Tag: Faith & Current Events

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

“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

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

Good Grief: A Meditation of How Grief can be a Gift in Strange Package

As a priest I walk with a lot of people in their grief. It’s a regular part of priesthood. I remember back in 2007 how tough it was for me:

  • The Deacon of my parish, Nerus, like a father to me, died after a long battle with cancer. His final words to me were, “I’m not so good right now, but I’ll be better soon.”
  • My administrative and pastoral assistant, Catherine, like a mother to me, developed a rapid form of Alzheimer’s and within that year went from being at the top of her game to no longer recognizing anyone, within a year she was gone.
  • My Parish bookkeeper, Shirley, also like a mother or an aunt, died suddenly.
  • I was transferred from a parish I loved. This too was like a death, death by a thousand cuts.
  • My father died shortly thereafter, after a long illness.
  • A new parishioner lost her 4 year old nephew when, climbing on a dresser, it fell over on him and he was killed
  • Another parishioner lost her 25 year old son, know well to us all, when he was shot to death.

All in a year. I remember telling God it was too much. And though I got no answer, I haven’t had a year like that since.

Grief just has a life of its own. I often tell people that you can’t get around grief you just have to go through it and experience it to its top. It seldom lets us off the hook. It has something to say to us, something to give us.

I have often thought the gift that grief gives us is love. Many years ago Simon and Garfunkel sang the song “I am a Rock, I am an Island.” The song celebrated a loveless solitude and declared “If I never loved I never would have cried.” The final line of the song said, “And a rock feels no pain, and an Island never cries.” Perhaps they do not. But we who love do cry and grieve. And it is precisely the grief that can deepen our love.

Many years ago (1990) my sister died in a fire. She had been mentally ill all her life and I struggled to relate to her. In many ways I feared her. When I first got news she had died in the fire I just went numb. We in the family wondered if we might be able to view her body or not. The funeral director told us we could view her privately but since her skin has been singed in the fire it was too delicate to touch her. Further, because of this, he had not been able to adjust her face in any way. Nevertheless he thought she was presentable enough for the family to have a private viewing. We I looked upon my sister and saw her face it was very clear that she was crying when she died. For the first time in my life I wept for my sister and lamented the awful mental illness that had caused her such hardship. For the first time I understood her dignity. I guess I am sorry that it took her death for me to come to that appreciation and love of her. But that was the gift that my grief gave me, it intensified my love for my sister. I still cry from time to time when I think of that moment. It was painful but it was a gift and it remains so.

If we let it, our grief will bring us gifts in strange packages. Because of it our love and respect for those we have lost is intensified. Our longing for union with them one day again is deepened and our memories of them become more precious. It is true that the intensity of grief may lessen over the years but most of us know it never completely departs. Why should it? If we love there should always be a part of us that cannot bear to be apart from those we love. We grieve because we love and thank God we love, thank God we love.

Nothing can fill the gap when we are away from those we love, and it would be wrong to try and find anything. We must simply hold out and win through. That sounds very hard at first, but at the same time it is a great consolation, since leaving the gap unfilled preserves the bonds between us. It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap. God does not fill it, but keeps it empty so that our communion with each other may be kept alive, even at the cost of pain. Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters from Prison

Here is a video that depicts grief. I hope you’ll listen closely to the words of the song for they eloquently describe grief. The video portion shows a young woman lamenting the loss of her boyfriend. She struggles to be free of her grief even to the point of tearing up one of his letters. But the problem is not on the paper, it is in her heart. The only way to respect her grief and be free of its strongest shackles is to accept the gift it brings, love undying.


Posted on

Catholicism and Humor – When Can We Laugh At Ourselves and When Are We Being too Uptight?

I first posted the video at the bottom two years ago on this blog. I thought it was quite funny and a humorous look at the culture of Catholicism. In no way did I think the “deacon” in the video was ridiculing the faith. In fact it was really more a spoof on used car salesmen who will often do anything to sell a car.

But, when I published the video there were a number of strong reactions in the combox from readers who did not think the commercial funny at all, and offensive to boot. Here are a couple of  examples:

  1. I’m sorry. I know the attempt at humor was well meant and may appeal to some. But I found it in bad taste and almost offensive. It was the use of sacred words and realities in such a flippant manner that I could not appreciate.
  2. Not funny and what is being promoted? Open on Sundays? What about keeping the Sabbath Day holy?

Others thought differently –

  1. I thought this was a brilliant way to connect…Sometimes we get just too uptight and try to keep our religion in a pretty box. Well done brother, I hope to see more.
  2. My favorite line is: “We’re on South Water Street, just before it turns into Wine” That’s funny and clever! Anyway, some here don’t agree. I see it as lighthearted humor and some of you clearly do not.

As I have said, I think the spoof is more on car salesman, and not that far from the truth either. I remember that, some years ago, in the Catholic Standard, our Archdiocesan Newspaper, a certain Deacon, who was also a car dealer, used to advertise each week. He loved to point out that he was a permanent Deacon at such-and-so a parish. There was more than a hint in his add that he had a special deal for practicing Catholics: “An outrageously low price for a new or used car! Just bring a Church Bulletin and get the discount!” Hey, why not. I think if I’d been in the market for a car I might of just paid him a visit!

But humor is clearly risky sort of a thing, for what often makes it funny is that goes out to the edges, sometimes engages in stereotyping, and usually has a element of truth wrapped up in hyperbole and histrionics. We human beings are often funny even when we’re doing serious stuff and a good laugh doesn’t always mean ridicule, sometimes it means appreciation of the traits we notice in others.

Finally, the word humor and humility are likely related. The Latin word “humus” means soil, earth or ground. Another root of the word is the Latin and Greek word “humor” referring to the water and other bodily fluids that make up our bodies. Either way, we are dust and water and unto dust we shall return. Recalling this is a way to remember, among other things, that we not take ourselves too seriously. Proper humor and laughter that is not ridiculing in intent, can help us to be more humble.

I am interested in what you think of the video below. Is the humor of it appropriate, as I think it is? Does some or all of it go too far? What’s the balance between being able to laugh at ourselves and being too uptight? Clearly some people, two years ago were offended. I was not. What do you think?

Anyway, enjoy this rather humorous and well done video.

Posted on

Finding God in A Strange Place: Soteriology in a KIA Soul Commercial? Why not?!

Permit me to go in this post from serious sublimity, to silly stretching. But I saw a car ad the other day and recalled an insight of how God saves us. “How one earth?” you may say. Well, on the Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross lets look….

Let me begin with the sublime. And for that I turn to Archbishop Fulton J Sheen. Many years ago (more than 25) I got a series of 24 cassette tapes. They were wonderful recordings of a set of instructions he prepared for converts to the Catholic Faith. If you have never heard of that series you can find it here: A Sheen Catechism.

In this series, Archbishop Sheen made an insightful point that I am relating to you from memory. I beg mercy if I do not quote him exactly, but his point related to soteriology, the theology of how we are saved. Now to be clear, we are saved by the obedience of Christ. But not all the consequences of our sinful choice were eliminated. Some of these consequences the Lord takes up as a means to save us. It is of these consequences that Archbishop Sheen sepaks. Again, what I relate is not verbatim but is as close as I can remember:

Consider that God were conducting a great symphony, a symphony that He Himself composed, of sublime beauty. Now suppose he wrote that symphony in the Key of A. Having assembled His orchestra God brings them to attention and begins the symphony. But suppose in the front row, the first and second violinists, filled with a sense of rebellion and boredom by the third measure, insisted on playing the note A-Flat, rather than the A-natural called for by the score. This of course created a terrible dissonance. And so God,  the great conductor and composer brought the orchestra to a halt by tapping his baton. Looking to the first and second violinists, he said, “My symphony has been ruined. I will forgive but the note has sounded and gone forth. It will not be recalled. So, what was that note you played?” The first and second violinists said “A-Flat!” “Fine then,” said God, “Let us begin our new Symphony in the key of A-Flat.” And raising his baton, he began.…

What is Archbishop Sheen saying here? He is saying that in saving us, God does not merely undo or cancel every effect of our choice. Jesus does obey, saying yes to the Father, whereas we had said no and hence we are saved by his obedience. But God does not merely come in and say, well, you got that wrong so I am just going to reverse everything you did and put it back to the way I want it. There is a very deep reverence that our all-powerful God has for our freedom we had to chose in this sense. And so he chooses to write straight with the crooked lines, the consequences of our sinful choice.

What then does God do? Using Sheen’s analogy he takes our “A-Flat,” the consequences of our choice  and uses it as the key note in a new symphony. In other words, though God had given life, and paradise (A Natural), Adam and Eve chose the way of suffering and death (A-Flat). Hence, rather than merely erase what they had done, God said, “I will come and, through suffering and death, (A-Flat), compose a new symphony with an even greater ending. Through the suffering and death of my own Son, and by his obedience,  I will compose a new symphony, one that ends with humanity not in some mere earthly paradise, but a heavenly one. One that ends with humanity not as just humanly perfect, but as sharers in Divine nature. Yes, my Son will take A-Flat and make of it a new song, an even greater song.” O felix culpa, O admirabile commercium (O happy fault, O wondrous exchange)!

Where our demise came through a man (Adam), a woman (Eve), and a tree, now too our redemption would would come from a new Adam (Christ) and include a new woman (Mary) and the tree of the cross. Suffering death, the chosen note of Adam and Eve (A-Flat) would now be the first note in a new symphony, bringing life and glory, all by God’s grace.

And our suffering and crosses too would do the same in this new symphony, this new song. As scripture says, This light, temporary nature of our suffering is producing for us an everlasting, weight of glory, far beyond any comparison (2 Cor 4:17). Yes, God took our sour note and and composed a new song, with a greater ending.

And that brings us the  video below. I have to say, maybe I am just zany-brainy, but I saw Archbishop Sheen’s soteriological point in, of all places, a car ad for the “KIA Soul” (yes, aptly named). And I realize that what I am doing is pure eisegesis, that is, reading a meaning into the video that the originator likely never intended. But go with me on this little journey.

  1. As the video opens a terrible war is raging between two unknown parties. A-Flat is in loud evidence. In fact, if you have a good Bose woofer, the pounding A-Flat explosions shake the floor. The whole landscape and almost everything is in shades of gray, and everything is in ruins. Yes, this is the sour note of A-flat alright: death, violence, barrenness, not a living thing in sight, even the warring parties are robots.
  2. Suddenly into this scene drives a bright green “KIA Soul” with three occupants. Let the green represent life, and the three occupants, represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (I know they’re hamsters, but stay with me).
  3. The warring parties stop, stunned by this bright green car, and aim their weapons at it. Out emerge the three living creatures, the Trinity, far more alive than any of the fighting robots. A tense moment ensues.
  4. The middle figure is a Christ figure, for he wears purple, a sign of his royalty and his passion.
  5. Suddenly the Christ figure cries out and all three in the Trinity begin to stop their feet. It is the same pounding A-Flat beat that the robots have been creating by their killing, it is a kind of a sound of death.
  6. But now the Trinity is using the A-Flat beat to dance!
  7. Suddenly, one of the robots starts to tap his foot, other robots quickly join in and before long, all are dancing. Same A-flat beat, but the Trinity has composed a new symphony around it.
  8. Weapons drop and the dancing ensues. Some of the dead even come back to life. The former flying war machines emanate rainbow patterns in the background.
  9. In a very symbolic moment the Christ figure in purple stands atop a concrete circle in the shape of a tree stump, as if Christ on his Cross in triumph dancing to A-Flat. The A-Flat of suffering that leads only to death is becoming life. A-flat doesn’t need to lead to war, if accepted it can lead to glory. The Lord teaches them a new song to the same note.
  10. In the final scene the “Trinity” drive down a road flanked by enthusiastic praises as the A-Flat dance continues.In the distance is the mountain where God dwells on high.

OK, too weird? Call me a dreamer but this is what I see. If all you choose to see is a car commercial, fine. But it never hurts to see Christ where ever we can. Man had disobeyed and ushered in an A-Flat world of suffering and death. God forgave us and Jesus undid our disobedience. But God, showing a reverence for us even in our struggle, takes our A-Flat of suffering and death and makes it a road to glory, the way to heaven.

Enjoy this video.

Posted on

If You’re Reading this Blog, You’re Way Above Average. A Recent Study Shows Some Startling Data Regarding Catholic Internet Sites

Some rather sobering, even shocking data is available over at the CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) blog. The data stunningly refutes the claim that the way to reach young Catholics is via the Internet.  I must say I was more and more startled as I read the data, thinking, “This can’t be so.” But the bottom line seems that if you are a Catholic, reading this or other Catholic blogs for information or encouragement about your faith, you are a very rare bird. If you are under 30, and reading Catholic blogs and news sites, you are the rarest of birds.

Let’s look at the data. The text from the CARA report is in bold black italics, my comments are plain text red. The full CARA post is here: CARA on New Media

Millennial Catholics (born after 1981) represent about one in five adult Catholics (19%) and….are sometimes described as the digital or new media generation. Many in the Church assume that the way to connect with this emergent generation of Catholics is not through traditional print media, television, or radio, but online—through blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accessed on smart phones, tablets, and e-readers. The hope is often stated that we may be able to use new media to get this generation “back into the real world pews” that are more often populated by their parents and grandparents.

Yes, this is surely the premise in every discussion I have had, with anyone who has an opinion, and it is surely my own. It is widely assumed that within ten years paper books as we know them are going away, Catholic newspapers will all but disappear, and all Catholics will contribute their money to the parish electronically. The basic premise is that we are at the end of an era, and that many such things are simply going to disappear as younger people take their place. But not so fast, says the data. The landscape is a bit more complicated and pace of change less like lightening and more like a slow walk.

The Catholic Press Association (CPA) of the United States and Canada recently commissioned CARA to conduct a national poll of adult Catholics to measure their media use. CARA partnered with Knowledge Networks to conduct the survey in May and June 2011. The survey was completed by 1,239 self-identified Catholics who were 18 years of age or older (resulting in a sampling margin of error of ±2.8 percentage points)….. 1200 is a pretty normal sample size.

The findings from these studies suggest that the emerging picture for new media use by Catholic adults overall—and especially among the Millennials is not as promising as many hope or assume. The problem is…the Internet is a much more vast space and is navigated by search and social network….You likely won’t even get it on their computer screen or iPhone unless they are interested in it and looking for it.

It’s the same lesson we have to learn in evangelization. The “build it and they will come” days are over. We have to open our Church doors and go out and meet and engage people, not just hope they will come. We have to be in this work for the long haul, and realize that relationships, and connections are just as important, as spiffy content. Developing interest is more the key than simply being “out there” with jazzy stuff.

First, the study shows that only a slight majority of Catholics (52%) pay “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of attention to national news….In the new media age, they don’t have to. Thirty years ago many had only over-air television reception with three networks, and local radio and newspapers to choose from. The news was an inescapable part of the broadcast. With the development of cable television, satellite radio, the Internet, e-readers, etc. the content available to most has now expanded exponentially. In this new media environment, many have “narrowcasted” themselves into their interests—whatever these may be—and have largely tuned out the world that is not of their immediate interest. Entertainment has often trumped news, information, or other content when making these choices. Attention to news is lowest among young Catholics.

I wrote an article here at this blog on this very topic almost two years ago: Living in a Self Selected Universe. A paradoxical effect of the “global communication age” is that many people increasing set up their own world to live in. Shared experience is becoming more and more rare. Most people I know NEVER watch the news anymore, unless something shocking has happened. Otherwise they listen to music, have a steady diet of sports, or watch their favorite shows, and check in on only a very highly selective set of Internet sites that suit their pre-programmed interests. So, while more of everything is available, less is actually consumed or experienced, that’s the paradox.

What about use of religious and spiritual content?….When it comes to Catholicism, more often than not, traditional media still have a much broader reach in a “new media” age. Despite what conventional wisdom or anecdote may suggest, Millennials do not overwhelmingly prefer reading content online compared to print. A third of these respondents indicate a preference for online content (32%), while another third prefers reading print (33%). Thirty-five percent do not have a preference either way.

And here is a really big surprise. I am not surprised that younger Catholics do not read or view, a lot of Catholic content. We have to work on that. But I AM surprised that those who do, show no substantially higher preference for “new media.” In fact it would seem that more are content to make use of traditional printed media. I am still convinced that the number preferring new media will continue to grow, but am most surprised it is not far higher.

While 22% of adult Millennial Catholics have read a print copy of their diocesan newspaper in the last three months (compared to 26% of all adult Catholics) only 4% of those in this generation have sought this out and read it online. Seventy percent of Millennials have no awareness of any of the major national print Catholic magazines and newspapers. Only one title, Catholic Digest, garners more than 7 percent awareness among Catholics under 30 and this publication has among the lowest web traffic of any title listed, 423 visitors per day at the time of this post.

And here is double bad news. Not only do most Catholics not read or view Catholic materials, but having them in the “new” format has not helped. The bottom line remains that most Catholics are simply not that interested in what their Church or the faith teaches or offers. Secularism is very deep among even “pew sitters” it would seem, many of whom check off the “God-box” on Sunday and have little recourse or interest in their faith otherwise. Rare indeed, are those who go to Mass these days (27%) and rarer still are those who invest time in the faith and what the Church offers later in the week.

This disinterest in Catholic media also means that most Catholics who do hear about the Church, hear it through a secular and usually hostile media or format. That breads another whole set of problems.

Of those Catholics who do read religious or spiritual content, most are doing so in print, not online. Catholics are also more likely to watch religious or spiritual video content on television than online and to listen to religious or spiritual audio over the radio or on a CD than in online podcasts. Fascinating. I am feeling very odd and “different” right now.

Of the new media offerings, Millennials are generally no more likely (accounting for margin of error) than older Catholics to say they have done anything online or through the use of e-readers related to religion or spiritually.

I have sensed this for a while now too, that the so-called age gap is mistaken, and that most of my readers, and those who listen to my Podcasts, are closer to me in age (I am 50) and that those who are much younger, may be out on the Internet, but not at Catholic sites, or sites like mine. Frankly the same is true of my more than 4,000 Facebook friends. The majority are closer to me in age.

The news on YouTube is not much better….the Vatican’s channel ranks #3,562 on YouTube in video’s viewed globally…..Search for any video including a “Catholic” reference and sort by “most views.” But be very cautious as there is a vast amount of offensive content (with many, many views) and you’ll find much of it to be designed for entertainment rather than anything informational, educational, or devotional.

Yes, it really is a terrible experience to search on YouTube for anything Catholic. Some of the most hateful, anti-Catholic stuff is out there. Some of it is semi-pornographic or just plain lewd. It seems there are a lot of people on YouTube who really, I mean really, hate the Catholic Church. I also have a YouTube page and I get some of the most hateful comments on very innocent videos I post. YouTube is a real “wild west” kind of environment and it is very clear that anti-Catholic videos are far more popular than videos which celebrate or promote the Faith. Sad, really.

The current discourse surrounding Catholic new media is often very rosy and optimistic. The data just do not match this conversation—yet. There certainly is no shortage of very successful Catholic blogs with significant followings…But these typically do not reach audiences to where they would be considered mass media. The survey results indicate that only 6% of Catholic adults (and 8% of Millennials) read a religious or spiritual blog in the three months prior to being surveyed. But what can be concluded is that creating content for new media does not mean people will use it. The era of broadcasting is over. In a narrowcasted world, people have to be aware of and want to visit and use your content. Right now not enough Catholics seem interested or aware. Pretty straight-forward and cogent conclusion!

Although Millennial Catholics are using new media frequently, they have yet to use it for religion and spirituality in any great number. Will they ever? How can this be achieved? Those are unanswered and difficult questions for now. Is it the content? Is it the crowded media environment? Is it a culture consumed by pop media and entertainment? Is it secularization? This study generated just as many questions as it did answers. New media will require new research and a new understanding.

I am interested in what you think, and especially your answer to some of the questions raised here at the end.

Yes, if you are reading this blog or other Catholic sites, you are WAY above average 🙂  Yes, you are a rare bird. Please keep reading and encourage others to read Catholic sites. Otherwise, most of what they get is through hostile and secular sources. Many of the bigoted, and hateful anti-Catholic YouTube videos have millions of views. Many pro-Catholic videos are luck to break 5000 views. Do the math, and once again we realize, it’s not a new medium that’s going to spread the faith alone. It’s evangelization, pure and simple. Tell someone about the Lord and the faith, and draw them to the sites that will nourish their faith. It’s old fashioned, one to one, person to person, word of mouth Evangelization that wins the day in the end.

Photo Credit above: Wirral PC Repair

Here’s an example of old fashioned evangelization. It does not exclude the new media, just ensures its success.