Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

What do You Think of Catholic Preaching?

When I talk with Catholics who have left the Church, the number one reason I get that they left was poor preaching.This is especially true of those who left for the Evangelical Churches. Catholic priests as a group have the reputation of being poor preachers. I think there are several reasons for this.

  1. The expected length of a Catholic sermon is 7-10 minutes. This is far too brief a time to really develop well a biblical or doctrinal theme. It results in a  slogan based and brief exhortation. In this matter the people of God have to work with us. Most Catholics are upset if the liturgy goes more than 50 minutes. We all need to agree to take more time to be with the Lord. Longer sermons are necessary to really develop and break open most passages. Most Protestant sermons are about a half and hour. True, I don’t want a preacher to go longer unless he really has something to say but it is also true that most priests have to wrap up when they’ve barely gotten started. It’s not a good context for preaching. The old “say it in seven” rule needs to be re-evaluated
  2. I think many confuse exhortation for preaching. Most of the sermons I grew up with could be summarized in two sentences:  “1. Jesus is challenging us to do better today.” And 2. “Let us try to do better” (Now please stand for the creed).”  This is exhortation but true preaching takes the Word of God and does four things: Analyzes, organizes, illustrates, and applies it. It doesn’t just exhort us to do better it shows how, and sets for the why and wisdom of God’s Word. This as you might guess takes a little more than 7 minutes.
  3. Teaching is often lacking– When I ask Catholics who have gone on to the “Word churches” why they like the preaching there more they usually say it is because the minister teaches the Word of God. Perhaps he shows the stages of the faith journey of  a biblical character, or Five aspects of a healthy marriage from Ephesians 5. Maybe he expounds on the Four Disciplines of Devoted Discipleship in Matthew and so forth. But the Word of God is both taught, and applied to life in memorable ways.
  4. The Three Essential questions often go unaddressed – It  would seem that every sermon should ask and answer three  questions: What? So What? and Now What? I think we Catholic Priests do alright with the “what” but not so well with the other two questions. Homilies are not just about information (the What) they also aim at transformation. Addressing the “What” can help to inform but the “So what” and “Now What” aim more for transformation.
  5. Good preaching is edgy. It comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. But too many priests are afraid of offending or upsetting. Despite the fact that we serve a Lord who got killed  for what he said, too many of us are not willing to suffer even the raised eyebrows of our congregation. We have to be willing  to talk forthrightly about serious issues today, about sin, about injustice, about promiscuity and so forth. We have to speak the truth in love but the “Jesus loves you sermons”  are not enough. Jesus loved us enough to speak the truth to us even when we killed him for it.  We priests have to get a spine, and a heart and be willing to preach  even the difficult stuff. It has been my experience that Catholics respond well to tough sermons. They don’t want angry priests but they do want priests who are zealous for the truth.
  6. How about a little enthusiasm? If you really care about what you are saying shouldn’t it be reflected in your mannerisms and tone of voice? Too many priests have a kind of lecture like discursive approach instead of a fiery Charismatic approach. True enough there are different personalities but a fiery enthusiasm is hard to hide. But being on fire can’t be faked. It comes only from prayer and a deep love for God and His people.

I know you can add to the list  above. Perhaps your feed back will help some of us priests improve. So have at it. Be kind and constructive but speak the truth. We priests can use it. And pray, pray, pray. You get the priests and the sermons you pray for.  Also encourage us when we do well and gently admonish when we need improvement.

Perhaps we do well to end with the Words of St. Gregory the Great who exhorts the faithful to pray for the Priests in their preaching role:

Pray for us so that we may have the strength to work on your behalf, that our tongue may not grow weary of exhortation, and that after we have accepted the office of preaching, our silence may not condemn us before the just judge.  For frequently the preacher’s tongue is bound fast on account of his own wickedness; while on the other hand it sometimes happens that because of the people’s sins, the word of preaching is withdrawn from those who preside over the assembly.  With reference to the former situation, the psalmist says: But God asks the sinner: Why do you recite my commandments? (PS 50:16) And with reference to the latter, the Lord tells Ezekiel: I will make your tongue cleave to the roof of your mouth, so that you shall be dumb and unable to reprove the, for they are a rebellious house.  (Ez 3:26) He clearly means this: the word of preaching will be taken away from you because as long as this people irritates me by their deeds, they are unworthy to hear the exhortation of truth.  It is not easy to know for whose sinfulness the preacher’s word is withheld, but it is indisputable that the shepherd’s silence while often injurious to himself will always harm his flock. (As quoted in the Liturgy of the Hours, Vol 3)

This video is an excerpt of a sermon by Fr. Bill Casey, it’s powerful.

Posted on

What Did Jesus Look Like?

The very question, “What Did Jesus Look Like?” says a lot about our modern age. And the silence of the Bible as to the physical appearance of most of its principal characters says a lot too.

We live in a very image driven culture. Ever since the invention of photography and especially television, the physical appearance of people has become quite significant. Perhaps the first real discernment of how important this had become was in the Nixon-Kennedy debate. Those who listened on radio generally thought Nixon won the debate. Those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won. And thus it was that physical appearance seems to have been greatly magnified as an assent or liability. It is surely true that physical appearance had importance before,  but now it was magnified. Prior to the invention of photography, films and TV  very few people had access to the physical appearance of influential people before they formed an opinion of them.

The fact that the Bible has so little to say about the physical appearance of Jesus or most of the main figures gives an indication that such facts were of less significance to the people of that time. It may also say something of God the Holy Spirit who chose not to inspire the recordation of such information as a general rule. It would seem that physical attractiveness (or lack thereof) matters little to God? (I am hopeful in this department for my handsomeness has taken a serious hit in recent decades). Perhaps too the Holy Spirit draws back from such descriptions so that we would be encouraged to see ourselves in the narrative of Holy Scripture.

We get occasional references to physical traits. There are the some references to attractiveness. David is said to have a ruddy appearance, Leah seems to have been less attractive than her sister Rachael. Bathsheba surely drew David’s eye. There is also some mentioning of more specific traits. For example the beloved woman in the Song of Songs describes herself as “black” and “beautiful.” Sampson is said to have long hair. Zacheus is said to be of short stature. Herod was an Edomite, a name which refers to the reddish skin of that race of people. You will perhaps want to add to this list in the comments section. But overall the Scriptures are remarkably silent about any extensive physical description of the main protagonists. Who was tall, who was short, what color their skin or hair, or eyes? How long was the hair? Did the person have a beard?

And thus as we consider Jesus we are left with little from the scriptures themselves. It does seem clear that Jesus must have had a vigorous constitution given the extensive journeys he made throughout the mountainous region of the Holy Land. Lengthy walks of 60 miles or more back and forth from  Jerusalem to Galilee and then well north to Tyre and Sidon. Climbs up steep hills and mountains such as Tabor were not for the weak or feeble. I have spoken more of the physical stamina of Christ here: On the Human Stature of Christ. But as for his hair color, relative height, skin tone etc. we have little or nothing.

I would like to speculate however based on a a few criteria of certain possible traits of Jesus’ physical appearance. Again, these are mere speculations. I encourage you to remark on them and to add or subtract as you see fit. These speculations are somewhat random and given here in no particular order.

1. The length of his hair. It is common since the renaissance to see Jesus depicted with long and straight or wavy  locks of flowing hair. I have often wondered if ancient Jewish men ever wore their hair this long. I say this because St. Paul says,  Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him? (1 Cor 11:14). He goes on to speak of long hair as a  “glory” to a woman. I wonder if Paul would have said such a thing if Jesus had the log hair he is often depicted with today? What exactly Paul meant by “long” is a matter for debate. It does not necessarily mean that Jesus went about with hair as short as some men wear it today. The Shroud of Turin, if it is authentic, shows the hair length to be at just about the length of the upper shoulder.  I also doubt that Jesus’ hair would be as straight as many post renaissance artists depict it. If Jesus was a Semite, his hair was probably far more coarse and wiry than European hair. It is also interesting that some of the earliest images we have of Jesus on the Catacomb walls depicts him as clean shaven with short hair. But this may simply be a projection of Mediterranean standards upon him. Again, all these ponderings of mine are speculative.

2. What of Jesus’ complexion? If Jesus was of Semitic stock (a point which some debate) it would follow that his skin was not as dark as that of a sub-Saharan African but neither was it as light as a northern European. Many Scholars think that the ancient Semites had something of an olive tone to their skin, generally dark colored hair that was thick and often wiry or curly. The picture at left was developed by scholars recently using forensic techniques on a skull found from the first century AD. While the skin tone and hair are more speculative, the appearance of the face is based on the techniques of forensic reconstruction (cf  HERE and HERE ). The image is not without controversy. Indeed there seem to be significant differences among scholars as to both the origin, appearance and general anthropology of the Semites who likely descended from Noah’s son Shem according to the Scriptures. Here again, I present these aspects of appearance to you only as speculative.

3. The Shroud of Turin – You have likely read much on the shroud. There is wide consensus today that the shroud comes from a period far earlier than the Middle Ages as was held in the 1980s when some questionable studies were conducted on it. Even if it dates from the time of Christ, this still does not prove it is his image. However the seemingly miraculous manner of the imprinting of the image is strong evidence not to be lightly set aside that this is in fact Christ’s image. Even if it is we have to be careful to remember that he had been savagely beaten and that this may have marred his appearance left on the shroud. Nevertheless, if this is Jesus’ image then we can see that he was 5-feet-10 to almost 6 feet tall and weighed about 180 pounds, had a fairly strong muscular build and a long nose seemingly typical with the Jews of his day. We have already remarked on the length of the hair and, despite Paul’s remark, his hair as depicted on the Shroud  was worn a bit longer than most men of today. The photo at the top of this post is based on the Shroud image. Again I caution,  these observations are all speculative based on the authenticity of the shroud of which the Church makes no official ruling.

Perhaps we do well to end where we began and question our own modern preoccupation with the physical appearance of Jesus and other biblical figures. It is true we are visual and will always prefer to see the face of those we love. But the Bible’s silence on these matters may be instructive and we do well to consider that the Scriptures invite us to look deeper than appearance, deeper than race or ethnicity. The Word became flesh in Jesus, but the Word must also become flesh in us and we must learn to find Christ in the Sacraments (cf  Luke 24:31,35), in the poor, in our neighbor, our enemy, our very selves.

This video is one of the most extraordinary  I’ve seen using a fascinating technology to show the many ways Jesus has been depicted down through the centuries. The images melt and morph into one another!

Posted on

Who Told You You Weren’t Beautiful?

We live today with very high expectations of many things. Culturally we have very demanding standards for beauty, especially in regard to women. We expect them to have appealing “curves” but be slender etc. Even ordinary weight is considered by many as unattractive. All this obsession with perfection leads to low self esteem among women and men too. Further, these high expectations of zero body fat and perfect shape, hair color, skin tone etc. leads to hypercritical and hurtful remarks. There is an old saying that “expectations are premeditated resentments.”  Hence this attitude also may have to do with marriage difficulties as the near perfect bodies of youth give way to the more “settled”  bodies of middle age and beyond. (Gravity and age do have their effects and even if you weighed what you did in High School it doesn’t look the same!) Plastic surgery is a miracle for those with truly catastrophic injury or deformities but today it is too often the refuge of those who have become obsessed with how they look and how they think others regard them. Oh to be free of such obsessions! The picture to the right depicts a woman but men have the problem too.

Help me Lord to be little more comfortable in my own skin. Help me to accept that you like both tall and short people because you made them both. Both the blond and the brunette are from your hand, wavy hair, straight hair wirey hair are all from you and apparently to your liking. Thin and hefty, black, white and all between are from your artistic hand. Help me to love me as you made me. If I should lose weight for health’s sake help me, but if its only about what others might think of me, free me.

Watch this video and see how a very lovely young woman is not lovely enough. She has to be altered, “perfected.”  And when simple natural enhancements are not enough her image must be furthered altered on a computer. Message: the perfect beauty does not exist for the world of media. She must be invented. Then everyone can pine after and spend large amounts of money and time trying look like someone who doesn’t even exist.

Posted on

The Only Cure for Our Spiritual Blindness is Holiness

Over 21 years ago I made my canonical retreat that was required before being ordained a transitional deacon. We were studying the Letter to the Romans in the retreat conferences and came upon a particularly difficult passage early in the retreat. The retreat master, an older priest and well known scripture scholar stopped his train of thought, perhaps perceiving we were having difficulty and said, “Do you know what is the biggest obstacle for us in understanding the Word of God?” I was expecting a geeky answer like, “We don’t know enough Greek,”  or “We haven’t studied the Historical Critical Method carefully enough.” But the priest pleasantly surprised me we he paused, looked around the room and then said, “The biggest obstacle we have to understanding the Word of God is our sin.”  He was (and still is) Fr. Francis Martin. He went on to encourage us in the discipline of study but warned us that all the study in the world could not be of great help, indeed it could be of harm, if we did not have a clean heart. I have respected him ever since and listened on tape  to probably two dozen other priest conferences and courses he preached and taught. He became one of my principal teachers through his tape ministry though I was never formally enrolled in a class he taught.

Scholars, academicians, even unbelievers to some extent can tell you what a biblical text is talking about, but only the holy, the Saints, can tell you what it means. Fulton Sheen was famous for saying toward the end of his life something to the effect, that we have tried in modern times every possible way to build up the Church: committees, study groups, task forces, seminars, advanced degrees in every sort of theology and religious study. But there is only one thing that we have not tried and that is holiness. He went on to recommend that every priest commit to make a daily Holy Hour.

This past week in the Office of Readings from the Breviary the following reading reminded me of all these things:

If you say, “Show me your God,” I will say to you, “Show me what kind of person you are, and I will show you my God.” …..God is seen by those who have the capacity to see him, provided that they keep the eyes of their mind open. All have eyes, but some have eyes that are shrouded in darkness, unable to see the light of the sun. Because the blind cannot see it, it does not follow that the sun does not shine. The blind must trace the cause back to themselves and their eyes. In the same way, you have eyes in your mind that are shrouded in darkness because of your sins and evil deeds. A person’s soul should be clean, like a mirror reflecting light. If there is rust on the mirror his face cannot be seen in it. In the same way, no one who has sin within him can see God. But if you will you can be healed. Hand yourself over to the doctor, and he will open the eyes of your mind and heart. Who is to be the doctor? It is God, who heals and gives life through his Word and wisdom…. If you understand this, and live in purity and holiness and justice, you may see God. But, before all, faith and the fear of God must take the first place in your heart, and then you will understand all this. When you have laid aside mortality and been clothed in immortality, then you will see God according to your merits.— From the book addressed to Autolycus by Saint Theophilus of Antioch, bishop

So there it is, holiness, a the fear of the Lord are the only way to really see at all.

There was an option this past Sunday in Parishes where the Second Scrutiny was celebrated to the Gospel of the Man Born Blind. In a pivotal moment Jesus smeared  his eyelids with clay and sends him to the Pool of Siloam to wash. He comes back able to see. When asked how he came to see he says, in effect, “I went, I washed and now I see.”  This is Baptismal theology even if in seminal form. We cannot see until we are washed. In the end it is Baptism, Confession and a holy life by God’s grace that give the greatest light. One of the great theologians and Fathers of the Church St. Cyprian experienced the vision that Baptism and holiness brings:

And I myself was bound fast, held by so many errors of my past life, from which I did not believe I could extricate myself. I was disposed therefore to yield to my clinging vices; and, despairing of better ways, I indulged my sins…But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the waters of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man. And then in marvelous manner, doubts immediately clarified themselves, the closed opened…and what had been thought impossible was able to be done(“Letter to Donatus,” 4).

Only after baptism did some things make sense and seem possible for Cyprian. For me too, I have come to understand some things only after many years of prayer and growth. Daily Holy Hours, daily mass and the liturgy of the hours, weekly confession, only then do some things clarify and does that which had been in darkness come to light. Studies have had their place in my life to be sure, But only the path to holiness (combined with study) can ever really bring light.

We’ve tried everything! How about holiness? …..Prayer anyone?

Here’s a video I put together on the beauty of prayer especially before the Blessed Sacrament. It is set to the words of a beautiful Eucharistic Hymn “Jesus My Lord, My God, My All”  directed by the late Richard Proulx.

Posted on

Pondering the Prodigal Parable

Some thoughts on today’s Gospel of the Prodigal Son:

The Gospel is overly familiar. We know it so well that we tend to tune it out when it’s opening lines dawn on our ears. But this is a signal to listen with the heart. To focus on a detail or two we may have ignored before. Focus perhaps on what SEEMS to be a side point, or off the main lines of consideration. Jesus was a master story-teller and every detail is dripping with meaning. I propose to you two such issues. You may or may not have considered them before, but in case not,  consider them now….

1.  The Goal in life – The Father comes out and begs his second son to enter the party. The second Son who was obedient to his father but distant from him lets loose with an  angry catalogue of grievances. Those grievances finish with these words: You never even gave me a kid goat to celebrate with my friends! But when this son of yours returns who went through your property with prostitutes, you kill the fatted calf for him.” Now behold the goal of his life is to celebrate with his friends. This is sad, for the goal in life is not to celebrate with your friends. The goal in life is to celebrate with the Father! See how messed up we can become. We often demand things on our own terms and create our own notions of what heaven should be. Some will talk of mansions, some talk of clouds and harps, some talk of reunion with loved ones, some talk of streets paved in gold, and so on. But the heart of heaven is to be with God, to rejoice with him and to praise him. Our reunions will be precious but not as precious as being with and seeing God. The son has defined a very small heaven for himself: “celebrating with his friends.” The Father has something far better for the son but the son allows the good to be the enemy of the best. And by insisting on what is merely good he may well miss what is best. What do youwant? Do you wnat merely to “celebrate with your friends” or to celebrate with the Father? What a joy heaven will be as we consider the indescribable glory of God and praise him forever caught up in his joy and serenity in a hymn of endless praise. This first video sets forth the theme of God’s indescribable glory:

2. The parable is unfinished– What does the son finally decide? Do he reconsider and enter the feast or does he stay outside and refuse the Father’s pleading that he enter? It really is an amazing portrait isn’t it? The Father outside, pleading for his son to enter. An old song by Don Franciso puts it this way: The Father’s voice is calling with an urgency I’ve never heard before “Won’t you come in from the darkness now before it’s time to finally close the door?!” The parable is unfinished because you and I have to h finish it with our repsonse. And not just you, but your spouse, child, grandchild, brother, sister, co-worker. For them we are to be the Father’s voice pleading with them to enter the feast before the door closes. Yes, it is we who must finish this parable. Here is a video of Don Francisco’s song that I just mentioned. I have posted it before but it seems so appropriate here:

Posted on

The Prodigal Son in F Major

You may well have seen this elsewhere. There are several versions floating around. But here is the story of the Prodigal Son stick on the letter “F”

Feeling footloose and frisky, a feather-brained fellow forced his fond father to fork over the farthings and flew to foreign fields and frittered his fortune, feasting fabulously with faithless friends.

Fleeced by his fellows, fallen by fornication, and facing famine, he found himself a feed-flinger in a filthy farmyard. Fairly famishing, he fain would have filled his frame with foraged food from fodder fragments . “Fooey! My father’s flunkies fare finer,” the frazzled fugitive forlornly fumbled, frankly facing facts. Frustrated by failure and filled with foreboding, he fled forthwith to his family. Falling at his father’s feet, he forlornly fumbled, “Father, I’ve flunked and fruitlessly forfeited family favor!”

The farsighted father, forestalling further flinching, frantically flagged the flunkies to fetch a fatling from the flock and fix a feast.

The fugitive’s fault-finding brother frowned on fickle forgiveness of former folderol. But the faithful father figured, “Filial fidelity is fine, but the fugitive is found! What forbids fervent festivity? Let flags be unfurled. Let fanfares flare”

And the father’s forgiveness formed the foundation for the former fugitive’s future faith and fortitude.

Posted on

Rescuing Hope

Hope is one of those words (like love) that has to be rescued from a world that has overused and misused it for so long that its original meaning is almost lost. Hope has come to mean something amounting to a vague wish for something or a substitute for the word “maybe.” For example a person might say, “I hope it doesn’t rain tomorrow.” Usually what hope means here is that “I wish it wouldn’t rain,” or “It probably will rain but it sure would be nice if it didn’t.”  Another example: A person is asked, “Will you be at the meeting tomorrow?”  And they respond, “I hope so.” But what this expression most often means “Maybe I’ll be there.” In both examples, doubt clouds the use of the word, the desired outcome seems unlikely. It is true the word hope is not always used in rather doubtful situations but too often it merely expresses a wish whose outcome is more doubtful than likely, when things could go either way.

I cannot set forth a whole treatise on hope here but would like to set forth certain teaching to try and rescue hope from it’s secular meaning or at least distinguish the Theological Virtue of Hope from secular hope.

The Theological Virtue of Hope is Confident Expectation – And this brings us to the theological meaning of the word hope which is a much more vigorous word in its religious setting. The definition I memorized of hope back in Seminary is the older one in use prior to the current Catechism but I list it here since it captures the vigorous quality of the word:

Hope is the Theological Virtue wherein one confidently expects God’s help in attaining eternal salvation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Defines Hope in the following way :

The theological virtue by which we desire and expect from God both eternal life and the grace we need to attain it (Glossary, cf # 1817)

Notice first of all how much more vigorous hope is in these definition. It is a “confident expectation.”  The Catechism in # 1817 quotes from the letter to the Hebrews which says, Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Heb 10:23). This is more than a vague wish of something that is unlikely or could possibly go either way. This is more than a “maybe God will save us.” Rather it is vigorous because the One who has promised is trustworthy, true and able. It is also vigorous because true hope is a Theological Virtue. That is to say it is infused into the soul of the believer by God himself. Hence, although it interacts with our human nature and builds on it, it does not wholly depend on our mood or temperament.

The Theological Virtue of Hope has God for its proper object – St. Thomas Aquinas makes it very clear that eternal happiness with God  is the proper and true object and purpose of hope: The hope of which we now speak attains God by leaning on his help….[and] the good which we ought to hope for from God properly and chiefly is the infinite good…For we should hope from Him nothing less that Himself….Therefore the proper and principle object of hope is eternal happiness (II,IIae, 17.2). Both definitions above also make this clear. With this in mind we can see that “hope” has suffered the same fate as the word “love.” Too often people say, “I Love God…..I love my wife….I love my new car.” Obviously love has lost its meaning through overuse and misuse. So to with hope. We say, “I hope in God and to be with him eternally.” And then we say, “I hope it doesn’t rain.”  But theologically hope does not pertain to things like rain, the outcome of  football games, or to getting a raise, etc. Hope in Theology always has God for it’s object. I have no thought that we will ever  get love and hope back to their proper objects and context but mention their origin so that we can understand that when the Church and Scripture use these words they do not mean them in the flat and often vacuous way the world does.

The Theological Virtue of Hope pertains to what we do not yet fully see or possess. – Though hope is confident expectation it is not absolute fact or current possession which some of our Protestant Brethren assert when they claim a “once saved, always saved” philosophy. St. Paul writes of hope this way: For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Rom 8:24-25) In other words, if I were to say, “I hope I find my Bible.” and I then I find it and am holding it, hope vanishes. I don’t hope for what I already have. Hope pertains only to what I currently do not yet have or fully possess. I confidently expect that I will possess it one day for God has promised it, but I do not yet have it. I am not “saved” (past tense) as some Protestants assert but am justified through the Blood of Christ and am being saved (present active participle) as long as I hold to God’s unchanging hand by his Grace. Hence, hope is confident expectation,  but not possession.

This then leads us to the two primary sins against hope – As the previous point demonstrates, a careful balance is necessary. Confident expectation of God’s help is to be vigorous. But this vigorous and confident expectation must not suffer due to either excess or defect. St. Thomas as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguish two sins against hope: Despair and Presumption.

  1. Despair – By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice – for the Lord is faithful to his promises – and to his mercy. (CCC # 2091) While despair may have many complicated psychological motives it ultimately concludes that God cannot or will not save me or give the graces necessary to obtain the life he offers. Despair can pertain to thinking I will not go to heaven or, more immediately, that it is not possible live the holy life to which God summons us. Our modern world considers things like chastity, forgiveness, self control  etc.  to be unrealistic if not practically impossible. This is a form of despair because it denies  that God’s grace can equip, empower and enable people to live holy lives. But hope confidently expects from God the graces necessary to attain to eternal life. Hence this type of despair is a sin against hope. In final despair a person rejects the gift of confident expectation of God’s help by denying that God is willing or able to save them. Thus he or she sins against hope. St. Thomas in the Summa also links despair to the captial sins of lust and sloth.  The object of hope is a good that is possible by God’s grace but arduous to some extent. Now if bodily pleasures and preoccupations cause one to have a distaste for spiritual goods and thus cause a person to reject spiritual goods as “not worth the effort”  then he ceases to hope for them through lust. On the other hand there are some who,  seeing that something is possible but arduous,  grow sad and downcast and come to see it as impossible due to this sadness or aversion to significant change required. Thus they despair through sloth (cf II IIae 20.4).
  2. Presumption – There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit) (CCC # 2092) Among many in the house of faith (both Protestant and Catholic) the second form of presumption is quite evident. We have talked at great length in this blog about the standing presumption by many if not most that just about every one goes to heaven. At too many funerals bold canonizations take place. Confident expectation of God’s help is essential to hope but presumption sins against hope by in effect claiming to already have “in the bag” what God offers on condition. We must freely accept his transformative grace and by it attain to the holiness without which no one will see God (Heb 12:14). This requires a profound work of God to take place in us. It is freely and unconditionally offered but it must be fully accept by us. Our acceptance will lead to changes that many resist and God will not force. Presumption rejects the arduous nature of what we hope for and claims to already “have”  what is offered. In this way presumption sins against hope for once one has what they hope for,  hope ceases. Although they DO NOT have it, by claiming they DO have it,  hope dies in them, for who hopes for what he already has? (Rom 8:24). Clearly balance is required! Confidence yes, current possession or possession without condition, no. One of the best Scriptures against presumption is from Sirach:

Rely not on your strength in following the desires of your heart. Say not: “Who can prevail against me?” for the LORD will exact the punishment. Say not: “I have sinned, yet what has befallen me?” for the LORD bides his time. Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not: “Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.” For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath. Delay not your conversion to the LORD, put it not off from day to day; For suddenly his wrath flames forth; at the time of vengeance, you will be destroyed. Rely not upon deceitful wealth, for it will be no help on the day of wrath. Sirach 5:1-10

An Act of Hope:

O my God,
relying on Your almighty power
and infinite mercy and promises,
I hope to obtain
pardon for my sins,
the help of Your grace,
and life everlasting,
through the merits of Jesus Christ,
my Lord and Redeemer. Amen.

Posted on

The Seven Deadly Sins: Memorize and Understand Them

Early in my priesthood I began to feel a bit embarrassed that there were certain things I did not know more thoroughly and had not committed to memory. Among these things were the Seven Deadly Sins, and the Seven Gift of the Holy Spirit. Priests are like doctors. Imagine going to a doctor who was poor at diagnostic medicine or a doctor who knew nothing of medicines and cures available. Not much of a doctor and I didn’t what to be “not much of priest.” It should be the case that when people come to me, either in confession, counseling or Spiritual Direction that I have some command of the particulars both of spiritual disease and spiritual healing. So, I committed myself to memorizing and understanding the basic areas of spiritual and moral trouble such as the seven deadly sins, lists of the deeper drives and sinful attitudes, works of the flesh from Galatians 5 and other negative thinking or drives. I committed to learning the names and “moves” of these maladies. I also committed to memorizing and understanding  the gifts and methods of healing to to be sought: sacraments, scripture, prayer, holy fellowship, virtues and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Fruits of the Holy Spirit and so forth.

I cannot write on all these things here but since it is Lent how about one. Do you know what the Seven Deadly Sins are? It is a great value to know and begin to understand these deep drives of sin in us. They are more than just sins per se, they are drives or patters of sin and from them issue many other sins. The more we can know and distinguish them the more we can grow in self knowledge. We can begin to understand better how we “tick.” Further, being able to know and name these seven deep drives of sin helps us to know their moves and gain mastery over them. As they stir deep within us we can see evidence of their stirrings and begin to take greater authority over them.

Too many Christians know little about twisted nature of sin. They just know they’re a little messed up (or alot!) and can’t seem to figure out why. Have you ever gone to the doctor, not knowing what was wrong and left feeling better just because you finally knew what ailed you had a name and a cure? Being able to name our demons is an essential part of growth and healing.

Fr. Robert Barron recently published a 100 minute DVD on the subject of the Seven Deadly Sins called Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Lively Virtues. I would like to recommend you get it and learn all you can about these root sins and the virtues that help us to overcome them by God’s grace.  You can order it as well by clicking on the title above. At the bottom of this post is a brief video in which Fr. Barron describes the intent and structure of the DVD.

Briefly stated though here are the Seven Deadly sins listed for you:

  • Pride – The sinful drive that distorts proper self love so that we esteem ourself more than is proper and at the same time denigrate the goodness of others. There is such a thing as well ordered self love and self esteem but Pride is love of self  which is perverted causes us unjustly to think of others as beneath us or less worthy. Pride also stirs us to reject lawful authority of others over us including God and refuses appropriate submission. Pride is at the root of every sin for through it we pridefully think we have a way better than what God has set forth or that we alone can be the judge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve wanted to “be like Gods” and wanted themselves to determine what was right and wrong. Hence they demanded to eat of the tree of the “Knowledge of good and evil.” This is Pride.  
  • Greed – The sinful drive that stirs excessive desire for wealth and possessions. It is the insatiable desire for more. It is not wrong to desire what we need but through greed we hoard things and acquire far beyond our needs or what is reasonable, and we fail to be generous and bless the needy and poor. Through greed we can also come to see the things of this world as more precious than the things of heaven.
  • Lust – The sinful drive that leads to an excessive or inappropriate desires or thoughts of a sexual nature. It is not wrong to experience sexual desire per se but lust perverts this either to become excessive (all that matters), or for the object of it to be inappropriate (e.g. sexually fantasizing about someone other than a spouse). More broadly, lust is thought of as an excessive love for others that makes the love of God secondary.
  • Anger – The sinful drive that leads to inordinate and unrestrained feelings of hatred and wrath. It is not always wrong to experience anger, especially in the presence of injustice. But anger here is understood as a deep drive which we indulge and wherein we excessively cling to angry and hateful feelings for others. This kind of anger most often seeks revenge.
  • Gluttony – The sinful drive to over-indulge in,  or over consume anything to the point of waste. We usually think of food and drink but gluttony can extend to other matters as well. This sin usually leads to a kind of laziness and self-gratification that has little room for God and the spiritual life. Over indulging in the world leaves little room for God and the things of the spirit. Gluttony may also cause us to be less able to help the poor.
  • Envy – The sinful drive that leads to sorrow or sadness at the goodness or excellence of another person because I take it to make me look bad or less excellent. If I envy someone I want to diminish or undermine their excellence. Envy is not the same as jealousy. If I am jealous of you, I want what you have. If I am Envious, I want to diminish or destroy what is good or excellent in you. St. Augustine called Envy THE diabolical sin because of the way it seeks to eliminate excellence and goodness in others.
  • Sloth – The sinful drive that leads to sorrow or sadness at the good things God wants to do for me. Instead of being joyful at the offer of holiness, chastity, self control, etc. I am sad or averse to it. I avoid the call to embrace a new life.  Most people think of sloth as laziness. But what sloth really is, is an avoidance of God and what He offers. I fear or dislike what He can do for me so I avoid him. Some avoid God by laziness, but others avoid him by becoming workaholics, claiming they are too busy to pray, get to Church or think about spiritual things.

Please consider getting the Fr. Barron Video. Learning of these deep drives of sin is essential for spiritual growth.

Here’s Fr. Barron’s brief into to the DVD: