Here is a story that makes me glad and very sad at the same time. Religious sisters of various congregations are joining together to fight the horrific practice of human trafficking in underage “sex slaves.” One of the dirty secrets of large sports events is that not only is prostitution common, but that tragically, many underage girls are also being prostituted, most of them against their will, as sex slaves.
It is a shocking thing to think that slavery of any sort exists in this land. While some argue that the problem is exaggerated, I would like to ask them how many young slave girls they are willing to tolerate until we no longer “exaggerate” the problem. Many of the victims of this wretched trade come from the far east, places such as Singapore, and Indonesia in general. But some are kidnapped right here. Most of them are vulnerable because they are poor, or have broken homes, some are also runaways. In effect they are captured by the sex traders and their lives are threatened if they try to leave or to report the evil pimps and slave traders.
Aware of this dreadful problem, Religious Sisters have come together, and trained to both identify and work with police to make arrests, and also to prevent human trafficking altogether at this week’s Super Bowl. They will also put pressure on local hotels to be serious in their awareness and noncooperation in this problem. One of the sisters is quoted as saying, “We want the traffickers to know that we will be watching.”
Good for you Sisters. Anything we can do to make life difficult and risky for sex traffickers (especially those who exploit minors), is welcome and appreciated. Pray God they will be able to rescue some of the girls. Thanks for your courage, Sisters.
A short while back we read from First Samuel at daily Mass and encountered an envious Saul. Upon David’s return from slaying Goliath the women sang a song praising him. Saul should rejoice with all Israel but he is resentful and envies David as he hears the song: Saul was very angry and resentful of the song, for he thought: “They give David ten thousands, but only thousands to me. All that remains for him is the kingship.” And from that day on, Saul looked upon David with a glarring eye. Saul discussed his intention of killing David with his son Jonathan and with all his servants. (1 Sam 18:6-9). His reaction is way over the top but this is what envy does.
What is envy? Unfortunately most people use the word today as merely a synonym for jealously. But traditionally, jealously is not the same as envy.
When I am jealous of you, you have something I want and I wish to possess it inordinately. But the key point is that there is something good about you or something good you have and I want to have it for myself. When jealousy is sinful I want it inordinately or unreasonably.
But in traditional theology envy is very different (cf Summa II IIae 36.1). Envy is sorrow, sadness or anger at the the goodness or excellence of someone else, because I take it to lessen my own excellence. And the key difference with envy is that (unlike jealousy) I do not want to possess the good or excellence you have. I want to destroy it.
Notice in the reading above that Saul wants to kill David. He wants to do this because he thinks David’s excellence makes him look less excellent, less great. Saul SHOULD rejoice in David’s gifts for they are gifts to all Israel. David is a fine soldier, and this is a blessing for everyone. The proper response to David’s excellence should be to rejoice, be thankful to God and, where possible imitate David’s courage and excellence. Instead Saul sulks and sees David stealing the limelight from him, and possibly even the kingdom. Envy rears its ugly head when Saul concludes David must die. The good that is in David must be destroyed.
Envy is diabolical – St. Augustine called Envy THE diabolical sin (De catechizandis rudibus 4,8:PL 40,315-316), since it seeks to minimize, end or destroy what is good. Scripture says By the envy of the Devil death entered the world (Wis 2:24). Seeing the excellence that Adam and Eve had, made in the image of God, and possibly knowing of plans for the incarnation, the Devil envied Adam and Eve. Their glory lessened his, or so he thought, and he set out to destroy the goodness in them. Envy is very ugly and it is diabolical.
Examples of Envy – I remember experiencing envy in my early years. Picture the scene. In every classroom there was always one student, sometimes a few, who got A’s on every test. They always behaved, and the teacher would sometimes praise them saying, “Why can’t the rest of you be like Johnny? (or Susie).” Some hated students like this since they made them look bad. So what did some of them do? They sought to pressure the “teacher’s pet” to conform to their mediocrity. In effect they sought to destroy the goodness or excellence in A student. They would taunt them with names and pelt them with spit balls. If ridicule and isolation didn’t work sometimes they’d just plain beat them up. This is envy. Sorrowful and angry at the goodness of another student, because they made them look bad, they set out to destroy what was good in them.
The Virtues which cancel envy – The proper response to observing goodness or excellence in another is joy and zeal. We rejoice that they are blessed because, when they are blessed, we are blessed. Further we respond with a zeal that seeks to imitate where possible their goodness or excellence. Perhaps we can learn from them or their good example. But envy rejects joy and zeal and with sorrow and anger sets out to destroy what is good.
Envy can be subtle – Envy isn’t isn’t always this obvious. Sometimes it is more subtle and something we do almost without thinking. When someone at work is a rising star, we may easily engage in gossip and defamation to undermine their reputation or tarnish their image. We may do this at times in an unreflective manner. Almost without thinking, we diminish and belittle others and their accomplishments by careless and insensitive remarks. We often do this because we need to knock others down to feel better about ourselves. This is envy. Sometimes we show envy passively by omitting to praise or encourage others or by failing to call attention to their accomplishments.
Envy concealed with a smile – Finally there is an odd form of envy out there that is particularly annoying because it masquerades as sensitivity and kindness. Go with me to a typical neighborhood soccer game or baseball game. The children are on the field and playing their hearts out. But on the sidelines a decision has been made not to keep score. Why? Because the kids little egos might be damaged by losing. Frankly, it isn’t the egos of the children we’re probably protecting here, it is the parents. The fact is that the kids know the score in most cases. But God forbid that on the sports field there should be winners or losers! The losers might “feel bad.” The solution is to destroy or to refuse to acknowledge goodness and excellence in some children, because it is taken to lessen the goodness or excellence of the “losers.” This is envy and it teaches terrible things by omission. First of all it fails to teach that there are winners and losers in life. This is a fact. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. Either way I should be gracious. Secondly it fails to reward excellence and this is unjust for excellence should be rewarded and the reward should motivate others to be excellent. Much is lost when we fail to praise what is good.
Another example of this envious practice is at school award ceremonies where sometimes (literally) hundreds of awards are given out. There are the traditional Honor Roll awards but then a plethora of made up awards so that everyone “gets something.” I’ve even witnessed awards given for the nicest smile. But the problem is that when every one is awarded no one is awarded. Once again envy rears it ugly head, but this time it’s wearing a smiley face. God forbid that some kids little ego might be bruised he doesn’t get something. God forbid that someone else’s excellence might make me look less excellent by comparison.
The bottom line is that it is envy: sorrow at someone else’s excellence because I take it to lessen my own. And frankly this isn’t the kids’ issue, it’s usually parents and teachers projecting their own struggle with envy on the kids. But the fact is, there are simply some people who are better than I am a certain things. And that’s OK. I don’t have all the gifts, you don’t have all the gifts. But together we have all the gifts.
Envy is ugly, even when it masquerades as misguided kindness and fairness. It diminishes, and often seeks to destroy goodness and excellence. The proper response to excellence and goodness is and should always be joy and zeal.
In Snow White, the wicked Queen had envy for Snow White, the fairest of them all. Considering Snow White’s beauty as a threat to her standing, the evil queen cast a spell on snow white to remove her beauty from the scene. Envy consumes the evil queen.
In these past days, as Advent draws to a close and birth of Christ draws near, the readings at Daily Mass have recounted the divine initiative in the miraculous births of John the Baptist, and Samson. To this list we could add Isaac, Samuel and, of course Jesus. In these cases, women who were barren, or aged, or, in Mary’s case, a virgin, all conceive as the result of God’s special act.
For, although God most often acts to create us through the natural order of things, it remains true that God can overrule the usual course, such that a woman in her 90s (Sarah) can conceive, or that other women though aged or barren (Such as Elizabeth, Hannah, and the Mother of Samson) bring forth Children in very unlikely circumstances. Most miraculously of all is Jesus who is, in terms of his human nature, born of Mary, though clearly a virgin.
Stories like these highlight God’s involvement in the origin of human life. There are other texts as well that speak to the fact of God’s specific intention in creating us and of His role in bringing us forth.
Hence we are told in Jeremiah:Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations (Jer 1:5). And thus we are taught that God knows of us, and plans for us, long before we are conceived, and that it is He Himself who forms us in our mother’s womb.
We also read in Psalm 139: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:13-14). In these magnificent verses, it is clear that we are God’s personal handiwork, and thus we are wonderful, and that a holy fear should surround the existence of every human being.
As we approach Christmas we ought to ponder the magnificence of human conception, gestation, birth and life. Even as we extoll the birth of Jesus, we also do well to acknowledge the awesome and mysterious truth that every human person emerges not merely from a biological process, but from the very mind and heart of God, from his will and as an act of his love. None of us are here by accident.
Yet in modern times there are many ways that God’s sovereignty over human conception and life are usurped or ignored. Among these are:
1. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) In IVF, a fertilizable ovum is removed from a woman’s ovary and put in a petri dish (the Latin for dish is vitrum) to which a few concentrated drops of sperm are added. This removes human conception from the marriage act, its sacred and proper place, where God acts to bestow life. IVF puts it in the laboratory where man controls the process and conception is treated as a technology and consumer product, rather than as part of a mystery of fruitful love caught up in the marriage embrace and the love God.
There is a sense on the part of many today that couples (even single people) have a right to have a child. Hence they proceed to do what they please to exercise their right. Never mind that “excess” embryos are frozen or destroyed, it’s all for a “good cause,” namely, to give the parent(s) what they want, and supposedly have a “right” to.
From a faith perspective, IVF simply rejects God’s “failure” to act in accord with the wishes of the parents, and removes the decision from God. God may be teaching something to the couple due to their infertility. Perhaps he wants them to adopt, perhaps he has a special work or cause he wants them to be devoted to. But IVF suspends such discernment, and forces the solution.
In this way the mystery and divine origin of human life is both compromised and undermined. When life is merely a technology to do with as we please, it is not long before we end up in some pretty dark places.
2. Irreverence for sexuality– Human sexual activity is sacred because it is tied to the ordinary ways in which God brings us into existence. But having set aside a deep appreciation for the sacredness and divine origin of human life, it is evident that human sexuality is both misunderstood and treated irreverently. It is ridiculed by comedians, treated casually by fornicators and degraded through the explosively high levels of pornography.
Through contraception we have sown in the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind. For if sex is just about fun and pleasure and not linked to children, marriage or the dignity of life, then just about anything goes: teen sex, “gay” sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, and ten thousand other aberations. Whatever feels good and gives the participants pleasure. Contraception severs the connection between sex, and life, and God. Thus endless confusions ensue, and grave darkness has come upon us as our families disintegrate, sexually transmitted diseases proliferate, teenage pregnancy and abortion escalate, and homosexuality ingratiates itself into a deeply confused populace.
But, for the Church, sex is sacred and linked to the dignity of human life and its creation by God. Conception is holy, an act of God, and those who would engage in the holy act of sex that points to conception, must do so from the sanctity of the marriage bed (for children deserve parents and a stable home), in an act open to and inviting of God, who alone is the author of sex, its meaning and the life that flows from it.
3. Abortion – We have spoken here at length of the tragedy and evil of abortion. Man usurps God’s role and claims for himself the right to kill that which God has clearly created, and is knitting together in the womb. Abortion snatches the knitting from God’s hands and says boldly to him “What are you doing?! ….This shall not be.” The mystery and dignity of every human person is undermined and endangered by this.
4. Rejection of the disabled and the imperfect – God permits, and allows that some among us have special needs. While we may wonder as to God’s ways, anyone who has worked with the disabled or had them as a member of the family know that, though hardships are surely present, the disabled bring many gifts and call forth great strength in those with whom they live and interact.
My own sister’s mental illness was a great trial for our family and yet I must declare she bestowed gifts and brought forth love in me I never knew I had. I will never forget her struggle that ended tragically, and the gift of her life and example are with me always.
But today, there are many who jettison these gifted people through abortion. A recent issue of the Ethics and Medics states the problem well:
Increasingly, the delivery of a healthy baby is perceived less as a blessing from God and more as an entitlement, a modern benefit associated with ever progressing medical technology. As a result, when there is a poor prenatal diagnosis, the medical focus shifts away from the baby’s condition to the pregnancy itself as a medical problem.
In a survey conducted by the American College of obstetricians and gynecologists, 90% of the doctors who responded considered abortion a justifiable treatment option for fatal fetal anomalies, and 63% considered it justifiable for nonfatal anomalies. [Monica Rafie & Tracie Windsor in Ethics and Medics Vol 36.10]
Tragically, just over 90% of unborn babies with a Down Syndrome prognosis are aborted. It is a horrifying rejection to behold. True enough, a poor prenatal diagnosis can be earth shaking, but human life is sacred and the disabled bring gifts. And even if those gifts seem to come in strange packages, God works his wonders still. Maybe they are the very way God will save us, and disarm our pride and self-reliance! Trust God, no one is an accident, no one is a mistake.
I am mindful of a quote that pertains to this last issue but also brings us back to where we started. It is from Isaiah:
Woe to him who contends with his Maker; a potsherd among potsherds of the earth! Dare the clay say to its modeler, “What are you doing?” or, “What you are making has no hands”? Woe to him who asks a father, “What are you begetting?” or a woman, “What are you giving birth to?” Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, his maker: You question me about my children, or prescribe the work of my hands for me?! It was I who made the earth and created mankind upon it; It was my hands that stretched out the heavens; I gave the order to all their host. It was I... (Isaiah 45:9-15)
At Christmas we celebrate the glory of conception, birth and the dignity of human life joined to divine life. God is the author of every human life. Not just the ones we we like, find acceptable, useful, pretty or perfect. All life comes from him and belongs to him. Jesus came to us miraculously from the Virgin Mary. And this is a solemn reminder that the initiative is always God’s. It is he who acts.
And though most all of us have been conceived in the more usual way, we too miraculously stir forth from the mind, the heart, the love of God. Human life is sacred. Sexuality is sacred, conception, gestation, and birth are all sacred. The great feast of the incarnation affirms all of this.
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:
A repentance
An earnestness to do what is right. The Greek word is σπουδή (spoude) which refers also a kind of swiftness rooted in enthusiasm.
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.
It also produced in them a kind of indignation for sin,
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.
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.
I wonder if it’s just me? Perhaps I have a sensitive conscience. But cheating has always surprised and deeply bothered me. When I ask people about it today, some agree, but many also shrug and say, it has always gone on. OK, I wasn’t born yesterday. I know and remember that some kids cheated on tests etc. But I don’t remember it being common, and I can certainly say that I did not cheat, and most of the kids I knew did not cheat. Frankly, I am too scared to cheat at things, and I am a terrible liar.
But consider some excerpts from an article by Bill O’Reilly in yesterday’s Washington Examiner wherein he details how, it would seem, that cheating is now quite a widespread phenomenon. He also ponders some reasons that cheating and other forms of lying are on the increase. As usual, the remarks of the author are in black, bold, italics, my remarks are in plain text red.
Ask any attorney or judge, and they will tell you that lying under oath is now the rule, not the exception, in the nation’s courtrooms.
In addition, the national cheating epidemic has exploded. A Georgia investigation alleges systematic cheating occurred at 44 public schools over a 10-year period. But it’s not the kids who were caught. No, the state says at least 178 teachers and principals did the deeds. It seems the remarkable improvements in student scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests were fraudulent. Educators doctored the tests in order to make their schools look good. They have all been fired.
While I do not know all the specifics about this Georgia case, I am convinced that some people justify cheating by cynically viewing the whole system as corrupt or unfair from the get-go. Thus, since things are “unfair,” it is not wrong to game the system. At least this is how I hear some people talk today, “It’s OK to cheat on my taxes since the Government takes too much anyway and they make the tax code so complicated that I can’t be bothered with it.” Well, perhaps both things are true, but of course there are legitimate ways to influence public policy short of cheating. But some say, why be bothered with a long term project like that? Just cook the books.
The key point is that the cheater justifies his behavior by cynically regarding the situation he faces as unjust. Now he can not only cheat, but even feel like a righteous dude as he does so. Perhaps some of the teachers resented Federal and State education standards, “No Child Left Behind” benchmarks etc. Perhaps they think that such things are biased against minorities, or that testing is an overrated tool, or that the bureaucrats who call for testing know nothing of education and are just corrupt themselves. Therefore I am have a right to cook the books. After all I’m just trying to protect people’s jobs and keep the funding going, and I’m only lying to a bunch of evil people with questionable political motives anyway….to heck with them! Or so the thinking goes.
I do not say this is case with everyone, in the Georgia scandal but it is not hard to imagine the thinking of our cynical culture seeping into the scenario.
Lying and cheating almost always come down to betrayal and are most often driven by selfishness. America has become a nation obsessed with immediate gratification. …. it’s a free-for-all of getting what you want as quickly as possible. Lying and cheating are considered by many to be useful tools on the road to accomplishment.
Yes, this would certainly seem to be another factor. There’s a kind of entitlement attitude that I shouldn’t have to wait or work hard or earn what I have. I should just be given it. Thus, tests and other hurdles are regarded, not just with impatience, but also with a kind of outrage. The outrage says, “Who or what is this keeping me from what is mine? Why should I have to qualify or jump thought hoops or wait for what I am entitled to?”
Thus, tests and qualifications, earned credentials, the paying of legitimate fees or taxes, and demonstrating one’s bona fides are all considered unreasonable incursions or delays from what is rightfully mine anyway. I want what I want, and I want it now, and thus I have every right to go around the system, and get what is mine.
Public schools have embraced secularism with a vengeance; therefore, Moses and his 10 Commandments have been banished.
Yes, the idea that God is watching or that we will have to answer to God is largely gone from our culture. I remember that, even though I wasn’t a very spiritual child, I was very powerfully motivated by the thought that God saw and knew everything I was doing. God was just on the radar and I had to deal with him.
I am not sure most young people grow up with this today in our secular culture. God has been “kicked to the curb.” Thus, if I get away with something, I really have gotten away with it. Or so the secular thinking goes. That God knows and I will have to answer to him for what I do would hardly seem to enter the mind of most moderns imbued with a secular, rather than a sacramental understanding of reality.
There are, of course, good people who understand that honesty is indeed the best policy if you want to live a worthwhile life. But their numbers are dwindling. In fact, a recent study out of the University of Connecticut says that an astounding 95 percent of high school students have admitted to cheating in the past year. Wow! I just know it wasn’t anything near this high when I was in school.
For a variety of reasons, our society now embraces and empowers scoundrels… In the 1960s, it was: “If it feels good, do it.” Today, it is: “If it looks good, steal it.” Or: “If it sounds good, say it.” Many of the moral boundaries that once elevated this country have collapsed.
Yes, our entertainment glorifies rouges, scoundrels, gangers, and a lot of bad behaviors. It’s the anti-authority thing and the “don’t tell me what to do” syndrome set to music and cinematic glory.
The “heros” live on the periphery and gain hero status by flaunting the norms and engaging in often lawless practices. The premise of most of this glorification is a deeply cynical view that the whole “system” is corrupt.
It will be granted that there are problematic aspects and hypocrisies in any society that need attention. But deep cynicism that there are any rules and norms to be observed has gripped increasing numbers who thereby rationalize their dishonesty and lawlessness as a kind of righteousness.
Too easily and uncritically we lionize those who flaunt or tweak the system, as we vicariously vent our own frustrations through their antics. “Yeah! Take that!” we tell “the man” as our hero flaunts and games the system and makes “the man” look foolish. But all the while we feed our cynicism that anyone has a right to the honest truth, to legitimate obedience, to legitimate taxes, fees and so forth. Then in arrogant self righteousness many can even congratulate themselves for cheating, stealing and lying. And not only can we personally adopt this attitude, but society as a whole can and does, increasingly, adopt it.
If society does not hold us responsible for deceit, why should we hold ourselves responsible? That’s a tough question to answer when students see their teachers cooking the books….
Here is a “classic” film from 1984 in the cynical genre I mentioned. It is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Throughout the movie he lies, he cheats, he steals, he’s dishonest, and he’s “our hero.” The school secretary calls him “a righteous dude.” And of course all the authorities are cynically represented as unreasonable buffoons who deserve to be cheated against, and lied to. Please excuse the vulgarities, especially at the end, but I could not find a trailer without them.
In the Gospel for Wednesday’s Mass, Jesus says: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. (Matt 7:15). Of course we first think of individuals when we see a verse like this. But the Lord’s teaching can, and should be applied also to philosophies.
One of the terribly destructive philosophies is a false notion of freedom. The sinful world, going all the way back to Satan’s deceit in the garden, thinks of freedom as being able to do whatever I please. In effect those who hold this, flaunt their false notion of freedom saying in effect, “I will do what I want to do, and I will decide if it is right or wrong. No one will tell me what to do.” It is freedom in the abstract, freedom for its own sake, rather than for the sake of being able to do what is right.
That this notion of freedom is false is evident from its fruits. For although many, in modern times, claim to march under the banner of freedom from being told what to do, it becomes clear that many of them end up it a terrible state of increasing slavery and bondage.
For this era when a false notion of freedom is exulted is also an era of increasing addiction to alcohol, drugs, pornography, sex, and a general lack of self control. And with greed and materialism, whatever we have is never enough. There is thus a bondage to things, a kind of incapacity to live without endless numbers of things and creature comforts. Therefore we also see increasing bondage to credit, both personally and nationally. We simply “cannot” stop our runaway spending. There is also an increasing lack of ability to make and keep commitments and many feel “compelled” to divorce, leave the priesthood and religious life.
None of this shouts the freedom that so many boast of. Rather there is evident, bondage, inability, compulsion, addiction, and an out of control quality to modern life.
You will thus know by its fruits that false freedom is not true freedom. It masquerades in the “sheep’s” clothing of liberty, but underneath it is the ravenous wolf of bondage. Many cry “Liberty!” when they really mean “libertine” and “licentious.” They are headed straight for bondage. St. Augustine said,
For of a perverse will, was a lust made; and a lust served, became custom; and custom not resisted, became necessity. (Confessions 8.5)
The Catechism also says,
The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.” (CCC # 1733).
And thus we arrive at the definition of true freedom which is the capacity to obey God.
And what are the fruits of true freedom? An increasing liberation from the power of sin, the increasing capacity to do what is right and just by the power of God. True freedom brings greater self control, the ability to moderate one’s desires and have them submitted to right reason. True freedom brings serenity, for one’s life is in greater balance and harmony.
By true freedom, the innumerable sorrows of false freedom listed above are largely avoided and one’s life is simpler, more focused, and one enjoys the results of a disciplined and reasonable life. Sorrows and suffering are not eliminated but are diminished for many of their sources in excess, addiction and compulsion are removed. True freedom ushers in, by God’s power, the life that Jesus Christ died and rose to give us.
So what do you want, the fake freedom of the world, or the glorious freedom of the children of God? (Rom 8:21)
The video below contains a fascinating interview between Sean Hannity and two women on the question of immodest dress as a dangerous thing for a woman. It would seem that a Toronto police officer was quoted as saying, “Women can avoid rape by not dressing as sluts.” He said this in the context of a lecture to college students about a recent campus crime wave. He has since apologized, but some will not accept it, or do not think he was specific enough in his apology. His remarks have touched off worldwide protests in Europe and also in Boston and New York by women who engage in what they call “Slut Walks.” In these, they dress provocatively and carry signs that denounce the blame the victim attitude of the police officer and others who explain rape by blaming the victim.
OK, so lets all admit that there is nothing that justifies the rape or assault of any woman. Further, the officer did not need to speak of women as “dressing like sluts.” It is possible to counsel caution without resorting to such terminology.
But the reaction has gone to the other extreme by insisting that there ought to be no thought women should give as to the way they dress, and the effect it may have on others. You will see in the interview how one of the women Mr. Hannity interviews gets more and more extreme as the interview progresses. She begins saying “Just because a woman dresses provocatively does not mean she welcomes an abuser.” OK, fair enough. And even if she is attacked, there is no justification for it. But that said, is there no legitimacy in advising women to refrain from provocative dressing? Men too, for that matter, though the physical dangers to them are far less. Further, is it legitimate to talk to women in our life about ways to reduce their risk without being called sexist, and told that we are blaming the victim?
A Central Problem – One of the women says, “In dressing provocatively a woman is saying, I am asking you to look at me as a sexual object, instead of a woman worthy of respect.” The other woman responds, “There is nothing wrong with looking like a sexual object.” And this pretty well spells out where many in our culture have gone. Intentionally provoking a purely sexual response not only tempts men, it also diminishes women by encouraging the notion that sex is the main thing.
There is surely a time to provoke and celebrate a sexual appeal and joy…, in the marriage bed. But outside this context, women ought to be seen more richly as wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, teachers, scientists, indeed, whole persons with interests, needs, concerns, and richly varied lives. That many women are advocating a hypersexualized notion of who they are by taking “slut walks” (the protestors’ term not mine) is a sad commentary. It is one thing to protest the “blame the victim” remark, but calling it a slut walk is to go further and advocate immodest dress and raw, unintegrated sexuality. That is not helpful to women and I suspect most women do not appreciate this sort of “advocacy,” or the extreme comments rendered by one of the women in this interview below.
Some younger women really don’t seem to know – That said, I have come to discover, through discussions with women on the issue of modesty that many (especially younger) women really don’t have any idea the effect that they have on men. I have confirmed this in discussion among our teenage Sunday school kids. In discussions moderated by women, many young girls just haven’t figured it all out yet. When asked, “Why do you dress that (provocative) way?” they often say, “I don’t know, it’s……like……y’know…..comfortable???…..It’s like…….cool??”
While some of them may be fibbing, and they really do know, I don’t doubt that, to some degree, there is an innocence about what they do that needs to be schooled. Some years ago I remember a remarkable little passage by John Eldridge, in the Book, Wild at Heart that decoded something I have noticed even in the youngest girls:
And finally, every woman wants to have a beauty to unveil. Not to conjure, but to unveil. Most women feel the pressure to be beautiful from very young, but that is not what I speak of. There is also a deep desire to simply and truly be the beauty, and be delighted in. Most little girls will remember playing dress up, or wedding day, or twirling skirts, those flowing dresses that were perfect for spinning around in. She’ll put her pretty dress on, come into the living room and twirl. What she longs for is to capture her daddy’s delight. My wife remembers standing on top of the coffee table as a girl of five or six, and singing her heart out. Do you see me? asks the heart of every girl. And are you captivated by what you see? (Kindle edition Loc 367-83)
Perhaps it is this innocence that has gone somehow wrong, has been untutored, and thus, causes some younger girls to dress immodestly. And many of them bring that into adulthood.
But even if their intentions are innocent, it is not wrong to teach them that not everyone views their display so innocently, and further than some are deeply troubled by the temptation it brings, especially as these girls get a bit older and more vivacious.
So where to go? From the Christian point of view modesty is reverence for mystery. Modesty accepts the norm that there are some things that are simply private and meant for the intimacy of marriage that are not to be disclosed in a general sort of way. Further, modesty respects the fact it is wrong to unnecessarily tempt others. And many do easily fall prey to sexual temptation. To simply disregard this and say, “Well that is their problem,” may well be to lack both charity and a realistic attitude.
That said, the word unnecessarily is important in the phrase, “it is wrong to unnecessarily tempt others.” For it is not always possible to protect others from all temptation, and we ought not impose unreasonable standards and expectations upon women. Some men are tempted just by a pretty face. That doesn’t mean we ought to expect women to hide their faces. It also pertains to women to have curves that appeal to men, and to expect them to never manifest any curves at all, also seems unreasonable.
Hence the word modesty comes from the word “mode” meaning “middle” or “mean.” So modesty involves observing a certain middle ground wherein we do not oppress women (or men for that matter) with severe standards and cumbersome cover-ups. But neither do we neglect to understand that some degree of charity and understanding is due to those who are possibly tempted by tight or revealing clothing and immodest postures or movements. It is wrong to tempt others when we can reasonably avoid doing so. But inhuman and unreasonable standards are also to be rejected.
The bottom line is that immodest and provocative dress is both imprudent and uncharitable. The officer involved used inappropriate language to convey his “advice.” But to advise women appropriately how to reduce their risk of rape does not ipso facto equate to blaming the victim. A little equanimity in the issue is helpful, though sadly rare, in our easily offended and strongly polarized culture.
I have written more on the questions of modesty here:
