not every principle applies to every situation, as a general rule, these principles ought to be used together and in tandem. It would be wrong merely to use one principle, and think discernment is complete. Generally these are all part of a process and their evidence should be considered collectively.
Principle 1 – State of life. There are many different states in life, some permanent, some long-lasting, some only temporary. We may be single, married, a priest, a religious, young, old, healthy, or fragile in health. We may be a student, a parent, rich or poor. Being clear about our state in life can help us discern if a call is from God or not.
For example, a young woman may sense a call to spend extended hours before the Blessed Sacrament. Of itself this is surely a good and fine thing. But what if she is the mother of four young children? Would God ask this of her? Probably not. Perhaps one hour will be more in keeping with her state in life. On the other hand a single woman, may be free to do this, and it may even be a part of her learning of her vocation to the religious life. Other things being equal it is more likely we can be open to this call being of God in her case.
State in life helps to do a lot of sorting out. A priest is not going to hear from God to leave the priesthood and marry the pretty woman in the front pew. An elderly and feeble man is not going to hear a call to go to walk the Camino in Spain, etc. We can be pretty clear that such notions are not of God. Yet other calls that seem to be in keeping with one’s state in life are something to remain open to, and apply other principles that follow.
Principle 2 – Gifts and talents –It is a clear fact that people have different combinations of virtues and talents, gifts and skills. In discerning the will of God, regarding a course of action, or of accepting an offer or opportunity, we ought to carefully ponder if it will make good sense based on our skills and talents.
God has surely equipped us for some things and not others. I am a reasonably good teacher of adults, I am not a good teacher of young children. Thus, in being offered opportunities to teach or preach, I am much more open to the possibility that God wants it, if it is for adults. If I am asked to address young children for more than 5 minutes, I am quite clear God is not asking.
Hence we do well to ask at this stage of discernment to ask, “Is what I am being asked to do, or what I want to do, a good match to the gifts and talents God has given me? Does it make sense based on what I am equipped to do?” And while it is a true fact that God does sometimes want us to try new things, and discover new abilities, it more usually the case that God will ask of us things that are at least somewhat in the range of the possible, based on our gifts.
Age is something of a factor here too. Young people are often still in a process of discovery as to their gifts and talents, and should try more new and challenging things. Older adults are more likely to discern God’s will a little closer to their current skill set.
Principle 3 – Desire –Desire as a principle of discernment surprises some people. We are often suspicious of our desires, and not without reason. When it comes to most things regarding the Moral Law and Doctrine, our feelings and desires are largely irrelevant, and should not be determinative of understanding God’s will. For example that we should not commit adultery remains the clear will of God, no matter how we feel about. That Jesus is God is true, no matter our feelings.
But when it comes to discerning between various courses of action that are both good (e.g. marriage and priesthood), feelings and desires do matter and may help indicate the will of God for us. For when God wants us to move in a direction of something good, he most often inspires some level of desire for it. He leads us to appreciate that it is good, attractive and desirable.
Learning to listen to our heart therefore is an important way of discernment. There may, for example, be a good thing proposed for us to do, yet we feel no joy or desire to do it. Such feelings should not be wholly dismissed as mere selfishness or laziness. It is possible that our lack of desire is a sign of a “no” from God. On the other hand, we may experience a joy and zeal to do, even things that are challenging, and these desires too may help us to discern that God has prepared and wills for us to do that very thing. Hence desire is an important indicator, among others, in deciding between courses of action that are both, or all, good. Ultimately God’s will for us gives joy.
Principle 4 – Organic development – This principle simply articulates that God most often moves us in stages rather than in sudden and dramatic ways. While it is true, in most lives, there are times of dramatic change, loss, and gain, it is more usual for God to lead us gently and in stages toward what he wills for us.
Hence, in discernment, it is valuable to ask, “Does this change…, does this course of action, seem to build on what God has generally been doing in my life? Is there some continuity at work if I move in this direction? Does moving into the future in this particular way make sense based on how and where God has led me thus far?”
It is generally a good idea to exercise great caution about “biggie-wow” projects and “out of the blue” rapid changes. It is better to ask, “What is the next best step in my life?”
While it sometimes happens that “life comes at you fast,” God more often works with slow, steady, incremental growth, and asks us to be open to changes that make sense for us as the “next best step.” Discernment will respect this as a general principle, though not an absolute law.
Principle 5 – Serenity – When God leads us, the usual result is serenity (peace) and joy. In my own priestly life I have at times, been asked to move from one assignment to another. At such moments there is great sadness, since I had to say goodbye to people I greatly love. And yet, when it is God’s will that the time has come for moving on, in spite of the sadness, I also feel an inner peace, a serenity.
Serenity should not be underestimated as a tool for discernment. For it often happens that to ponder change is stressful, even fearful. But beneath the turmoil of difficult decisions, we must listen carefully for a deeper serenity that signals God’s will.
If serenity is wholly lacking, if there are no consolations, but only desolation, we should carefully consider the possibility that the proposed course of action is not God’s will. To be sure, in the stress that decisions often bring, being able to sense serenity is more difficult, and hence we ought not quickly conclude it is lacking.
Sometimes we must wait a while to sense serenity’s still, small voice. And when it is present we have an important indicator that this is God’s will.
Principle 6 – Conformity to Scripture and Tradition. – Some may think that this principle should be at the top of the list, and you are free to put it there. But I prefer to say that the Word of God and the teachings of the Church has the last word in any decision.
For it may well be that one goes through principles like these and feels quite certain of a course of action or of an insight. But the final and most important step is to be sure that our insight or conclusion squares with the Lord’s stated revelation in Scripture and Church Teaching.
If a person were to strangely think God was telling her of a fourth person in the Godhead, and that she should build an altar, and spread devotion to this fourth person, we will rightly and surely conclude she is dead wrong.
God’s Revelation trumps every discernment in the end. Were a wayward priest to think God had summoned him to found a new Church featuring more ‘up-to-date’ teachings, it does not matter that he thinks it comports with his state in life, matches his skills, is an organic development for him, and gives him serenity. Sorry Father, you’re overruled. God is saying no such thing.
On the other hand, it may be one hears a call from God to be more faithful in prayer, and more generous to the poor and has gone through the discernments above. And, while Scripture and Church teaching may have little to say on the exact way of prayer, or the precise amount of money, surely, as a general principle, such notions are in keeping with God’s revelation and would not be overruled by it. One can confidently proceed to discern how, and when to pray, or what amount and to whom alms should best be directed.
Just a few principles for discernment. Remember the disclaimers above. They are to be considered together and held in balance. They are also not understood in an absolute sense, (except perhaps the last one) and may admit of exceptions and distinctions. Take what you like and leave the rest. Add to them if you like. Comments are open.
Here is a sermon excerpt in which I developed the last principle in a context wider than this article. For the context of the sermon was not discerning between various good options, but rather the discernment that distinguishes God from the idols and errors of this world.
The Tenth Commandment is, You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet. your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Ex 20:17). It is one of more rarely quoted commandments in conversation, and frankly is often confessed than most of the other Commandments. Yet in a way it may be one of the most commonly breached of the commandments since it directly addresses our desire to possess things unreasonably. This is a very deep and disordered drive that gives way to many other sins as well.
Fundamentally to covet means to be possessed of a strong and unreasonable and inordinate desire to possess the things of another. It’s Latin root is cupere, meaning simply “to desire.” But in the Biblical usage, coveting is more than mere desire. It is a nurtured desire that is excessive, unreasonable and thus sinful.
Let’s begin with a little background on desire itself. There exists within each of us a whole range of appetites or desires. We desire everything from food, security, and temporal goods, to affection, friendship, sexual union, and a sense of being loved and respected. In themselves these desires are good and they help protect and foster important aspects of ourselves. However, since the human race labors under the effects of original sin, our desires tend also to have an unruly dimension. Frequently we desire things beyond what we know is reasonable or just. And this is where coveting enters. Coveting does not include momentary desires that occur to us and which we dismiss as being unreasonable or inappropriate. Rather, coveting involves the willful entertaining or eliciting of inappropriate or excessive desires.
Thus, the Tenth Commandment points to the gift that God can give us, the gift of self control. For, a significant truth about our desires and passions is that if we overindulge them they become more and more demanding and powerful in their influences over our conduct. Self control becomes increasingly difficult to those who are self indulgent. The Catechism teaches,
If we do not learn to temper our desires we quickly become dominated by them. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy..Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice…and not by blind impulses in himself…Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself from all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good…. (Catechism 2339).
The Tenth Commandment reminds us of our freedom and dignity and solemnly instructs us in the importance of self control in terms of our desires. The significance of this issue for our well-being and happiness is emphasized by the fact that two commandments the 9th and 10th) are devoted to matters of covetousness.
Self control may seem difficult since our desires do not usually change in an instant. Just because we know that our heart desires things or persons in ways that are excessive or inappropriate, does not make these desires disappear. Yet through consistent self discipline, custody of the eyes and the other senses, recourse to prayer and sacraments, all with the help of God’s grace, the desires of our heart change. We begin to love what God loves. What is sinful becomes less tempting and the thought of sin eventually becomes even abhorrent to us. By God’s grace our hearts change.
The command not to covet is not merely a rule to follow, it is a gift to be sought.
The Tenth Commandment itself: Since it is the last of the Ten Commandments, it is fitting that the tenth commandment flow from and complete many of the other commandments.
It forbids coveting the goods of another, which is at the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids.
Coveting, or “lust of the eyes” as scripture calls it (1 Jn 2:16), many times leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the Fifth and Seventh Commandments.
Likewise, covetousness tends to originate in the idolatry prohibited by the first three commandments. This is because of the way that covetousness frequently leads to a kind of worship of material goods.
The tenth commandment also completes the ninth since coveting involves far more than sexual matters.
The scriptures specify the wide scope of coveting:You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet. your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s. (Ex 20:17).
A Distinction – We should recall that coveting by definition involves the willful entertaining of excessive or inappropriate desires. Thus, it is not wrong to desire the things we reasonably need. Clearly it is essential for our survival that we desire food, water, warmth and shelter. Love, affection, family, and work are also essential for us and it is proper that we desire and seek fulfillment in these areas.
Even seemingly non-essential things like recreation and entertainment are in fact necessary ingredients in life and our desire for such things is an important aspect of every healthy person.
So long as our desires for any of these things is not unreasonable and we do not seek to fulfill them in inappropriate ways we can say that they are good, even holy aspects of the human person.
The Catechism goes on to elaborate on coveting:
The tenth commandment forbids greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches and their attendant power. It also forbids the desire to commit injustice by harming our neighbor in his temporal goods (Catechism 2536).
Greed is the insatiable desire for more and, as we have already noted, excessive desires once indulged grow very insatiable and become increasingly difficult to control. The Book of Ecclesiastes says, The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccl 1:8). And Again, Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income (Eccl 5:10). St Augustine says, For my will was perverse and lust had grown from it, and when I gave in to lust, habit was born, and when I did not resist the habit, it became a necessity (Conf., Book 10). Thus, again we see the Tenth Commandment’s summons to freedom from lusts, excessive desires and many bad habits and addictive or compulsive behaviors.
The Catechism also connects the Tenth Commandment to Envy:
The tenth commandment requires that envy be banished from the human heart…Envy refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s good…When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin. St. Augustine saw envy as “the diabolical sin: “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.” (Catechism 2538-2539).
What then are some antidotes to Covetousness?
Gratitude – In the first place there must be gratitude for what we do have, an abiding and deep gratitude for the things and people in my life.
Contentment and Satisfaction – Another gift to be sought is contentment and an abiding sense of satisfaction. Satisfaction is the ability to say to God, “It is enough O Lord!” Contentment is the capacity to hold gratefully to what one has, rather than to constantly reach for more.
Appreciation – Yet another related gift is appreciation which is the gift to regard as precious what one has received.
Moderation should be sought also from God. Moderation is the capacity to observe the “mode” or middle range of something so that we do it neither to excess or defect. Since severe asceticism is rare in our culture, most of us know that moderation will mean recognizing our tendency to excess and the need by God’s grace to curb it.
Trust – Another gift to be sought is trust. For is often happens that we excessively desire, grasp at, and hoard out of fear that we will not have enough. But if we trust that God can provide for our basic needs, fear diminishes and inordinate desires diminish too.
Generosity is still another gift to seek. Once our basic needs are met we are essentially dealing with surplus. Generosity is a freedom that recognizes surplus and gladly shares.
Thus as we see, the Tenth Commandment points to gifts and calls us higher. It calls us to recognize the freedom and the healing which God offers us through his grace. For in terms of our passions and desires we can easily become enslaved. How easily we become inebriated with the things of this world and become trapped by the seemingly insatiable desire for more.
One look at the credit card balances of many Americans reveals that we live beyond our means and have difficulty controlling our desires. In some cases individuals are unable or unwilling to delay gratifications. Others consider as essential, things which they could do without.
The tenth commandment calls us away from the illusions of necessity and immediacy. We are summoned to a freedom which recognizes that we can discipline our desires and master our passions so that we make sound, wise, and just decisions in acquiring and using the goods of this world.
Finally, the Tenth Commandment calls us to remember something very important about our desires. As we master our passions and desires we also learn more clearly what they are truly saying to us. Fundamentally every desire represents a deeper longing for God who is the giver of every good gift. In the deepest part of our heart there is a song, I’d rather have Jesus, than silver or gold.
The tragedy is that many become lost searching for happiness in the things of this world. This ends in frustration and emptiness for our deepest longings are infinite. The finite things of the world cannot fulfill the infinite longings of our heart. The Catechism concludes,
Jesus enjoins his disciples to prefer him to everything and everyone, and bids them “renounce all that [they have]” for his sake and that of the Gospel [Lk 14:33]. The precept of detachment from riches is obligatory for entrance into the Kingdom of heaven…The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods.[Lk 6:24] But blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”[Mat 5:2] (Catechism 2544, 2547).
This song says, You may have all this world. Just give me Jesus.’
I apologize for using one of those rather haughty theological words: Hermeneutic! I also know that many DO in fact know what the word means. But just in case you don’t let’s define it. Fundamentally a “hermeneutic” is an interpretive key, a way of seeing and understanding the world.
So what do I mean when I speak of a “hermeneutic of suspicion?” Well, consider the times in which we live. Most people are suspicious of just about everything and everyone! It is a common and usual worldview that politicians lie, the Government is lying, big business is lying, advertisers are lying, the Church is lying.
It is presumed, even if there is not outright lying most people and organizations are just acting out of selfish motives and self-serving agendas. Everyone is simply dismissed because they have an ”agenda” and this agenda is somehow less than pure, fair or neutral.
In pondering this all-pervasive “hermeneutic of suspicion” I wonder if there do not have to be some limits to its application and conclusions:
Is “everyone” really lying or just acting out of a less than pure agenda?
Is it always wrong to have an agenda?
Is self interest always a bad thing?
Is it always wrong for groups to seek to influence the national discussion even if that influence serves their interest and worldview?
Clearly lying is wrong and there is such a thing as lying but is everything I call lying really lying?
I do not ask these questions as a moral relativist who is simply asking for everything to be murky and gray. But I do suspect that our culture is really overheated at the moment with suspicion.
There is a pervasive presumption of the worst in terms of motives, sincerity and the like. It is getting harder and harder to have any kind of a conversation at all about issues without the names and the labels sallying forth and the impugning of motives. This is true even among Catholics with each other.
I don’t have a simple formula to come up with the right balance between a healthy skepticism and pathological suspicion but I would like to propose a few benchmarks toward a better balance.
1. Everyone DOES have an agenda and that is OK. It’s not wrong to have a worldview and to seek to influence others to that way of thinking. The very word “agenda” is intended as pejorative but it need not be. The problem seems to come up when everyone is defensive about having and “agenda.”
Since “having an agenda” is somehow supposed to be “wrong,” we start to do unhealthy things. We often try to hide our truest agenda, and paper it over with less than sincere descriptions of what we think, and what we want. We start to talk in code and engage in political correctness, jargon and other circumlocutions that are not always true or frank. We become less transparent and this fuels suspicion.
If we can just accept that we all have agendas and that’s fine, then we become more frank and honest, and suspicion recedes. Being frank does not mean being uncharitable, it simply means that we sincerely discuss our concerns and vision.
In terms of full disclosure let me share my agenda: I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles. Clear enough? That’s my agenda.
2. Self interest is not always bad– A key principle in motivating people is to help them identify their interests and then act upon them. Well ordered self-love, and well ordered self interest can be a powerful motivator toward great ends.
Instead of being suspicious and cynical that people have self interest in mind, what if we just accepted that this is the universal human condition and used it to engage people for good ends? It’s not wrong to care about myself. I really ought to get my needs met and that also helps others because I am less of a burden on them.
If ALL we care about is our self that is a problem. But most people instinctively understand that their self interest is linked to the good of others too. My life is more secure and stable if there is a healthy, strong and vibrant neighborhood and culture and if other people are generally able to get their needs met. So I can be engaged around my own interests to work for a just and healthy world.
The fact that I “get something out it” does make my motives somehow impure. But the hermeneutic of suspicion demands “pure” motives and unrealistically defines pure as completely selfless. What if we just stopped all that and accepted that people act on what interests them and that it isn’t always bad. Accepting this makes us less suspicious and cynical.
3. Faith and Trust in the Church are an essential balance to the hermeneutic of suspicion– While it is true that we have to be sober that live in a world where lies are told and where motives are not always pure, it is also true that we have to refuse radical suspicion and cynicism. There IS truth, and there are those who do speak and teach the truth.
We must find and seek those harbors of the truth and lower our anchor there. For Catholics, the harbor of the truth is the Church. Scripture describes the Church as the Pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
One of the great tragedies of the hermeneutic of suspicion is that many Catholics have adopted this attitude toward the Church. Yes, there is sin, and even corruption in the Church, but despite that, the Church has never failed to hand on the authentic truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ does speak through his Church. Jesus dined with sinners among others and was crucified between two thieves. But that is where Jesus is and even surrounded by questionable company he still speaks his truth.
I emphatically trust that fact. I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to have been revealed by God. I can do no other. This is my faith. I trust God and believe that he speaks through the Catholic Church despite whatever human weakness is evident in the Church. God can write straight with crooked lines and he can teach infallibly even despite human weakness in the Church.
Without a harbor of truth the hermeneutic of suspicion can and will overwhelm us. We will mistrust everyone and everything and have no real way to sort out all the conflicting claims and counterclaims. Without faith and trust both in God and in the Church I am lost, adrift on a sea of suspicion and cynicism, and the hermeneutic of suspicion overwhelms me.
This is sadly true today of so many who are cut off from the truth thinking they can trust no one. In them the hermeneutic of suspicion has its most devastating effect. The lack of trust locks them into a tiny world, dominated by suspicion and doubt. Only the gift of faith and trust can diminish such deep suspicion. With faith we can measure all things by God’s truth and know what is true from what is false. We have a measuring rod to judge what is true and thus we need not flee to suspicion.
Recently here in the Archdiocese of Washington there was an issue regarding the denial of Holy Communion to a certain individual, which caused no little debate among the faithful. I am NOT going to reopen that case here, and ask all readers to please recall that, no matter what you may think, you do not have all the facts, and I do not wish to rehearse the (partial) specifics of the whole affair.
That said, a number of us priests asked for a review of the norms of the policies of the Church and the Archdiocese in these sorts of situations, and the Archdiocese responded at a convocation of the all the priests, which discussed many matters, this one among it. (At the same convocation we also discussed the specifics of the lawsuit initiated by the Archdiocese and other Catholic groups and diocese against the Administration).
I am grateful that the Cardinal and his senior staff responded in a concise and clear manner. For, it is a fact that these sorts of situations, wherein, Communion must be withheld, are both delicate and complicated. It is always helpful to know the norms, and review them frequently since there are times when a priest must deal quickly with situations that arise, and having command of the norms is immensely helpful.
Frankly, we do not always get every situation right. Being human, our judgment is sometimes flawed. But to the degree that we have reviewed and pondered the collected wisdom of the Church, and have a grasp of the basic policies, we stand the chance of avoiding mistakes either of excess or defect.
All that said, here are some norms and policies that were presented to us from a variety of sources.
From the Sacramental Norms of the Archdiocese (promulgated 1/25/2010; 6.41.1-6.41.6) (I have included a few remarks of my own in red) :
Any baptized person, not prohibited by law, can and must be admitted to Holy Communion (cf Canon # 912).
Full participation in the Eucharist takes place when the faithful receive Holy Communion. Yet care must be taken, lest they conclude that the mere fact of being present during the liturgy gives them a right or obligation to receive Communion. Even when it is not possible to receive Communion, participation at Mass remains necessary, important, meaningful and fruitful. (cf Pope Benedict Sacramentum Caritatis # 55)
A person who is to receive Holy Eucharist, is to abstain for at least one hour before Holy Communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine (cf Canon 919.1)
From the USCCB Guidelines (also referenced in ADW Liturgical norms and policies):
Those who receive Holy Communion should not be conscious of grave sin.
Should have fasted for one hour.
And, if there is no reasonable opportunity for confession, the person should make and act of perfect contrition, which thereby includes the intention of confessing to the priest as soon as possible. (For it sometimes happens that, in current circumstances where most receive Holy Communion, that to abstain would raise difficult questions and possibly result in a person announcing publicly that they are in mortal sin. To avoid this, the Church does allow this act of perfect contrition, which obviously includes the intent to seek the Sacrament of Confession to be valid).
The recipient of Holy Communion also makes declarations by presenting himself for Holy Communion:
That he or she is a Catholic.
That he or she accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church in toto and is not consciously or intentional dissenting from known doctrines or dogmas, from whatever the Church professes and believes to be revealed by God. (For Communion means cum (with) + unio (union), and thereby is more than a “me and Jesus” thing, it involves a union with the Church his Body and Bride. Dissenters and those in schism who cannot make this declaration of union, thus should not claim communion when there is a significant lack of union either by dissent or schism).
That he or she is not conscious or gave or serious sin.
Therefore a strong responsibility falls on the one coming forward to receive Holy Communion. Since priests and deacons cannot know the state of each person in most circumstances, the fundamental responsibility is on the one who comes forward to receive. For, as St Paul says, Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27-29). Note that Paul and Scripture place the responsibility primarily on the communicant, rather than an (non-omniscient) clergy.
Therefore, the minister of Holy Communion is to:
Presume the integrity of the persons presenting themselves for Holy Communion.
Trust in this fact is to be presumed unless proven clearly, otherwise.
It may be the case that one, whom the Minister (priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister), sees come forward has in fact been to confession, and/or renounced previous sinful practices. I was once told of a situation wherein a person who had been in an invalid marriage, in fact, had the marriage validated. Yet, on coming forward was told by the priest to stand aside. Though the couple was reconciled to the Church, the minister of Communion presumed their incapacity and dismissed them. This caused embarrassment and anger. When in doubtful situations, however, the priest ought to give Communion and perhaps seek counsel, and to counsel the person later.
On the prohibition of Holy Communion to Public Sinners.
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted, after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion (Canon # 915).
Thus, if a person has been publicly excommunicated (rare today!) They are to be denied Holy Communion if they come forward. There are other forms of excommunication (often called Latae Sententiae (or automatic) excommunications) that are more secret and unknown to the general public. For example, if one procures abortion they are automatically excommunicated. But such an excommunication is usually not publicly known and the Minister who may know of this, third hand or simply in a counseling situation, ought not deny Communion only based on that. For confidentiality is to be preserved even if it is outside the Seal of Confession (which can never be violated). In cases such as this, where an excommunication is not publicly declared, the Minster of Communion, ought not publicly deny Communion, but speak privately to the person to ensure that the Latae Sententiae excommunication is, or has been, lifted in the Confessional setting.
But if one is clearly and publicly been excommunicated they should be publicly refused Holy Communion. (Rare today!)
Further, if a person publicly attempts to use Holy Communion for purposes beyond the Spiritual intent, they can be denied. (For example, a troublesome group known as “Act-up” has sometimes disrupted Catholic Masses, coming forward in public ways, often wearing symbolic insignia or “stoles” and demanded Holy Communion. They are rightly refused Holy Communion for they deny its significance by their action, and politicize the reception of Communion, calling it a right rather than a privilege, and a confession of the true faith. Thereby they publicly forfeit the presumption that they approach communion worthily or with proper disposition of faith).
Canon 915:
Prohibits the reception of Holy Communion to those who are excommunicated.
Permits the public denial of Holy Communion to those whose sin is grave, and manifest, and in which they are obstinately persevering in the sinful state.
Therefore note, as others have, three criteria must be met. For a person may be in grave sin, and the priest must know this outside the confessional. But unless the sin is manifest, i.e. a sin the priest knows, and one which is clearly known by most of the congregants, and unless he is sure they have not repented and received absolution prior to this Holy Communion, he ought not publicly deny the Sacrament. He may wish to confer with the person discretely and confidentially later to give further counsel, but he ought not otherwise deny the Sacrament unless he is sure their sin is grave, manifest and unrepented.
As I hope you can see, the primary burden of discernment in these matters falls in the recipient of Holy Communion. As Scripture says, Let a man examine himself…..
Those looking for showdowns at the altar rail or communion station ought to realize that Church law and policies, as well as prudential judgments, frown on such things. Priests and other ministers of Holy Communion need to remember they are not omniscient, and may authentically be mistaken in their assessment of those who approach the Sacrament.
Hence, doubts are to be resolved in favor of the communicant. Where there are concerns on the part of the minister of Holy Communion (i.e. a priest or deacon), he ought to approach the communicant privately and discretely and either give counsel, or clarify the facts. If an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion has doubts they should consult with the priest or pastor. Confrontations and showdowns at the moment of Communion should be avoided, and should be very rare, if the norms are proclaimed and followed.
There are some who may wish to applaud if Communion is denied to certain people in a public way. But confrontations “at the rail” usually flow from a failure of catechesis, and/or a failure to follow policy in more remote and discrete settings such as the confessional, the pulpit and the catechetical setting . Denials and showdowns are to be lamented not celebrated. And thought they do rarely happen, the goal is to avoid them altogether.
These norms along with a wider appreciation of their purpose may help in avoiding errors either by the clergy or by the faithful. Ultimately the norms for the worthy reception of Holy Communion and all the Sacraments , flow from a reverence that God is Holy, that He and his Sacraments are neither to be mocked, nor to be necessarily withheld from the faithful who desperately need them.
Perhaps it is well to end with a passage from St. Paul about Holy Communion:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions (1 Cor 11:27-35)
OK, comments are open. But let me be clear, we are not going to rehash the whole affair of a certain priest here in the Archdiocese who was in the news two months back. Let me clear that comments are not open to bishop-bashing and to pontificating about an event wherein not all the facts are even public. If you choose to mention the case too specifically I reserve my right to edit, or to refuse the comment altogether. This post is about catechesis, especially as we move forward toward the Feast of Corpus Christi. Let’s look ahead, not back.
We often like to read from and quote the prophets. But if you’ve ever met a real prophet you know that being in the presence of a real prophet can be very disturbing. Prophets love God’s people, but they love them too much to gainsay the truth.