Tag: Faith & Current Events

As most of you know, there has been a rather vivid discussion recently in the blogosphere on the subject of hell. As one who has written rather substantially, on the topic of hell, and our need to recover a more biblical notion regarding judgment and hell, I pray that you will tolerate me adding my own voice to the recent discussions.

Those who read this blog regularly, will know that I have spoken on the topic of Hell on any number of occasions. For example:

The Hell of It ——–Hell Has to Be——Will Many Be Saved? ——–Sinner Please Don’t Let this Harvest Pass ——–The Fire Next Time ——–The Mystery of Iniquity ——–Ignoring Two Words Devastates Evangelization

In all these posts, over the past several years I have argued, that our modern notion that Hell is a remote possibility, and a sentence likely incurred by only a very tiny number, is an unbiblical notion, and one that also runs contrary to almost the whole of Christian Tradition, beginning with the early Fathers of the Church, all the way forward until about 50 years ago.

I was thus very excited and pleased when Dr. Ralph Martin, a great teacher of mine over the years, published his recent book, Will Many be Saved? In this book, as I have already detailed, there is a great survey of the Church’s teaching, and traditional understanding of the topic of judgment and Hell. Ralph Martin also details in a respectful way recent trends, which have influenced a great many Catholics, and others to discount the biblical teaching, as well as the Christian Tradition of over 1900 years, prior to modern reconsideration.

I will not rewrite all the articles that I have referenced above, and re-defend the teaching on Hell, as I have done before, and Ralph Martin has done ably and thoroughly in his book.

But permit just a few summary bullet points:

1. The biblical teaching, that there is a Hell, and that many go there is in no way ambiguous. When asked directly whether many would be saved Jesus answers soberly, and I would suppose with great sadness, that “many” were on the wide road that led to perdition, and that the road that led to salvation, was narrow, and difficult and that “few” found it.
2. Jesus the main source – No one loves us more than Jesus Christ, and no one has worked more to save us than Jesus Christ. Yet no one spoke of Hell more than Jesus Christ, or warned of judgment with greater sobriety.
3. Words mean things – However one may wish to interpret the biblical data, “many” does not mean few, and “few” does not mean many.
4. Hell is, in a sense, necessary if human freedom is to have any meaning. All while Hell has mysterious aspects, understanding its existence must be rooted in the fact that God respects the freedom he has given us, even if he may regret the choices we make. But we are summoned to love, and love requires freedom, and freedom requires that our choices be about real things.
5. That hell is an eternal reality is also mysterious, but is caught up in the mystery of the eternity itself. It would seem that as we move from this temporal world toward eternity, our decisions become forever fixed and final.
6. Devastating – It does not require an advanced degree in sociology to understand that, to remove the unambiguous biblical teaching on the very real and possible outcome of Hell, is to remove strong motivation to seek a Savior and salvation. It is therefore no surprise that as the teaching on Hell has been largely set aside by the modern world, that recourse to the sacraments, prayer, Church attendance and any number of spiritual remedies have suffered significant declines during the same period.
7. More can be read, if you wish, in the articles I have written elsewhere, referenced above.

In the current discussion taking place in the blog is here, I have this particular regret. Namely, that a man and a priest I admire greatly, Father Robert Barron holds the position he currently does on this topic.

To some extent, I have seen an evolution, on the part of Father Barron, on this topic in the past few years. One of my early blog posts on the topic of Hell, and why it is a reasonable teaching, actually made use of a video by Father Barron wherein he articulates quite well the reasonableness of the Biblical teaching. It is true, that at the end of the video he does brook the notion that we don’t know if anyone is specifically in Hell, but he does not dismiss the notion either, and leaves the matter sufficiently vague, such that his vigorous defense of the reasonableness of Hell is not undermined. (I have posted that earlier video below).

But in more recent years Father Barron has seem to move more steadily toward the notion, that Hell is largely unpopulated and that the Lord’s teaching that many go there is largely to be set aside in favor of other notions relating to His mercy.

In his recent critique of Ralph Martin’s book, Fr. Barron states his fundamental objection to Martin’s reiteration of Church teaching and of Lumen Gentium 16. In effect Barron references Spe Salvi, 45-47 wherein Pope Benedict seems to suppose that few are in Hell and that the great majority of humanity will ultimately be saved.

Father Barron concludes,

It seems to me that Pope Benedict’s position — affirming the reality of Hell but seriously questioning whether that the vast majority of human beings end up there — is the most tenable and actually the most evangelically promising.

Ralph Martin ably answers father Barron’s critique, HERE, but the heart of his answer is that the Pope’s reflections are in the form of a supposition. Pope Benedict says in effect, that we “may suppose” that the great majority of people end up eventually in heaven. Hence, the Holy Father does not formally or solemnly teach contrary to either the biblical teaching, or to Lumen Gentium 16, but simply permits us to suppose that many in fact will be ultimately saved. In this context, Martin writes in his book that he hopes that the Pope can further clarify his remarks at some point in the future. But Martin in no way simply sets aside the Pope’s remarks.

But Here’s the Problem: In this regard, the fact that Father Barron then consigns Ralph Martins position as analogous to dissent directed against Humanae Vitae, is, I would argue, unnecessary, excessive and hurtful. It is far from the kind of balanced and careful analysis I have come to admire about Father Barron. Father Barron’s exact quote that most troubles me is,

….but one of the most theologically accomplished popes in history, writing at a very high level of authority, has declared that we oughtn’t to hold that Hell is densely populated. To write this off as “remarks” that require “clarification” is precisely analogous to a liberal theologian saying the same thing about Paul VI’s teaching on artificial contraception in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

I don’t think this is a carefully thought-out quote by Father Barron. And it surprises me greatly. I personally hope the Father Barron would consider the excessiveness of his judgment here, and issue his own clarification. Ralph Martin is merely requesting clarification regarding the “supposition” of the Pope. He is not a dissenter and to suggest that he is this such, is unjust

Frankly, it pains me to have to write this. I have been, and remain a great fan of Father Barron. I have used almost every one of his video productions, and I podcast his homilies. I hope for a more balanced critique, and clarification of his remarks in the near future.

Ralph Martin is a good Catholic, a great man of the Church. His book, written many years ago, entitled Crisis of Truth, was a great instrument of my own rediscovery of the need for orthodoxy and clarity in an age of confusion and true dissent.

I realize that I am not of the caliber of either one of these men, and perhaps my remarks here should, and will go largely unobserved. I write more as a great admirer of both these men.

Perhaps, in the end, Michael Vorris has the best take on this Internet debate. In his view is that, thanks be to God that Catholics are even talking about Hell anymore. The topic, even the word, has largely been off the Catholic radar for far too long. As one who was written more than a few times on the topic in the past four years, a common response I get, is, “Are you crazy? No one believes in hell anymore.” And thus, that we can even be discussing the topic is, of itself, some progress. I have included forces video below as well.

I do pray for clarification, from Father Barron. I also, with Ralph Martin, hope for greater clarification from the Pope, regarding his “supposition” in Spe Salvi 45–47. I with Martin, ask this only in greatest respect. I too am a loyal son of the Church and I seek to be taught, that I may come to greater understanding of what the Pope’s supposition means in the light of Scripture, Tradition, and Lumen Gentium 16.

Living and working the African American Catholic Community I have been subject to some time with names that are often unpronounceable. It is a controversial practice even in the Black community for parents to name their children all sorts of crazy, made-up names that are often intentionally misspelled.

DeQuanna, Sharkeisha, LaDarrius, Shamyra, Marketta, Shontella, LaRochelle, Shandrika, Charmonique, Myosha, LaKeisha, DeQuan, Rhondella, Raviona, Rominthia, Tomika, LaVenia, Trishela, LaTasha, ABCDE, Tyeisha, Mootron, Knoshon, Keyshawn, Tarquisha, Q’J’Q’Sha, Laquintas, Jamarcus, JoNathans, et al.

I trip over this especially at Baptisms when I am supposed to solemnly pronounce the name of the child. Even after the irritated mother tells me the third time, I still can’t get it right. But why be angry with me? Why name your child such a strange name? Its all so crazy. They put in apostrophes where none are needed and there seems a minor obsession with the letters ‘Q’ and ‘K’.

Now some may speak of racism, but I have been in the Black community too long to be deaf to the fact that an awful lot of African American folks hate the practice too.

Oddities are spreading to other ethnic groups too. In a recent article in The Atlantic Phillip Cohen writes:

The number of girls given the name Mary at birth has fallen 94 percent since 1961…..The modernization theory of name trends, advanced most famously by the sociologist Stanley Lieberson, sees the rise of individualism in modern naming practices. “As the role of the extended family, religious rules, and other institutional pressures declines,” he wrote, “choices are increasingly free to be matters of taste.” Mary—both a traditional American name and a symbol religious Christianity—embodies this trend.

Second, America’s Christian family standard-bearers are not standing up for Mary anymore. It’s not just that there may be fewer devout Christians, it’s that even they don’t want to sacrifice individuality for a (sorry, it’s not my opinion) boring name like Mary. In 2011 there were more than twice as many Nevaehs (“Heaven” spelled backwards) born as there were Marys. (If there is anything more specific going on within Christianity, please fill me in.)

The Full article can be read here: Why Don’t Parents Name their Daughters Mary Anymore

I have referred in this brief article to the “curse” of individualism, because frankly I think some of these names become a hindrance later in life and mothers trying to be creative and individualistic, often saddle their kids with troubles later. Frankly people don’t like to be embarrassed, and when someone tells you their name and you can’t pronounce it, or have to ask again, and even a third time, social relations, and things like job interviews tend to go badly. I mean how do you even pronounce Q’J’Q’Sha? A lot of things break down when you can’t even pass the “go” of exchanging names.

As you might expect, many of these children given strange names, end up going by other nick names. Like “Q” or Shawn or something easier. But really they should not have to, and their strange names will still have to come up at formal occasions and all the awkwardness. And even some of the names that are more pronounceable convey a kind of strangeness that makes people uncomfortable. While not necessarily fair, strange names convey an impression of the person who carries it. We tend to read a lot more in to names that perhaps we should, but the tendency is pre-conscious and is unlikely to change that much.

Interestingly, in Biblical times people were more creative with names than currently. However, they were careful to name their children with a name that was intelligible, that actually meant something. For example, Jesus means “God saves,” Michael means “Who is like God?” Sarah means “princess” and so forth. Thus, observing the essence of a child, the parents named the child on the eighth day after birth.

Controversial article? Sure. But don’t turn it into a race thing, there’s plenty of divided opinion in the African American community as well. Also if you feel offended, try not to take it personally. It is a cultural trend that is being critiqued, not you. The bottom line, in a culture where strange forms of individualism are increasing and exotica is proudly displayed by more and more, it’s good every now and then to ask about limits and encourage some moderation.

By the way, my name almost backward is Epop Selrach if your looking for a clever new name….for your pet, that is. 🙂

There are many lingering questions in the aftermath of the recent elections here in America. Among them is the role that the Church does or should play in giving Catholics direction on how to vote. What should the clergy say? How far should they go? When are voter guides too specific and when are they not specific enough? Is it enough for the Church to preach principles and let Catholics connect the dots?

And, even if one concludes that the Church should not endorse or exclude particular Candidates by name, what about specific issues? Should the Church in such cases also preach only principles or should the Church specifically ask or direct Catholic to vote “No” on “Proposition ##” and “Yes” on “Proposition ##.” Is that going too far? When?

A recent article by Vincent Miller, at the CNN Belief Blog provides some reflections that may be helpful in framing a discussion. I would like to excerpt his remarks and make a few comments of my and elicit your thoughts.

As per usual the author’s quotes are in Bold, Black, Italics, and my remarks are plain red text.

President Obama’s narrow victory among Catholic voters this week will be seen by many as a political loss for the U.S. Catholic bishops, who appeared to be openly opposing Obama during the presidential campaign.

Hmm… I think a lot of conservatives would take issue with the premise that the Catholic Bishops, as a whole, openly opposed President Obama. It is clear the Bishops stood opposed to the threats to religious liberty contained in the HHS mandate. But most conservative Catholics with whom I spoke found the American Bishops far from clear on the need to oppose Mr. Obama. Indeed I personally got a good amount of “hate mail” directed against me personally, but more often directed against the Bishops, by politically conservative Catholics who thought the Bishops and pastors should have led a clearer charge against the President’s re-election and should have stated that no Catholic can vote for a candidate like Mr. Obama.

….There is more at stake here than politics.

Though I agree with the bishops that the exemption for religious employers in the White House contraceptive insurance mandate is too narrow, the bishops’ posture toward the administration during the election poses a major risk to the Church because it left the impression that there was only one legitimate Catholic choice for president – Mitt Romney.

Again, many politically conservative Catholics who wished the Bishops had been that forceful, would disagree here with Mr. Miller. Though he does cite the example of Bishop Jenky of Peoria, (in a section not included in these excerpts), Miller’s contention, that the Bishops left a clear impression that Catholics could only vote for Mr Romney, would be strongly disputed by many on the Right.

The result is that half of the Catholic electorate felt it was being judged as voting “against the Church,” even though such voters weren’t actually dissenting from Catholic teaching. They were, instead, making the complex decisions that any serious voter must, weighing their own moral commitments against a candidate’s professed values, the policies they propose and how much is likely to be accomplished on a given issue given the political climate. Voters must weigh the mix of positions of both candidates, not just the objections against one. This year, they had to weigh, among other things, a new problem with religious liberty against the Republicans’ earnest proposal to replace Medicare’s guaranteed coverage with a subsidy for private insurance.

And here, I think we come to the critical question. For the slightly more than one half of Catholics who voted for President Obama, voted knowingly for a candidate who stands foursquare against many critical Catholic teachings. And in this sense they did vote against, or choose to disregard, what the Church teaches.

But, as Vincent Miller opines, is that what they were really doing? Were they dissenting against Church or her teaching explicitly, or were they weighing what they consider to be many critical factors in how they voted?

There is an increasing movement, especially on the political right, in the Church, to speak of the non-negotiables. These non-negotiable’s include the Church’s fundamental moral teachings such as abortion, redefining marriage, euthanasia, and so forth. In calling them non-negotiables, it means the Catholics should never vote for anybody who holds positions in these area contrary to the Church teaching. Exceptions to this rule would be rare, if not nonexistent.

To a large degree, I am compelled to agree, and do not see how I could ever vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, sought to advance physician-assisted suicide, or supported the redefinition of marriage. And I would personally hope that all Catholics would begin to hold this view. If we were really to stand together on these issues, we would be a formidable political force.

However, it would seem that even a large percentage of church-going Catholics do not see matters this absolutely. Instead, as our author describes, they weigh many factors when going to vote. Perhaps, even though they are opposed to abortion, they are also passionate about immigrants’ rights and the fate of the health care plan. And while many of us in the pro-life movement would wish that abortion always trumped every other issue, many Catholics, simply do not see it this way.

This is also influenced by the fact that many do not see that abortion is likely to change much, no matter who is elected. Many will debate that premise, but it remains true that even having passed through eras of largely Republican-controlled government, abortion still remains largely legal in this country. There are other factors that weigh in on how Catholics vote, but suffice it here to say that the non-negotiables rule is not one that holds sway with many who seem to be more prone to weigh many factors.

As a priest who is personally convinced of the “non-negotiables” argument, I do wonder however the degree to which it can be considered a binding norm on the faithful, which I must preach. I am cautious of simply articulating it from the pulpit since the pulpit does not belong to me and I am careful about preaching things as binding on the faithful from the pulpit, when they may be matters that are still the realm of prudence, rather than expected discipline. The norms from the USCCB do not for example adopt the non-negotiable rule.

The notion of weighing many factors was also mentioned by then Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 memo “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

Thus, while there are many legitimate debates to be had about what is meant by a proportionate reason, I am not sure I can preach the non-negotiables approach (even though I like it) as binding on Catholics and I also understand why Bishops have been careful about that as well.

By putting voters in a “with us or against us” bind, some of America’s bishops have risked eroding their own authority. They imply that specific political judgments are matters of Church teaching, when by Catholic tradition, the more they descend into the details of policy, the less certain their judgments become. –

But again, I must ask, which bishops? I can think only of a very few, really only two who could really stand accused of what Miller accuses the whole body of doing. Again, most conservative Catholics see just the opposite and many go so far as to call the Bishops ineffectual. Thus, if there is an impression of a “with us or against” mentality it comes more from fellow Catholic laity.

But now we come to Mr. Miller’s suggestion, that I specifically want to ask you about.

Bishops must allow room for and respect believers’ own specific political judgments. The Second Vatican Council taught that it is primarily the responsibility of the laity to undertake the secular work of inscribing “the divine law…in the life of the earthly city.”

The way out of this crisis (I think crisis is too strong a word) is for the bishops to carefully respect the necessary limits involved in the task of forming the consciences of lay believers. They must teach moral principles and, yes, argue for their specific application, but always (avoid saying always) in a way that respects individual judgments about how best to enact these principles. At times this formation might even require forceful challenge, but it should never (avoid saying never) assume ill will or ignorance when the faithful vote differently than they desire.

Trusting laypeople to make the political decisions that are properly theirs gives them room to embrace the Church’s doctrines, even if they cannot enact all of them in their voting choices. This is essential to sustaining a Catholic identity separate from the divisiveness of partisan politics. This election season like none before left many Catholics feeling like the Church gave them no such room.

I think there is a lot for conservative Catholics to agree with here. I have been hearing for years a deep resentment on the part of the faithful at the way Bishops in the recent past interjected themselves into the “political arena” when they wrote pastorals on economics, nuclear weapons, Immigration, capital punishment, racism, poverty and so forth. There was particular concern especially on the Right that the bishops were predictably left wing on these matters and that they should stick to theology. Fair or not (for many of the issued covered did involve important moral principles), most did think of the bishops as straying too far into the temporal and political order that rightly belongs to the laity.

Now however it is often the Right within the Church that does not see the Bishops as doing enough. And while I put a few brief red remarks in the paragraph above, I largely find Mr. Miller’s remarks classically conservative. And his cautions regarding the limits of clerical involvement in the temporal order are very much rooted in the kind of traditional training I received, namely that we clergy should stick as much as possible to Catholic principles and avoid even a hint of partisan preference in our remarks. Further we were taught that the temporal order belongs to laity and prudential judgments and political debates should be left for them conduct.

Mr. Miller goes on:

The Catholic Church will enhance its public authority by speaking out in a way that supports and challenges both parties. Prophets are respected when they are perceived to be an independent and fair voice. When the deep coherence of Catholic moral teaching is communicated, it can free people from our partisan moral straightjackets. But when parts of this teaching are passed over in silence, the Church puts itself in a partisan straightjacket. Here too I am largely in agreement.

The Full article can be read here: Bishops’ Election Behavior Threatens Their Authority

So then, a few questions to ask you about:

1. Do you really think the Bishops, as a whole, taught that Catholics could only vote for Mitt Romney?
2. Should the non-negotiables position be insisted on from the pulpit, or are the clergy going too far if they do this?
3. What are the limits that should be observed by clergy in times like these?
4. Of lay people who voted for President Obama, how do you see their vote?  Does it make them a dissenter, or does it mean they weighed things differently?
5. Then Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in his 2004 memo of some possibly having “proportionate reasons” to vote for a pro-Abortion candidate. How do you understand the word proportionate. Is there any room for interpretation in the meaning of this word?
6. While most of us in the pro-Life movement ardently think that Abortion must be the premier issue to be considered, followed closely by the other non-negotiables, is this view officially taught by the Church? And must it be definitively held, such that one who votes for a pro-abortion candidate for “proportionate” reasons is ipso facto a bad and dissenting Catholic?
7. Bottom line, how can clergy walk the increasingly narrow line of staying away from partisan trip-wires and still proclaim authentic Catholic teaching? My own experience about this is that it is much harder near elections, but now that political season is over, we need to step up the teaching  in a less charged environment.
8. In what ways should the clergy  pipe down and allow laity to take proper leadership in the temporal order, and more specifically politics.

I am not asking every respondent to answer all these questions. They are just to frame the discussion. Frankly the whole intersection between faith and politics these days is a real thicket, and I am not sure exactly where the clergy should aim, since in preaching principles, it is hard to remain general and abstract in many cases.

In commenting please try to avoid Bishop bashing and references to Canon 915. I hope to keep the discussion broader than refusing communion to pols. The question on the table is how to navigate the intersection of teaching the faith and staying clear of having the clergy giving direct political directives, and if such a distinction is even possible today.

There was a time when Clergy involvement in politics was more accepted. To some extent the Civil Rights movement crossed political distinctions. Here is an excerpt from Dr. King’s Last sermon the night before he was killed.