Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

A couple of years back, a remarkable book was published by Ross Douthat. I recommend it as required reading for anyone who wants to grasp what has happened to faith in the second half of the 20th Century up until now. It is Bad Religion – How we became a nation of heretics. It seems good to review some of his findings, since these heresies seem only to grow in the consumerist West, where we take attitudes that are fine for commercial markets and misapply them to the faith. We end up with a “designer” religion, designed to please the customer rather than proclaim the truth of our founder and Head, Jesus Christ.

In the book, Douthat documented how the churches (both the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations) rose dramatically in the years following World War II, but then quite suddenly saw their numbers collapse as they were overwhelmed with successive waves of heresies, which he describes with great precision.

Douthat uses the word “heresy” quite correctly to describe a version of the Christian faith that holds an incomplete version of the full truth, one that chooses certain tenets and discards many others that both balance and complete the picture. Of course there are often tensions in holding all the truths.

For example, how do we reconcile God’s sovereignty and power with our freedom and capacity to say “No”? Or how do we resolve God’s mercy and love with the existence of Hell? The orthodox approach is to hold both and leave the tensions largely unresolved, or at least to seek a balance that respects both. The heretical approach is to chose one and discard or minimize the other in order to be free of the tension.

Heresy has become quite the “art” of modern Americans who are often “genius” in crafting endless varieties of do-it-yourself faith: one from column A, two from column B. For most Americans, the Church is largely irrelevant, and tends to be considered an annoyance, what with all her rules and traditions. Hence while most Americans identify themselves as believing in God, the actual content of that belief varies significantly and often diverges widely from orthodox Christianity not to mention orthodox Catholicism.

God as He reveals himself in Scripture is quite easily tossed aside by moderns, and a tamed, more “fitting” god is crafted—one who affirms more than demands, one who consoles and almost never warns.

We used to call this idolatry (crafting your own god and worshipping it). But most moderns prefer softer terms such as “finding the god within,” and discovering the “god of my understanding.” Truth is cast overboard or doubted altogether and a self-referential (solipsistic) thinking emerges that is self-authorized.  Along with this private magisterium comes a self-congratulatory “tolerance” that is extolled as the highest virtue. If there is any reference at all to the revelation that is Scripture or to the dogmas of the faith, most moderns interpret them in a highly selective (i.e., heretical) manner, and subject what does remain to interpretations that are often so twisted as to be almost impossible to follow.

What makes heresy so dangerous is that it most often contains some truthful elements. As such, many believers can easily be duped by the “partial Gospel.” Plausible teachers, using smooth words, seem to be confirming some truth of Christian faith. But they stop short of the full Gospel. For example, the purveyors of the “Prosperity Gospel” extol the power of prayer and the truth that God does want to bless us. But they largely discard the cross and the call of Christ to endure hardships and even poverty for the Kingdom. Gone is any notion that we have been called out of this world and are thus hated by the world, or the idea that we cannot serve both God and money. They also conveniently set aside the very consistent warnings about wealth issued by the Lord Jesus.

But it all sounds so good and so right: pray, trust God, blessings in abundance! Doesn’t God want me to be happy? Yes, and thus heresy has its appeal in pointing to some truths, but it ignores others meant to balance, distinguish, and contextualize.

Consider another huge trend in the modern age that has sorely affected faith: the rise of the therapeutic culture. Douthat spends a good amount of time describing and critiquing it. Quoting Philip Rieff he begins,

“Religious man was born to be saved [but] “psychological man is born to be pleased.” [Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006, 19].

Douthat continues,

God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problem that arises, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves.” … [He] is not demanding, He actually can’t be, because his job is to solve our problems and make people feel good.

 Therapeutic religion is immensely tolerant: since the only true God is the one you find within, there’s no reason to impose your faith on someone else. But a tolerant society is not necessarily a just one. Men may smile at their neighbors without loving them and decline to judge their fellow citizens’ beliefs out of a broader indifference to their fate. [Tolerance can] easily turn out to be an ego that never learns sympathy, compassion, or real wisdom.

Therapeutic to its very core, it emphasizes feelings over duties, it’s impatient with institutional structures of any sort. [Kindle Edition Loc:4676-95]

Has it worked? Apart from the troubling heretical notions at work (again, heresy understood in terms of its classical definition, as an incomplete and unbalanced grasp of the true faith),  has the therapeutic religion worked even in its basic goal to “make us feel better about ourselves”? Douthat observes,

We’re freer than we used to be [since everyone can think and be what they want and construct their own little world largely freed from critique by a “tolerant” culture], but [we’re] also more isolated, lonelier, and more depressed … Therapeutic theology raises expectations, and it raises self-regard. It isn’t surprising that people taught to be constantly enamored of their own godlike qualities [since they are trained to discover the “god-within] would have difficulty forging relationships with ordinary human beings. Two Supreme Selves do not necessarily a happy marriage make.

Americans are less happy in their marriages than they were thirty years ago; women’s self-reported happiness has dipped downward overall. Our social circles have constricted: declining rates of churchgoing have been accompanied by declining rates of just about every sort of social “joining,” and Americans seem to have fewer and fewer friends whom they genuinely trust. Our familial networks have shrunk as well. More children are raised by a single parent; fewer people marry or have children to begin with; and more and more old people live and die alone.

Our society boasts 77,000 clinical psychologists, 192,000 clinical social workers, 105,000 mental health counselors, 50,000 marriage and family therapists, 17,000 nurse psychotherapists, 30,000 life coaches—and hundreds of thousands of nonclinical social workers and substance abuse counselors as well. Most of these professionals spend their days helping people cope with everyday life problems … not true mental illness. This means that under our very noses a revolution has occurred in the personal dimension of life, such that millions of Americans must now pay professionals to listen to their everyday life problems … gurus and therapists have filled the roles once occupied by spouses and friends. [Kindle version Loc:4819-38, inter al].

So no, it hasn’t worked. But its purveyors just keep coming out with the latest tome by the latest guru. To be fair, as Douthat notes, there are many causes of the social ills described above. But the therapeutic culture and its “spiritual (not religious!)” expressions do raise expectations for a great cure. Orthodox Catholicism on the other hand traditionally spoke of this world as a vale of tears and an exile to be endured before true and lasting happiness dawned. Contentment could be found here, and true faith is essential to that. But lasting happiness was found only in the Lord, and fully, only in Heaven. For now we should gather as a Church and console one another with the consolations we have received, and continue to retell the story of total victory promised us in the Lord, after the Good Friday of this life gives way to the Eternal Easter of Heaven.

But another reason the inward and highly personalized faith of the therapeutic culture does not work is that it rejects the communion for which we were ultimately made.

St. Augustine summarized our most fundamental problem as being “curvatus in se.” That is, on account of Original Sin, the human person will tend to be turned in on himself. This of course is exactly what a lot of modern versions of heretical religion peddle: a highly personalized, inwardly focused search for “God.” And it is a search that is apart from the community of the Church and the extended community of Sacred tradition. Chesterton called tradition the “democracy of the dead,” since it gave them a voice and a seat at the table. Through Tradition and doctrine we have communion, not only with each other, but also with the ancient Christians.

But modern heresy turns inward to a very lonely and rather dark place. It rejects the need for a Church or for any doctrines at all. Alone and turned inward, we cannot be fulfilled. It is no accident that the therapeutic “faith” emanating from a therapeutic culture is not fulfilling.

The real truth is that we were made for others and for God. Communion with God, and with each other in God, is THE goal of life. Christ founded a Church, and summoned us to a relationship with the Blessed Trinity. But it is the Trinity as revealed, not as reworked by us.

The “god-within” of modern heresy, is more often a mere emanation of our very self, a solipsism (from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self)). And “tolerance,” the way it is spoken of today (it is not true tolerance, more on that  HERE), does not join us together in harmony as advertised, it separates us into our own little worlds where “what’s true for me doesn’t have to be true for you.” Increasingly, we live in the little world of our own mind and are pulling up roots from any shared reality. God, if he is understood at all by these modern heresies, is a very local deity, who exists only in the mind of one person and is subject to later redefinition. He (or she? or it?) is a small and very contingent deity that has little role other than, as Douthot keenly observes, to be our butler.

One of the great challenges for us today, then, is to re-propose the need for the Church that Christ founded. He did not write a book and send us off to study it. He founded a community—a Church—and told us we would find Him there, where two or three are gathered in His name, where His actual words are read and heard, where His true body and blood are offered and received. Many are scandalized that He should be found among sinners, gossips, hypocrites, and the like (and saints too!). But that is where He is found. Indeed, one image for the Church is Christ, crucified between two thieves (one repented!). Yes that is where He is found: in the Church. And only within the Church and her careful, thoughtful doctrines and the accumulated wisdom of centuries is the journey to find God within us safe enough to consider. For yes, He does dwell within us too. But don’t make the journey there alone—no, never alone.

Memorial Day, for many, means the beginning of summer. To others, it is a day off to go shopping. But as I am sure you know, Memorial Day is really a day to honor those who have died in the service of this country. Here are some thoughts based on two words from a day like this: “memorial” and “monument.” 

The word “memorial” comes from the Latin “memorare,” which is in an  imperative meaning “Remember!” So Memorial Day is “Remember!” Day. To remember something is to allow it to be present to our minds and hearts so that we are grateful, sober, aware, and different.

This is a day to remember that there are men and women who have died so that you and I are able to live with greater security, justice, and peace. May these fallen soldiers rest in peace. We owe them both a debt of gratitude and our prayers.

In a secondary sense, we can also honor today those who currently serve in the military since they also have placed their lives on the line for our security and peace. And on Veterans Day we will have a second opportunity to thank those military who are still living.

God bless them all and may the dead rest in peace. We must remember that freedom is not really free—others paid the price for our freedom.

The second word is “monument.” There are many monuments honoring our fallen soldiers. Here in DC and in most cities there is a monument to the soldiers who died during World War II. There are other monuments to the dead from from World War I, the Korean War, and the War in Vietnam. Soon enough there will be monuments to the fallen from the Gulf War and to those who gave their lives in other wars. The Tomb of the Unknowns is a poignant monument to the many fallen who remain unknown to us. And who can forget the deep impression the rows of white crosses in a military cemetery make.

The word “monument” comes from the Latin words “monere” (to warn, remind, or advise) and “mens” (mind).  Hence a “monument” exists to admonish or advise us to remember the dead and/or what they have done. Not only do we owe a debt of gratitude to our fallen soldiers, but we must also hold in our memories all they have done for us.

The Love of one’s country (patriotism) is related to the fourth commandment. The Catechism teaches,

It is the duty of citizens to contribute to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity (CCC # 2239).

The Lord Himself makes it plain: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

Never forget the price others have paid for our freedom. Pray for our fallen soldiers of every generation and for their families. Perhaps you might use this video as a way to meditate on the sacrifices they have made. Here is the text of the song “Mansions of the Lord,” and the video follows:

To fallen soldiers let us sing,
Where no rockets fly nor bullets wing,
Our broken brothers let us bring
To the Mansions of the Lord

No more weeping,
No more fight,
No prayers pleading through the night,
Just Divine embrace,
Eternal light,
In the Mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry
And no children weep,
We shall stand and guard
Though the angels sleep,
Oh, through the ages safely keep
The Mansions of the Lord

In the Gospel for today’s Mass, Jesus gives us three lessons on love, which are meant to prepare us for the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They also go a long way towards describing the normal Christian life.

Too many Christians see the Christian Faith more as a set of rules to keep than as a love that transforms—if we accept it. Let’s take a look at the revolutionary life of love and grace that the Lord is offering us in three stages: the POWER of love, the PERSON of love, and the PROOF of love.

1. THE POWER OF LOVE – In the text Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments … Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me.”

We must be very careful how we hear this. For it is possible to hear the Lord say, in effect, “If you love me, prove it by keeping my commandments.” And this is how many hear it. And thus the text and the Christian faith are reduced to a kind of moral maxim: do good, avoid evil, and thus prove you love God. Loving God, then, becomes a kind of human achievement.

But understanding this text from the standpoint of grace yields a different—and I would argue more proper—understanding. For loving God is not a human work, but rather the gift of God. So the text should be read to say, in effect, “If you love me, you will by this love I have given you, keep my commandments.” Thus, the keeping of the commandments is the fruit of the love, not the cause of it. Love comes first. And when love is received and experienced, we begin, by the power of that love, to keep the commandments. Love is the power by which we keep the commandments.

It is possible to keep the commandments to some extent out of fear and by the flesh. But obedience based on fear tends not to last and brings with it many resentments. Further, attempting to keep the commandments through our own power brings not only exhaustion and frustration, but also the prideful delusion that somehow we have placed God in our debt because we obey.

It is far better to keep the commandments by the grace of God’s love at work within us. Consider the following qualities of love:

A. Love is extravagant –  The flesh is minimalist and asks, “Do I really have to do this?” But love is extravagant and wants to do more than the minimum. Consider a young man who loves a young woman. It is unlikely that he would say, “Your birthday is coming soon and I must engage in the wearisome tradition of buying you a gift. So, what is the cheapest and quickest gift I can get you?” Of course he would not say this! Love does not ask questions like this. Love is extravagant; it goes beyond the minimal requirements and even lavishes gifts on the beloved, eagerly. Love has the power to overrule the selfishness of the flesh. No young man would say to his beloved, “What is the least amount of time I have to spend with you?” Love doesn’t talk or think like this. Love wants to spend time with the beloved. Love has the power to transform our desires from our own selfish ends, toward the beloved.

Now while these examples might seem obvious, it is apparently not so obvious to many Christians who say they love God but then ask such things as, “Do I have to go to church?”, “Do I have pray? And if so, how often, and for how long?”, “Do I have to go to confession? And if so, how frequently?”, “What’s the least amount I can put in the collection plate or give to the poor  to be in compliance?” Asking for guidelines may not be wrong, but too often the question amounts to a version of “What’s the least I can do? What’s the bare minimum?”

Love is extravagant and excited to do and to give, to please the beloved. Love is its own answer, its own power.

B. Love Expands – When we really love someone we also learn to love whom and what he or she loves.

During high school, I dated a girl who liked square dancing. At first I thought it was hokey. But since she liked it, I started to like it. Over time, I even came to enjoy it a great deal. Love expanded my horizons.

I have lived, served, and loved in the Black community for most of my priesthood. In those years, I have come to love and respect Gospel music and the spirituals. I have also come to respect and learn from the Black experience of spirituality, and have done extensive study on the history of the African-American experience. This is all because I love the people I serve. And when you love people, you begin to love and appreciate what they do. Love expands our horizons.

And what if we really begin to love God? The more His love takes root in us, the more we love the things and the people He loves. We begin to have God’s priorities. We start to love justice, mercy, chastity, and all the people He loves—even our enemies. Love expands our hearts.

The saints say, “If God wants it, I want it. If God doesn’t want it, I don’t want it.” Too many Christians say, “How come I can’t have it? It’s not so bad. Everyone else is doing it … ” But love does not speak this way.

And as God’s love grows in us, it has the power to change our hearts, our minds, our desires, and our vision. The more we love God, the more we love His commands and share the vision He offers for our lives. Love expands our hearts and minds.

C. Love excites – Imagine again a young man who loves a young woman. Now suppose she asks him to drive her to work one day because her car is in the shop. He does this gladly and sees it as an opportunity to be with her and to help her. He is excited to do so and is glad she asked. This is true even if he has to go miles out of his way. Love stirs us to fulfill the wishes and desires of the beloved.

In the first Letter of John we read, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Yes, love lightens every load. And as we grow in love for God, we are excited to please Him. We keep His commandments, not because we have to, but because we want to. And even if His commandments involve significant changes, we do it with the same kind of gladness that fills a young man driving miles out of his way to take his beloved to work. Love excites in us a desire to keep God’s law, to fulfill His wishes for us.

2. THE PERSON OF LOVE – The text says, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But you know him, because he remains with you, and will be in you.”

In this text, Jesus tells us that the power to change us is not just an impersonal power, like “The Force” in Star Wars. Rather, what changes us is not a “what” but “who.” The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, living in us as in a temple, will change us and stir us to love. He who is Love will love God in us. Love is not our work; it is the work of God. “We love, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:10). God the Holy Spirit enables us to love God the Father and God the Son. And this love is the power in us that equips, empowers, and enables us to keep God’s law. He, the Holy Spirit, is the one who enables us to love extravagantly and in a way that expands and excites.

The Lord says that He, the Holy Spirit, remains in us. Are you aware of His presence? Too often our minds and hearts are dulled and distracted by the world and we are unaware of the power of love available to us. The Holy Spirit of Jesus and the Father is gentle and awaits the open doors we provide (cf Rev 3:20). As we open them, a power from His Person becomes more and more available to us, and we see our lives being transformed. We keep the commandments; we become more loving, confident, joyful, chaste, forgiving, merciful, and holy.  I am a witness! Are you? This leads us to the final point.

3. THE PROOF OF GOD’s LOVE – The text says, “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.”

The key phrases here are, “You will live,” and “You will realize.” For the Lord says that he will not leave us as orphans, that he will come to us and remain with us.

How do you know that these are more than just slogans? Simply put, you and I know this because of the new life we are receiving, which causes us to realize that Jesus lives, is in the Father, and is in us.

To “know” in the Bible is more than intellectual knowing. To “know” in the Bible is to “have intimate and personal experience of the thing or person known.” I know Jesus is alive and in me through His Holy Spirit because I am experiencing my life changing. I am seeing sins put to death and graces coming alive! I am a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). This is what Jesus means when He says, “You will realize that I am in the Father and in you.” To “realize” means to experience something as real.

The proof of God’s love and its power to transform is me! It is my life. In the laboratory of my own life I have tested God’s word and His promises. And I can report to you that they are true! I have come to experience as real (i.e., “realized”) that Jesus lives, that through His Holy Spirit I have a power available to me to keep the commandments and to embrace the new life, the new creation they both describe and offer to me.

I am a witness, are you?

This song says, “He changed my life and now I’m free … ”

The video below is a dramatization (sort of) of the story of Samson and Delilah as well as a commentary on lust and power. In case you would like to review the story of Samson and Delilah, CLICK HERE.

As the video opens, two superheroes are summoned to an emergency. They rush to the scene, but in a reckless fashion, and a great crash occurs. And here is a symbol for pride, for too often we rush headlong into solving problems, but often with little concern for other problems we may create in the process. For example, our quest to “end poverty in our time” has resulted more in the demise of the family; our quest to liberate the world from tyranny (through violence, drone strikes, and war) has led more often to inciting even more violence, and to the rise of new villainies.

After the crash, the superheroes seek to blame each other for the accident. And here is an image for our tendency to shift blame and avoid personal responsibility. We speak endlessly of our rights and the freedom to do as we please, but we want none of the responsibility. And of course any consequences are someone else’s fault.

There then ensues a great conflict between them to wrest control of the situation. And here is an image for power and the desire to overpower others. It merely serves to usher in a brutal and deadly struggle—one in which ultimately no one can win. Rather, all suffer devastating loss. Even victory is brief before the cycle of violence repeats.

Our male superhero, let’s call him Samson, seems to have the upper hand in the conflict. But the female superhero, let’s call her Delilah, is not to be undone and seeks to overcome Samson through her charms. And here is lust. For Samson, whatever his strengths, has a fatal flaw that destroys many men—lust. And as a result of it, many men (and women) and have ruined their lives. They’ve brought on poverty, STDs, abortion, teenage pregnancy, shattered dreams, broken families, and broken hearts.

The end of both of these superheroes is death and destruction. For pride, irresponsibility, unrestrained power, and lust unleash only devastation, destruction, and death—both individually and collectively.

In the biblical story, though Delilah “won,” it was only for a moment. And so it is with every worldly victory; it is temporary at best. Only heavenly victory and treasure stored up there will prevail. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

In the first readings these past few days at Mass, we have recounted for us (in Acts) the Council of Jerusalem, which scholars generally date to around 50 AD. The Council was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church since it would set forth an identity for the Church that was independent from the culture of Judaism per se, and it would open wide the door of inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had a significant impact upon evangelization in the early Church.

Catholic ecclesiology is evident here in that we see a very Catholic model of how the Church deals with a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine properly. In effect what we see is the same model that the Catholic Church has used right up to the present day. In this and in all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, there is a gathering of the Bishops, presided over by the Pope, that considers and even debates a matter. If consensus cannot be reached, the Pope resolves the disagreement. Once a decision is reached, a letter is issued to the entire Church and the decision is considered binding.

All these elements are seen in this first council, though in somewhat seminal form. Let’s consider this First Council of the Church in Jerusalem (c. 50 AD), beginning first with the remote preparation.

1. Bring in the Gentiles! – The Lord, just before ascending, gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Hence, the Gentiles are now to be summoned  and included in the ranks of discipleship and in the ranks of the Church.

2. But it looks like the Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. It is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard the Sermon of Peter and 3000 were converted. By they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, it seems that at first, the Church did little to leave Jerusalem and go anywhere, let alone to all the nations.

3. Perhaps as a swift kick in the pants, the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the Gospel to begin a northward trek, at least into Samaria. Samaritans however are not usually considered Gentiles, since they were a group that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th Century BC. There is also the Baptism of an Ethiopian Official, but he too was a Jew.

4. Fifteen Years?! The time line of Acts is a bit speculative. However if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (esp. in Galatians), it would seem that it was probably 12–15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile! If this is true then it is a disgrace. There were, of course, strong racial animosities between Jews and Gentiles that may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. But though it explains the delay, it does not excuse it.

5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord went to Peter, who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa, and by means of a vision, taught him that he was not to call unclean what God had called clean. The Lord then sent to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official seeking baptism. Cornelius, of course, was a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter go with them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first Peter is reluctant, but then recalling the vision (kick in the pants) that God had given him, decides to go. In Cesarea he does something unthinkable. Peter, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. Peter has learned his lesson, and as the first Pope has been guided by God to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household, and aided by signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter has them baptized. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10.)

6. Many were not happy with what Peter had done and confront him on it. Peter explains his vision as well as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and then insists that this is how it is going to be. While it is a true that these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it. What Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare (somewhat cynically): “God has granted life-giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)

7. Trouble Brewing – So the mission to the Gentiles is finally open! But that does not mean that trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas, and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts, some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that the converts are not like Jews. They insist that the Gentiles be circumcised and follow the whole of Jewish Law, not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms: kosher diet, purification rites, etc. That is where we picked up the story in yesterday’s Mass.

8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke is a master of understatement and says, “Because there arose no little dissension and debate … ” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the Apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet. Peter is there, of course, as is James, who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the Apostles and would later become bishop. Once again, Luke rather humorously understates the matter by saying, “After much debate, Peter arose” (Acts 15:7).

In effect, Peter arises to settle the matter since, it would seem, the Apostles and presbyters are divided.  Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Now Peter fulfills this text, as he will again, and as will every Pope after him.

In his remarks, St. Peter dismisses the notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who, though while it is not clear, may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.

So there you have it—the First Council. And that Council, like all the Church-wide Councils that would follow, was a gathering of the bishops in the presence of Peter (the Pope), who worked to unite them. A decision was made, and a decree, binding on the whole Church,  was sent out—very Catholic, actually. We have kept this biblical model ever since. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it because they have no Pope to settle things when they dispute. They have split endlessly into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope, every one is pope.

A final thought – Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end, we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from Councils of the Bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. And there it is, right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way it is not just some bishops and the Pope as men, it is the Holy Spirit who speaks with them.

The Church—so very Catholic from the start!

A brief consideration from my Our Sunday Visitor column of last week:

Q: My daughter says she loves Jesus but just doesn’t like the Church (for lots of reasons). She doesn’t see any problem with this and doesn’t think going to Church is necessary. Is there anything I can say to her? – Name withheld, via email.

A: The Church is the Body of Christ (cf Col 1:8; 1 Cor 12:27; Rom 12:4-6). Hence to declare love for Jesus but disdain for His body is inauthentic. We cannot have Jesus without His Body.

How would your daughter feel if someone said to her, “I love you, but your body is awful, ugly, and I can’t stand it”? She would not appreciate this and would reject any artificial distinctions between herself and her body. It is the same with Jesus.

Perhaps if your daughter can be taught to understand the rather insulting quality of her position and that it renders her love for Jesus inauthentic, she will reconsider.

Certainly there are both sinners and imperfections in Jesus’ Body, the Church. But even historically (in the Bible), Jesus was found in the “strange company” of sinners. Many in Jesus’ time were scandalized by the associations He maintained. But Jesus is found where He is found, not where we want Him to be.

So if your daughter loves Jesus and really wants to find Him, she needs to join the rest of us poor sinners. Christ and His Body are one.

Here is an old hymn of the Church. And, despite its Protestant origins, it has a very solid ecclesiology. I would only quibble with the first line, in which Jesus is referred to as the Church’s ONE foundation—especially given that Jesus spoke of building His Church on the Rock of Peter. Catholics can accept the line that Jesus is the Church’s one foundation in terms of primary causality, but we must also insist (with Scripture) that Peter is the rock in terms of secondary causality. In other words, Jesus supports Peter, who is the rock. Otherwise, though, the hymn is accurate and beautiful:

1 The Church’s one foundation
is Jesus Christ her Lord.
She is his new creation
by water and the word.
From heaven he came and sought her
to be his holy Bride.
With his own blood he bought her,
and for her life he died.

2 Elect from every nation,
yet one o’er all the earth,
her charter of salvation:
one Lord, one faith, one birth.
One holy name she blesses,
partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses,
with every grace endued.

3 Though with a scornful wonder
this world sees her oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping;
their cry goes up: “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.

4 Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation
of peace forevermore:
till with the vision glorious
her longing eyes are blest,
and the great Church victorious
shall be the Church at rest.

5 Yet she on earth has union
with God, the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion
with those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we,
like them, the meek and lowly,
may live eternally.

In the Church’s Liturgy of the Hours (in the Office of Readings) we are getting close to the great culmination of the Book of Revelation, when the victorious Christ is united with his bride forevermore. Just prior to this great victory is the casting down of Satan into fiery hell and the sealing over of the great abyss.

Central to the imagery of Hell is fire, along with some other unpleasant things such as worms that never die, etc. We do well to ponder these images, but also to be careful about them. For while many take them literally, they are probably meant to be understood more richly. To be sure, most of the Fathers and tradition understand the fire of Hell to be an actual, physical fire, but it remains a question as to what effect physical fire would have on fallen angels who have no physical bodies. And while fallen human souls will eventually have their bodies, it seems hard to imagine how physical fire can affect their souls prior to the resurrection of the bodies of the dead.  Hence fire and other physical descriptions most likely speak also to deeper spiritual realities.

Let’s take a look at an excerpt from the Book of Revelation, and also consider some other descriptions of our Lord regarding Hell. Perhaps we can ponder what the images are trying to teach us of the nature and reality of Hell for those who choose to live there by rejecting the Kingdom of God and its values.

Next I saw a large white throne and the One who sat on it. The earth and the sky fled from his presence until they could no longer be seen. I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne. Lastly, among the scrolls, the book of the living was opened. The dead were judged according to their conduct as recorded on the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then death and the nether world gave up their dead. Each person was judged according to his conduct. Then death and the nether world were hurled into the pool of fire, which is the second death; anyone whose name was not found inscribed in the book of the living was hurled into this pool of fire (Rev 20:11-15).

A pool of fire is a dramatic metaphor. It is so dramatic in fact that it causes many moderns to reject the teaching of Jesus on Hell outright. Even many who are otherwise believers in Jesus reject His consistent teaching on Judgment and Hell by either conveniently forgetting it, or by espousing some artful theories that deny He said it or that suggest that He was just trying to scare people who lived in “less mature” times. Some who do not believe in God say this teaching is one of the reasons they do not believe. I have addressed many of these objections elsewhere. But for our purposes here, let’s keep the focus on what the metaphor is likely trying to teach us.

First, to be clear, the metaphors of fire and worms are very consistent features of Jesus’ descriptions of Hell. For example,

1. If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:45-46).
2. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:22).
3. So [the rich man] called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire‘ (Luke 16:24).
4. Then the Son of Man will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat … (Matt 25:41).

Allow these to suffice. Jesus in His description draws rather heavily from Isaiah wherein God says of those who are unrepentant, “And they [the faithful] will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind” (Isaiah 66:24).

But though tradition does largely see the fire as indeed a physical fire, we must still ponder the deeper reality of this fire. For fallen angels without bodies (and for whom the fire was prepared) do experience its pain. But how? And for fallen human souls (at least before the resurrection of the body), how is the fire experienced and to what does it point?

Perhaps a remark by Origen can assist:

Wonder not when you hear that there is a fire which though unseen has power to torture, when you see that there is an internal fever which comes upon men, and pains them grievously Origen (quoted in the Catena Aurea at Mat 25:41).

And thus we gain some insight into the “inner” fire that rages in the fallen angels and in the souls of the damned. For even now, we often speak metaphorically of how our own passions can burn like fire. We speak of burning with lust, or of seething with anger, or being furious (fury being related to the word for fire). We speak of the heat of passion, of boiling over with anger, or of seething with envy. Even good emotions like love can burn like fire if they are not satisfied. How our thirsts and passions can rage like fire in us if they are not slaked and satisfied by the only One who can truly satisfy us!

And as for worms—worms that die not according to Jesus—we often speak of being devoured by our passions or consumed by them. There is less consensus on the worms being physical, but surely here too, physical or not, they speak to a deeper spiritual reality as well.

And thus the fire of Hell, though physical, speaks also to deeper spiritual struggles. We were made for God, and God alone can satisfy us. To choose anything less than God is to remain gravely unfulfilled and to be burning with a longing that has refused to seek its proper goal. Thus one burns (whether fallen angel or fallen soul) with desire but has rejected the “one thing necessary” to satisfy that desire. The fire seethes and the fury grows.

Bishop Sheen once told a parable showing how frustrating Hell must be since the “one thing necessary” is lacking:

There is not a golfer in America who has not heard the story, which is theologically sound, about the golfer who went to hell and asked to play golf. The Devil showed him a 36-hole course with a beautiful clubhouse, long fairways, perfectly placed hazards, rolling hills, and velvety greens. Next the Devil gave him a set of clubs so well balanced that the golfer felt he had been swinging them all his life. Out to the first tee they stepped, ready for a game. The golfer said: “What a course! Give me the ball.” The Devil answered: “Sorry….we have no golf balls. That’s the hell of it!” (Three to Get Married, Kindle Edition, Loc. 851-57).

Yes, that’s the hell of it: to lack the one thing necessary.  And oh the fiery fury and the seething indignation it must bring to have definitively rejected the only One who could ever satisfy the fire of our desire!

Finally St. Thomas, or the Thomistic tradition, adds the insight of the fire as “burning” in the sense that it limits the fallen angels and fallen souls:

But the corporeal fire is enabled as the instrument of the vengeance of Divine justice thus to detain a spirit; and thus it has a penal effect on it, by hindering it from fulfilling its own will, that is by hindering it from acting where it will and as it will….that as the instrument of Divine justice [fire] is enabled to detain [a spirit] enchained as it were, and in this respect this fire is really hurtful to the spirit, and thus the soul seeing the fire as something hurtful to it is tormented by the fire (S.T. Supplement, Q 70, art 3, respondeo).

In other words, there is a seething indignation that must come from a fallen spirit who is hindered and can no longer live the lie of following its own will in order to find satisfaction. Such apparent satisfaction is a lie, for it is rooted in the willful rejection of God and the values of God’s Kingdom. The fire is a limiting fire that attests to the fact that nothing outside God will satisfy, and that roaming about seeking satisfaction in anything other than God must now end. The fire burns and is unquenchable, for only God can quench it. But the fallen souls and fallen angels have forever refused Him.

And thus the fire of passion forever burns, unsatisfied, and like worms their desires devour and consume them. In a word, Hell is to be forever “unfulfilled,” as one burns with desire but has rejected the only One who can satisfy that desire.

This song says “God and God Alone … He will be our one desire, our hearts will never tire of God and God alone.”

One of the struggles that many Christians experience is that the needs around us are so great, yet we are limited, both in personal strength and resources. Lurking in the back of our minds is the notion that whatever the problem, Jesus would always help and therefore we should too. But is it always wrong to say “No” when there is need?

It is true that Jesus was quite generous with his time, attention, and resources. We too are counseled to be rich in mercy and kindness, expansive in our charity, and willing to forsake everything to follow Christ. But for limited human beings, often with many obligations, are there no limits? Of course there have to be. But, “What would Jesus Do?” Did he ever say, “No”?

Many think that Jesus always said, “Yes,” especially to the poor and needy. But in fact there were times when Jesus said, “No.” I’d like to look at three of them. I choose these three because to some extent they deal with the needy. Other examples of Jesus saying “No” pertain more to specialized or inappropriate requests (e.g., James and John asking for seats of honor, or Peter wanting to use a sword to defend Jesus). But let’s take a look at three occurrences of Jesus saying “No,” and see what we can learn.

I. “No” to the Sick? The scene is Capernaum. Jesus and His apostles have made quite an impression. Jesus has cured a demon-possessed man in the synagogue and word has spread. Jesus is lodging at the house of Simon Peter and has just cured Peter’s mother-in-law of a great fever. The Gospel of Mark picks up the story:

When it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were ill or possessed by demons. The whole town was gathered at the door. He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him (Mark 1:34-35).

So clearly the Lord is helping a lot of people, as was His custom. The crowd seems to have grown quite large and He goes on curing until sundown. But then comes a twist:

Rising very early before dawn, he left and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed. Simon and those who were with him pursued him and on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you!” He told them, “Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come.” (Mark 1:35-38)

Here we have what seems an unusual occurrence: Jesus is informed by Peter and the others that “Everyone is looking for you!” The exasperated statement implies that a line has once again formed in Capernaum of those seeking healing from various ailments. Many of the sick are waiting for Jesus’ ministrations. But Jesus says, “No” to the request to return. He also indicates an intention to go to other villages so that He might preach, for THAT is what He has come to do.

Why does Jesus say, “No”? For two reasons it would seem.

First, in terms of his humanity, He is limited. He has not come to save only Capernaum and thus must devote attention to other places as well. In effect, He must allocate His (humanly speaking) “limited” resources justly and effectively. This is also the case with us. We must help the poor, but we must also feed our children, and meet other just obligations. Saying “No” is not necessarily unchristlike, but is rather a humble admission of our limitations.

A second reason Jesus likely says, “No” is that He will not allow himself to be defined merely as a medical miracle worker. He has come to preach and ultimately to take up his cross. Part of what he preaches is the role of the cross in life. It is not always appropriate to alleviate every burden. To be labeled as “Mr. Fix-it” is to be diminished. For the Lord did not come merely to heal the body, but also and even more so, to heal the soul. Jesus’ “No” is therefore also a teaching moment.

We too who would imitate Christ should not think that alleviating burdens is our only mission. Sometimes it is more loving to let others carry the crosses God intends for them. We are not necessarily being callous or unchristlike in this as long as our intent is to allow people to experience necessary growth or to understand the consequences of their choices.

We must be careful not to excuse ourselves too easily from our duty to help others, but neither should we become enablers, or people who cause others to become too dependent. In most cases, we should not do for others what they can do for themselves.

The good should not eclipse the best. The Lord could not allow himself to be drawn into a situation where what was good about him (healing) eclipsed what was best (salvation and the preaching of the Kingdom). Hence he sometimes said, “No.”

II. “No” on a matter of Social Justice? On another occasion, in the context of Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain, a man called out from the crowd,

“Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” [But] Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions (Luke 12:13-15).

Here too we have a bit of an unexpected twist. We might expect Jesus to side with this man. After all, isn’t sharing the family inheritance with potentially needy siblings a just and charitable thing to encourage and do? But Jesus says, “No,” and then warns the man of greed.

Here too, the “No” of Jesus seems to point to two issues. First, Jesus is not going to be roped into being a legal arbiter of worldly matters. He has come to preach the Kingdom and save us and will not be defined down into probating wills and settling inheritance law.  Another issue is that Jesus, who is able to see into the man’s heart, says “No” to rebuke the man’s greed.

And thus we are taught two things by Jesus’ “No.”

First, we are taught that we are not always obliged to solve everyone’s problems. Sometimes people try (inappropriately) to draw us into what does not concern us. They may ask us to take sides in a family dispute or on some community issue on which it is not right for us to take sides. On other occasions, we may be asked to resolve matters involving two adults who should be expected to work out their own differences. Supervisors, pastors, and other leaders often experience such inappropriate attempts to draw them into disputes or to take sides. There are surely times when leaders have to help arbitrate disagreements, especially if they pertain to specific matters over which they have authority. But there are also many occasions when requested help in such matters deserves a “No.”

Second, we are taught that we are not always required to give people what they want. Although we are not gifted with Jesus’ ability to see into people’s heart and understand their motives fully, it remains true that we CAN sometimes see that “No” is the best answer in the given circumstances. Perhaps we can see that what a person asks for is inappropriate or will cause harm to others. Perhaps it will offend against the common good or will show favoritism. Perhaps the request involves an unwise use of resources or is contrary to agreed-upon goals and priorities. There may be any number of reasons we can and should say “No,” and doing so is not necessarily unchristlike. This may be so even if the one requesting insists that it is all about what is just and fair. It may cause disappointment or even anger in others, but that does not mean that we are necessarily doing anything wrong. Jesus did sometimes say, “No.”

III. No to the Hungry? The final example brings us to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus has just finished multiplying the loaves and fishes and feeding between 5,000 and 20,000 people. News of this has spread and the word of free food is starting to draw a crowd. Further, some of the crowd is not dispersing. So Jesus draws apart to pray and sends the apostles to the other side of the lake where He promises to join them later. After Jesus walks on the water (!) to meet the apostles in the boat, they all arrive on the other shore. News that Jesus had headed in that direction had reached some in the crowd who then ran around the lake to meet him. As Jesus disembarks, they greet him with false surprise: “Rabbi! When did you get here?” Jesus was not born yesterday and knows that they are merely looking for more free food. He says to them, I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you (John 6:26-27).

In effect, Jesus refuses to produce again the food of this world and instead summons them to faith. In the remainder of John 6, He goes on to teach extensively on the Holy Eucharist and insists that this food is more necessary for them. They are unimpressed and reject His teaching as a “hard saying” (Jn 6:60). But in effect, here too we have a “No” from Jesus.

Feeding the hungry is usually something commended, even commanded. But in the end, Jesus will not allow them to seek only that which is good (bread) while refusing what is best (the Bread of Life).

As a priest, I have frequently had this problem with some of the poor who come to me. When someone first comes asking for financial assistance, I give it wholeheartedly and inquire as to the story behind the need. The person almost always admits that he or she has no real church home. I then proceed to say that coming to Church and receiving Holy Communion are absolutely essential for salvation. If the people seeking help are not Catholics, I ask them to at least come and see if they are ready to accept the faith. But most of them do not follow up on this invitation and yet still come back looking for money and resources. I then begin to place a condition upon continued assistance: the people must either start coming, or I must be sure they are attending somewhere. I will not continue to give worldly food to those who refuse heavenly food.

Some have argued that this is not what Jesus would do. But in fact this is exactly what He did. He said “No” to those who wanted only their bellies filled but not their hearts. Of course in an utter emergency or if little children are involved, this approach may have to be adapted. Further, there ARE other places to get food and essentials in this country besides this one Catholic parish. Perhaps I can refer an individual somewhere else. But in the end, I have to summon people not merely to the good, but to the best. This is not unchristlike.

The essential point, then, is that it is not always wrong to say “No.” Jesus did so even in some classic situations of social justice and charity. We should never glibly say “No,” or be unnecessarily hurtful. But there are just times when “No” is the best and most Christlike answer.

Your additions, distinctions, and rebuttals are encouraged and appreciated.

This song says, “Some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.” Actually they are answered, I suppose, and the answer is “No.”