Category: Faith

Connecting the dots between faith and current happenings, Msgr. Charles Pope shares the light of Christ’s teachings.

Posted on

On The "Noninfallibilists" and How They Diminish Virtues of Docility and Obedience

OK I admit it, I am likely making up a word. But, by the term “noninfallibilist” am I referring to those who, in the discourse of matters of faith and morals, are dismissive of any teaching by the bishops and Pope that is not infallibly defined. Now as you may have guessed, those of this school, not only wish to exhibit a lot of freedom in what they have to believe, but also will define downward what qualifies as infallible.

Back when I was in seminary, thinkers of this sort were predominantly, if not exclusively on the theologically liberal end of the spectrum, and generally they used as their starting point their dispute with Humanae Vitae. Of course they insisted that it was not infallibly taught and, hence, they were free to dissent. They also appealed to the “spirit of Vatican II” which they claimed among many other things, had liberated us from from child-like obedience to the magisterium. The only problem was that the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II were not quite as “liberating” as the so-called “spirit” was.

For example, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium spoke of the Infallibility of the ordinary magisterium when it said:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine in- fallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among them- selves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [definitive tendendam]. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. (LG, 41)

Further, it also said,

Religious submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authoritative Magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; indeed, that his supreme Magisterium be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, according to his manifest mind and intention.” (Lumen Gentium 25.2)

Oh Yeah? As you may remember, if you’re a bit older, or may suspect even if younger, the dissenting theologians of the late 60s and 70s parsed every word of these paragraphs, not to richly understand them, but to be done with them. And, as you may have guessed, they could find almost no instance in which the criteria set forth for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium or submission to the non-infallible teachings of a pope, actually or ever applied. Reams and reams of papers were published trying to minimize or neutralize the notion that we should open to being taught in faith and morals by the ordinary magisterium,  and that if something wasn’t infallibly declared by the Pope (a rare exercise of the extraordinary Papal Magisterium), we were simply free to go our way, confident that the the ordinary magisterium or the the local bishop was no wiser that we in just about anything, including faith and morals.

Docility (teachableness) and obedience were on vacation.

Further, those were the times in which the great indoor sport of most prominent theologians was to show how nothing really applied, and how what seemed to have been quite plainly stated, did not mean what it actually said. Scripture was diced and sliced. Apparently Jesus never really said or did most of what Scripture sets forth. And plainly stated biblical morality didn’t really mean what it apparently and rather plainly stated. And, as we have seen, the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council had to yield to the spirit in which they were “obviously” intended. Actually quoting the texts was “indelicate,” “reactionary” and indicated “rigidity.” Ah, such were those heady days.

But today, I am concerned that such an attitude is not the sole mindset of dissenters on the theological left. The attitude is becoming increasingly widespread among most of the faithful, whether theologically liberal or conservative. Further, the attitude is less theologically considered and more just an unquestioned, even unconscious assumption, to wit: if something is not infallibly taught, I am free to wholly disregard what the bishops and even the Pope is saying. Of course what is meant by “infallibly taught” is a concept only vaguely understood by many, and very narrowly defined and interpreted by others. At some point, infallibility, a valid theological distinction, can become a sort of legalism.

Imagine a child explaining to his parent why he is ignoring them: “You didn’t threaten me with significant punishment, so I just ignored you.” But frankly a parent shouldn’t have to threaten a child, a child should be willing to be taught even without official threats and pronouncements. And yet many Catholics exhibit just this sort of attitude when it comes to the Church, our Mother: an unwillingness to be taught unless very stern and strict pronouncements are forthcoming or very specific formulae are iterated (As one theologian opined: mater si, magistra no! – Mother yes, teacher, no!).

Pervasive – As I have said this attitude was once the domain, largely, of the theological left. But now many on the theological right, irritated by a few decades of Bishops who, according to them, have strayed politically left, or have not towed the line tightly enough on liturgy, pro-life, etc., are also adopting an attitude, that they can wholly ignore the Bishops, who have a teaching office, unless we are dealing with something “infallibly” taught.

Last week on the blog I posted the issue of Capital Punishment, and while granting that the death penalty was not intrinsically evil, wondered if it wasn’t time to allow our shepherds (the Pope and the world’s bishops) to lead and teach us in the matter that, given our struggle with the culture of death, we ought to stand against the use of the death penalty in all but the rarest cases. The answer I got back from most readers was an emphatic “no.” And many reasoned that, since the matter was not definitely taught they had no obligation whatsoever to consider or stand with the Pope and the Bishops on this.

Many of the same Catholics are shocked and angered at the decision of some bishops and liturgists to simply ignore or withstand the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, encouraging more widespread use of the Traditional Latin Mass. But such are the times in which we live, where the climate of camps and the rigid refusal to be taught or be open to even non-infallible issues is common throughout the Church.

Some will argue that the Bishops have strayed beyond faith and morals when they issue letters on immigration, the economy, healthcare and the like. Possibly, but in all these areas there ARE important moral issues, biblical teachings, and Catholic social teachings that OUGHT to be brought to the discussion. Bishops do have duties to keep Catholic and Biblical teaching part of the discussion. And Catholics especially, ought to be more open to being taught, even when the matters are non-infallible and even if the view is at odds with their own political, economic and scientific views.

Consider the following quote from the Catechism:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (Catechism 892)

Now, some will want to endlessly parse the words, and so strictly define everything, that the statement above almost never applies.

But pastorally what # 892 says to me is that I should be willing to be taught by my Bishop and that what he, and especially the bishops as a whole teach together, ought to be a very important part of my thinking. What the Republicans or Democrats or talking heads think may be an influence, but how much more so my Bishop, in matters local, and all the Bishops and the Pope, in matters more universal.

Why should a newspaper editor, or political party influence me more than the the bishops of the Church? At bare minimum I should seriously consider what is taught by the bishops, and, even if I come to a technically different conclusion on some policy matter, I will at least take seriously the Catholic and Biblical principles they enunciate, and seek to include them in the policy considerations of the temporal order.

Having quoted this Catechism paragraph to one of the interlocutors in the Capital Punishment combox they (in effect) sniffed and said, that # 892 is not an infallible teaching and “I am free to disregard it.” I will not even argue the question of infallibility here, but the point stands that we ought to be more willing to be taught.

To conclude we might reflect on two virtues that are critical to having faith: docility and obedience.

The word docility is scorned in the modern world and caricatured as causing one to be a pushover, easily brainwashed etc. But docile in Latin means to be “teachable.” Hence, to be docile means to be teachable, to be open to the wisdom and knowledge of others. Like it or not, our Bishops do have a teaching office and, like it or not, they are the bishops God has permitted and intended for us. We ought not simply dismiss what we do not like, but remain open and teachable. Docility, though often maligned, is the door to deeper knowledge and faith and it better disposes us for wisdom.

Obedience too is maligned by the modern age. But here too there are Latin roots that disclose the deeper meaning: ob + audire means “to give a hearing to,” “to listen with open ears.” Hence obedience too implies that we are willing to listen, to be taught, and to strive to understand what someone in authority is teaching and setting forth as a course of action. Like it or not, our Bishops have authority and, unless they are setting forth evil or error, we ought to give careful consideration to what they teach and the vision they set forth.

I wonder if the “noninfallibilists” of our time will have anything to do with these notions. But my question remains, are we really free simply to ignore the bishops, and the Pope except when they clearly teach infallibly? Are we not in fact defining faith and Church-life downward by this attitude? What of docility and obedience in more ordinary matters? Is it really an all or nothing scenario, or are we on more of a continuum here where the default setting ought to be a listening ear and a teachable spirit?

I am sure many of you will have responses and distinctions to make. Remember I am starting a conversation not issuing an edict (as if I could). But I only ask this, that you might be careful not to so distinguish docility and obedience that they cease to exist as real categories. I know there are distinctions to be made and scenarios to consider which I have not set forth here, but there is also a general norm to be followed of docility and obedience, of religious assent of mind and heart. So have at it, and remember: caritas, caritas!

Photo Credit: Zazzle Catalogue

This video is a lot of fun. I have often thought of the aging of dissent in the Church, and still see a lot of hope in many younger Catholics. But given the reflection here, I am not so sure that dissent has had a few grandchildren. Anyway, the video is a hoot.

Posted on

God and God Alone: A Meditation on the Gospel for the 29th Sunday of the Year

The Gospel today contains lots of interesting juxtapositions: Hatred for Jesus, but grudging respect for him,  real questions, versus rhetorical questions, politics and faith, duties to Caesar and duties to God. The word  “juxtaposition” is from the Latin juxta (meaning “near”) and positio (meaning “place or position”). Hence a juxtaposition is the placing of two things near each other to see how they are similar and yet different.  Usually, in English, a juxtaposition emphasizes differences more than similarities.

Let’s look at these one by one, spending the most time on the juxtaposition of our duties toward God and toward “Caesar.” The essential lesson in all these juxtapositions is that God will not be reduced to fit into our little categories. He is God, not man.

Juxtaposition 1 – The Enemy of my enemy is my friend. – The Gospel begins by describing an extremely unlikely set of “bedfellows.” The text says, The Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap Jesus in speech.  They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians. A very unlikely set of allies here. The Pharisees hated the Herodians. It was a combination of political and racial hatred; just about as poisonous as you could get in the ancient world. Yet they both agreed on this: This Jesus has to go.

Here is an important teaching, if you’re going to be a true Christian: the world will hate you. Too many Christians think some segment of the world will agree to live in peace with us, and so we strive to forge allegiances with it. In the modern American scene some think that the Republicans, or the Democrats are natural allies for us. As we will discuss later, we really don’t fit well into either party, or, frankly, any worldly club.

Catholicism is an “equal-opportunity offender” if it is proclaimed in an unabridged form. Issue by issue, we may appeal to one political party or another. But taken as a whole, we’re a nuisance: Pro-life, traditional family values, over here, Immigrants rights, contra capital punishment, affordable housing, etc., over there. But in the end we both please and annoy at the same time. Which is another way of saying we don’t fit into the world’s categories, and everyone has a reason to hate us.

Welcome to Jesus’ world where the Herodians and Pharisees, who agree on nothing, do agree to hate Jesus.

Juxtaposition 2 – Prophet and Lord or Political talking head? In their opening remarks to Jesus, his enemies give him grudging respect, but not to actually praise him, rather to provoke him. They say, Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion…

Now the juxtaposition here is to use praise as a pretext, to use praise to provoke. In effect, they think they can they can force a definition on Jesus: “You’re the Man, You’re the prophet….You’re the answer man….you’re the only one around here who tells the truth no matter what.” Now none of these things are false and they bespeak a grudging respect for Jesus.

But they are only using this to draw Jesus into a worldly debate well below his pay grade. They want Jesus to take sides in a stupid human debate over politics and worldly power. They want him to get arrested and killed over something not worth dying for.

Prophets die for the truth revealed by God, not for who the “big cheese” should be in human affairs, and who human beings think are the best. They want Jesus to opine as if he were some sort of talking head on T.V., rather than the prophet and Lord that he is. A question of this sort is not worthy of Jesus’ attention. Ask this of the local Senator or mayor, but leave God out of human political distinctions and camps do not expect him to take sides. He is beyond our distinctions and will not be confined by party lines, national boundaries, political philosophies and the like.

We may well debate that certain systems better reflect the Kingdom than others, but in the end, God cannot be reduced to being an Republican, a Democrat, or for that matter an American. He is God, and he transcends our endless debates and camps. He is not a talking head, he is God.

Juxtaposition 3- Real or Rhetorical? The odd coalition of Jesus haters asks him a question: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Though this is in the form of a question, it is not a sincere question, it is a rhetorical question.

Generally speaking rhetorical questions are statements or arguments in the form of a question. If I say to you, “Are you crazy?” I am not really looking for an answer.  Though it is in the form of a question, I am really making a statement: “You ARE crazy.”  This is what takes takes place here. The questioners already have their own opinion, and they are not about to change based on any answer Jesus would give. They don’t really want an answer per se. They just want something to use against Jesus.

If he says, “Yes, pay the taxes.” That is politically incorrect and will make him unpopular with the crowds. If he says “No, don’t pay the taxes” he gets arrested and will likely be executed.

In the end Jesus calls them what they are: hypocrites, a Greek word which means “actor.” And that is what they are, and are doing. This whole thing is an act. No real answer is sought, just a showdown. This is not about the truth, it is about a trap.

But Jesus will have none of it. He will not be reduced to human distinctions and categories. The truth he proclaims transcends the passing political order and struggles for human power. He will not be drawn in to declaring one side or the other better. Rather, He will apply the ruler of truth evenly to all.

He is Reality in the face of rhetoric, Perfection in the face of politics, Divinity in the face of division.

Juxtaposition 4 – God and Caesar – Jesus says, simply, and in a way that transcends worldly “all or nothing” scenarios: Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

This of course generates the wish for elaboration. But in our demands for more detail, we too often seek to conceal the fact that we really know the answer. And we also betray the need of the flesh to specify everything so as to control and limit its impact.

But if a list is demanded we might include some of the following things we ought to “pay” to Caesar (i.e. in our scenario, pay to our Country and locale):

  1. To obey all just laws
  2. Pay legally assessed taxes
  3. Pray for our country and leaders.
  4. Participate in the common defense  based on our abilities and state in life.
  5. Take an active and informed part in the political process
  6. Engage in movements of necessary and on-going reform
  7. Contribute to the common good through work, domestic and market based, and through the sharing of our abilities and talents.
  8. Maintain strong family ties, and raise disciplined children well prepared to contribute to the common good and the good order of society.
  9. Encourage patriotic love of this Country
  10. Strive for unity and love rooted in Truth.

And we might include some of the following in what we owe to God:

  1. Adoration, love and gratitude
  2. Obedience to his Word and Law
  3. Worship
  4. Repentance
  5. Support of his Church by attendance at sacred worship, financial support and sharing of our gifts and talents
  6. Proclamation of his Word by witness and in verbal ways
  7. Devoted reception of the Sacraments.
  8. Raising our Children in His truth and in reverence of Him
  9. Evangelization – making disciples
  10. Preparing for death and judgement through a holy and reverent sojourn here

A glance at these lists reveals however that there is overlap, and one would expect this with God. For, He defies many of our human categories and distinctions. In effect we see a setting forth of the great commandment of Love: that we should love the Lord our God with all our soul, strength and mind, and our neighbor as our self (e.g. Matt 22:37). For, while God is not Caesar and Caesar is not God, yet love unites both categories.

Hence we see that to love our Country is to love our neighbor. To work for, support and be involved in the common good is to love our neighbor. And to love our neighbor whom we see is to begin to love God whom we do not see. Further, to seek to reform our land, secure justice, and ensure unity rooted in truth, is to help usher in the Kingdom of God. Yet again, to be rooted in God’s law, walk in his truth and raise our children as strong and disciplined disciples of the Lord is to bless this Country. To obey God and to walk in sobriety, love and self-discipline, is to render, not only to God, but to also have the ingredients of good citizenship.

However, it must be clear that God is, and must be our supreme love. And So Jesus is not setting forth a mere equivalence here. It remains a sad fact that this world is often at odds with God. And thus, we, who would be his disciples, must often accept the fact that we will be seen as aliens from another planet,  according to this world. As we have already set forth, neither Jesus, nor we, should expect to fit precisely into any worldly category or club. We will be an equal-opportunity irritant to any large group.  If you are going to be a faithful Catholic, expect to be an outsider, and outlier, and an outcast.

Let’s move from the abstract to the real. Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:

  1. I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
  2. I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
  3. I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
  4. I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
  5. I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
  6. I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
  7. Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
  8. Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”

Gee, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party as currently defined.

Rendering to God comes first. But too many people today are more passionate about their politics than their faith. They tuck their faith under their politics and worldview. They more more inclined to agree with their party, than the Church, or even the Scriptures. And just try to tell them that, and they’ll say you’re violating Church/State barriers (a phrase not in the Constitution, by the way), or that since something is not infallibly defined (as they determine it), and thus they are free to entirely ignore the teaching of the Bishops, the Pope and/or the Catechism on any number of matters.

Hence the question goes up: Is God really first? Is his Word really the foundation of our thoughts and views? Or are we just playing games. Loving this world and working for the common good are not at odds with our love for God. But submitting to worldly categories and human divisions, and permitting them to drive our views IS most often opposed to God, who will not simply be conformed to human political movements.

God has set forth the Catholic Church to speak for him, but he has not anointed any political movement, or worldly organization to speak as such. No Catholic ought to surrender to artificial and passing distinctions,  organizations, or permit worldly allegiances to them to trump what the Scriptures and the Church clearly proclaim. Sadly today, many do, and in such wise seem far more willing to render to some version of “Caesar” than to render first obedience and allegiance to God, and to the Church which speaks for Him. The Church is an object of faith, a political party is not. Render to God what is God’s.

This Song says, God and God alone is fit to take the Universe’s Throne:

Posted on

Now My Life is Dandy, Everything’s a Snap. So Won’t You Join Me Now, and Do the Jesus Rap

OK, time for something a little light-hearted.

Back when I was in Mount St. Mary’s Seminary some twenty-five years ago, Rap music had burst on the scene. But the thing about rap in those days was that it was more clever than today (if you ask me). Rap at that time was supposed to rhyme. Today, it sounds just a lot more like rambling soliloquies and a little too unintelligible. Again, just my opinion. But “back in the day” Rap had to rhyme and so you had to be very creative.

Some of the guys in the seminary were working in the inner city of Baltimore and they developed the “Jesus Rap.” I was amazed at how creative it was and have kept it all these years. Living in working in the inner city I would take it out and dust it off every now and again and I’ve adapted it over the years, a little change here and there, but it’s basically the same. I wish I could give credit by name to the seminarians (now priests) who wrote it but their names are lost in the dust bin of my memory.

But enjoy this (Old Fashion) “Jesus Rap” You’ll need to provide your own rhythm by tapping on the desk as you read. And please! Read it with a little rhythm! If you can’t do it ask a fifth grader.

THE JESUS RAP

  • WELL I LIKE JESUS I THINK HE’S REALLY FINE,
  • THAT’S WHY I WORSHIP HIM ALL THE TIME.
  • OUR FATHER IN MORNING,
  • A BIBLE VERSE IN THE NOON,
  • AND IF YOU JOIN ME NOW YOU GO TO HEAVEN SOON!
  • PRAY TO JESUS,
  • WORSHIP JESUS.
  • NOW THE THING ABOUT JESUS, HE’S HIGH ABOVE THE REST,
  • THAT’S WHY I WEAR THIS CROSS ON MY CHEST.
  • HE LEADS ME TO THE FATHER,
  • I’M SO GLAD I COULD CLAP!
  • SO WON’T YOU JOIN ME NOW TO DO THE JESUS RAP!
  • PRAY TO JESUS,
  • WORSHIP JESUS.
  • I WAS DOWN! FEELING DEPRESSED!
  • MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE MY LIFE WAS A MESS.
  • IN DESPAIR! SO FULL OF DOUBT!
  • WELL I TURNED TO JESUS AND HE HELPED ME OUT!
  • NOW MY LIFE IS DANDY,
  • EVERYTHING’S A SNAP!
  • DO YOU WANT THE SAME?
  • THEN DO THE JESUS RAP!
  • PRAY TO JESUS
  • WORSHIP JESUS
  • PRAY TO JESUS
  • WORSHIP JESUS (Fade)

– – – – – – – –

Now here’s a video that “so bad its good.” Here are three suburban teenage girls trying to rap and, well, lets just admit, sometimes we white folks are a bit “challenged” in this area 🙂 They surely do a better job than I could! Actually they are quite creative in rapping several gospel stories such as the water made wine and the walking on the water. Enjoy!

And here’s another rap that’s a little more “hip.” It’s an interesting blend of rap, freestyle and call-response. I am NOT recommending this for Mass! Save it for the Church hall. Warning:This video was made using well-trained rappers, do not try this at your Church hall without proper supervision and safety gear.

Posted on

Only the Hearing is Safely Believed. A Meditation on How Faith Comes by Hearing, Powerfully Demonstrated in a "Video"

In the video below there is a fascinating demonstration of what is known as the McGurk Effect, wherein what we hear is strongly influenced by what we see. Though the sounds heard in the experiment are exactly the same, when the visual cues change, we hear another sound. Even knowing the “trick” does not change the effect.

And this is a paradigm for faith, if you ask me.

Scripture speaks often of the fact that faith is a matter of hearing and not seeing:

  1. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom 10:17).
  2. For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).
  3. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).
  4. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? (Rom 8:24)
  5. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).
  6. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy (1 Peter 1:8)
  7. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (Jn 20:29).

So while it is true that many say, “Seeing is believing,” it really isn’t so. Seeing is just seeing. Faith comes by hearing.

Now this principle is very important for many of the truths of our faith are “mysterious.” The word “mysterious” here does not mean spooky, or strange, but rather, that what we “see” or intellectually grasp, is but a small part, and that the greater part of it is hidden from our sight and intellect. Since this is so, we must be taught the faith through hearing, and receiving the faith by hearing, gives us a prophetic interpretation of the reality we perceive by the other senses.

Consider especially the sacraments. What we see is often very limited. We many see, merely, water poured in baptism. But with the faith, granted though our hearing of the sacred words, we grasp the deeper meaning, that sins are being washed away, that new life is being conveyed, and a heavenly inheritance is being bestowed.

At a wedding, our eyes see a man and a woman, but as we hear their vows proclaimed we must disregard what our eyes see (still two) and grasp through faith, what our ears tell us from the very Word of Jesus: They are no longer two, but one and what God has joined together, let no one divide (Matt 19:6). Faith comes by hearing.

Regarding the Holy Eucharist St Thomas lovingly wrote in the hymn Adoro Te Devote:

Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur,  (Sight, touch, taste, in thee falter),
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur. (But the hearing alone is safely believed).
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; (I believe whatever the Son of God has said);
Nil hoc verbo veritátis verius (Nothing is truer that this word of truth).

So again, the eyes deceive, and we must believe through what we hear. The world and the flesh are always demanding to see, but Faith comes by hearing. There may be some motives of credibility that seeing can give, but, frankly, the eyes are too easily deceived, we are often misled by what we see.

And that brings us to the video. As has already been mentioned, the sound in the video remains unchanged, but when the visual cue changes, we insist that the sound has changed. But it hasn’t. Yet, even knowing this, we tend to trust our eyes more than our ears, and insist on what we see not what we hear.

But then comes the strangest thing of all. The BBC announcer, almost in a subconscious illustration of the McGurk effect, comes to precisely the WRONG conclusion. She says, “The McGurk effect shows us that what we hear may not always be the truth.” Wrong! And exactly backwards! The McGurk effect demonstrates that what we SEE may not always be the truth. Stubbornly, she then reiterates, “So we can’t always trust what we hear.” But again, wrong in terms of this experiment, and exactly backwards! It is what we SEE that we cannot trust in this instance. Indeed a very strange error on her part, and almost Freudian in its psychological significance.

In the end, I hope you “see” what I mean: faith comes by hearing. And it is a very important dimension of faith to not let our eyes or other senses merely override our ears. The eyes and other senses can supply us certain data, even motives of credibility. But in the end, it is through hearing, and by the Word of God heard, that we have a prophetic interpretation of the reality perceived by our other senses. Faith which comes by hearing, is a prophetic interpretation of reality: Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.

Enjoy the video, it’ll mess with your mind but it confirms an important truth.

Posted on

Jobsonian Philosophy? An Assessment of the Secular Philosophy of Steve Jobs and Other Modern Techophiles

An interesting article appeared the in the Wall Street Journal on the Saturday after the passing of Steve Jobs. Written by Andy Crouch, it does a good job (pardon the pun) of distilling the philosophy of technology that is common today. Steve Jobs, a master at technology and business, articulated and exemplified many of its tenants. We do well to examine this philosophy for it is a strong rival to the Christian outlook and has growing numbers of loyalists who see technology as a kind of saving god which has over thrown the older paradigm of the Judeo Christian heritage. It is a kind of substitutional philosophy that deserves so analysis.

I want to present excerpts from the article which is excellent. The full article can be read here: Steve Jobs: Secular Prophet. The text of Mr. Crouch is in bold, black italics, my comments are in red plain text.

Disclaimer: I am a fan of Apple products. I use them and will probably use more in the near future. I respect what Steve Jobs has accomplished and that what he has done has provided benefits for many to include good products, employment and the promotion of excellence. In responding to the philosophical claims of Mr Jobs and others, I am using a form of response that is akin to “rant.” I mean no personal disrespect to Mr Jobs (de mortuis nil nisi bonum).  I disagree with his outlook and philosophy but personally respect what he has accomplished. I regret he did not have faith, yet still I hope to see I hope to see him in the great parousia.

Further, If I seem to be disagreeing with Mr Crouch, I am not, for he is but reporting the philosophy of technology and in the ends raises many of the same questions I do. Remember, to some degree I am using “rant” here in order to pull memorably in the other direction. It is a form of speech that requires context and some degree of appreciation for hyperbole (exaggeration).

Steve Jobs was extraordinary in countless ways—as a designer, an innovator, a (demanding and occasionally ruthless) leader. But his most singular quality was his ability to articulate a perfectly secular form of hope. Nothing exemplifies that ability more than Apple’s early logo, which slapped a rainbow on the very archetype of human fallenness and failure—the bitten fruit—and turned it into a sign of promise and progress. That bitten apple was just one of Steve Jobs’s many touches of genius, capturing the promise of technology in a single glance.

To be honest, I never really connected the Apple logo with a shot across the bow of the Judeo-Christian vision of our fallenness. I recently bought an iMac, which I like very much. But frankly the world of Apple and Mac have not been on my radar that much until recently.

But to be clear, I want to personally testify, that neither Macs nor PCs have made even a dent in the problem of sin. Any look at the typical combox of a blog will show that. If anything we’ve become more coarse and divided in our dialogue, as we tend to retreat from real interactions to virtual ones.

Granted, many new connections can be made, and some of them very beneficial,  but not all of them are good. Internet porn sites are by far the most visited sites on the Internet, most them completely blowing away the nearest competitors.

Viruses also shout sin. Imagine some one sitting at home writing code to infect my computer and crash the hard disk. Talk about evil.

If there is a rainbow over the bitten apple, it’s a hologram, not real at all. The promise of technology to save or redeem us seems hollow, indeed, empty.

The philosopher Albert Borgmann has observed that technology promises to relieve us of the burden of being merely human, of being finite creatures in a harsh and unyielding world. The biblical story of the Fall pronounced a curse upon human work—”cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” All technology implicitly promises to reverse the curse, easing the burden of creaturely existence. And technology is most celebrated when it is most invisible—when the machinery is completely hidden, combining godlike effortlessness with blissful ignorance about the mechanisms that deliver our disburdened lives.

To say that our lives are “disburdened” is a stretch. It is true that there are many creature comforts today and many once tedious tasks have been eliminated.

But honestly, the more we have, the less satisfied we seem to be. Stress and living at 90 mph with endless interruptions, e-mails, text messages, voice mails, tweets, and Facebook pokes, ain’t no paradise. Psychotropic drugs are sold at record levels to help manage the stress and depression that often results.

The wealthier and more well apportioned we have become, the more anxious we become. Frankly, we have too much to loose and so we are fearful.  And, all our many possessions breed a kind of addiction to them.

Steve Jobs was great at showing us how that phone he just sold a year ago us is no longer enough. In fact, since his new phone came out, the one he sold us last year is now a piece of junk. You ain’t nothing until you get the latest iPhone 5! And there is something sad and pathetic, seeing people lined up for three days in front of a store to buy a stupid phone (oops, I mean “smart phone”), especially when the one they just bought a year ago, is working fine.

Further, the promises of advertisers et al. to make life peachy, also breeds unrealistic expectations, which in turn breeds resentments and disappointments.

Don’t get me wrong, I like technology and use it, but I am not sure it has “relieved me of the burden of being merely human.”  The basic contours of life remain essentially unchanged, and that is, that life has its pleasures and pains, it’s joys and disappointments. Technology hasn’t changed that.

In the end, nothing in this world can fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. This world is not home and we’re always going to feel that we’re living out of a suitcase, because we are.

Politically, militarily, economically, the decade was defined by disappointment after disappointment—but technologically, it was defined by a series of elegantly produced events in which Steve Jobs, commanding more attention and publicity each time, strode on stage with a miracle in his pocket.

But wait a minute, I thought technology was supposed to relieve us of the burden of being merely human! What this I hear about military political and economic disappointment? Isn’t there an app for that?  Looks like we need more than a miracle in a pocket.

He believed so sincerely in the “magical, revolutionary” promise of Apple precisely because he believed in no higher power.

Well, this “magical promise” that replaces the “higher power”  has a lot of work to do.  We still ain’t back in paradise, no matter what the holographic rainbow over the bitten apple says.

In his celebrated Stanford commencement address (which is itself an elegant, excellent model of the genre), he spoke frankly….”No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It’s life’s change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now, the new is you. But someday, not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away.”

Sad really. The human person’s dignity reduced to “doing something,” and then, when your usefulness is over and you get in the way of “change,” you need to be cleared away. Sounds like the voice of pure utilitarianism, wherein we are reduced to human doings, rather than human beings. It is clear that, by this philosophy, you do not exist for your own sake. Rather you exist for the purpose of being a “change agent.” And when you start getting in the way of blessed “progress,” holy “change” and other utopian notions, you need to be cut down and cleared away.

[Mr Jobs went on to say] “Sorry to be so dramatic, but it’s quite true. Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition.”

Of course dogma is a “no-no” in techno-religion, since it tends to block blessed and holy “progress” and “change.” For, “dogma” is actually more than “other people’s thinking,”  it is the wisdom of past ages, and we can’t have any of that around here. That would get in the way of holy and blessed progress and change. And remember, as soon as you get in the way, you too must be cut down and carried away. Imagine! Learning from the past. No indeed, we certainly can’t be “trapped” by dogma for the reasons stated. Change is all, progress is the pearl of great price. Away with any wisdom from the past (a.k.a “dogma”)!

This is the gospel of a secular age….but the gospel of self-fulfillment does require an extra helping of stability and privilege to be plausible……

Exactly, a philosophy like this can only emerge among the comfortable and well healed, those who are most insulated from life’s often shocking turns. The “do your own thing” dictum is simply not possible for most of the less privileged who are not as free and privileged as Mr Jobs. I wonder if Mr Job’s own employees felt free not to let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition. It would seem he did give a lot a freedom to some on his staff, but I doubt the guy in shipping,  packing boxes,  felt free to ignore Mr Job’s opinion and follow his own inner voice, heart and ambition. I suspect he felt very obliged obey Mr Job’s thinking (i.e. “dogma”).

 

 

Is it possible to live a good, full, human life without that kind of hope? Steve Jobs would have said yes in a heartbeat. A convert to Zen Buddhism, he was convinced as anyone could be that this life is all there is. But the rest of us, as grateful as we are for his legacy, still have to decide whether technology’s promise is enough to take us to the promised land. Is technology enough? Has the curse truly been repealed? [Technology] works wonders within its own walled garden, but it falters when confronted with the worst of the world and the worst in ourselves. Exactly

OK, so there’s my rant. How say you?

Portrait above, by Tim O’Brien

 

 

I don’t know that I agree with the final line of this video, but it does bring home the point that there are a few thorns and thistles in techno-paradise.

 

 

Posted on

Why Teens Leave the Church – A New but Dubious Study?

Cited below is a summary of a recent report in USA Today on why teenagers leave the Church. As you will see I have a lot of questions about the study which, though admittedly summarized here, seems rather front-loaded. That is, it seems to have asked questions of teens that more imply the expected answer than really seek for the actual answer.

All that said, there is no doubt the Church has had trouble in recent decades retaining young people once they head to college and then begin careers. It used to be that, when they married and started having kids, we’d get many of them back. But with marriage and family being postponed as late as the mid 30s, many of them are lost so long, they never return.

Dubious Study? It is always a good endeavor to seek to understand the dynamics of the current problem. Nevertheless I am not sure this study is very helpful. First,  the results seem a bit dubious to me. They seem more a projection of the poll taker’s issues, than authentic issues of modern youth. Second, some of the reported responses seem rather typical of what all teenagers go through to some extent (rebellion, no one is going to tell me what to do, etc.) Third, even if these responses are accurate, I am not sure what the Church is suppose to do about many of them, since to remedy the problem, would be to ask the Church to not be the Church.

Let’s look at the summary of the report. Again, all I have access to here is the USA Today summary, hence the actual report may not fall under every critique I make. The Full USA Today articel can be read here: USA Today – Teens leave Church. The excerpts presented here are in bold, black, italic type. My remarks are in red plain text.

Why do young Christians leave the church? New research by the Barna Group finds they view churches as judgmental, overprotective, exclusive and unfriendly towards doubters. They also consider congregations antagonistic to science and say their Christian experience has been shallow.

Now, does this really sound like teenagers talking? Most teens I talk to reference more basic things like boredom and not understanding what is going on. I have never heard a teen talk about the Church’s “antagonism to science” on his own. Now, if you front load the question and ask “Do you think the Church is antagonistic to science?” The first thing many teens will ask is what “antagonistic” means. Then when you explain it means “hostile” or “against” they’ll likely say yes, since this is often the subtle narrative in their public school curriculum. But honestly, I doubt this is a big deal with most of them and it sounds like the surveyors are putting words in the teens’ mouths.

And can you really imagine a teenager, even an 18 or 19 year old talking about a church being “unfriendly to doubters?” This sounds more like a Gen X or Baby Boomer phrase that comes out of the Willow Creek “seeker sensitive” lingo.

And again, “shallow” sounds like a word that was put in their mouth by the survey takers. I don’t think current teens use words like this. Perhaps, boring, or dumb or stupid, or irrelevant, but shallow?

Pardon me for being dubious about the nature of this survey. It sounds like older and rather cynical poll takers putting thoughts, words and phrases in young people’s mouths.

The findings, the result of a five-year study, are featured in You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith, a new book by Barna president David Kinnaman. The project included a study of 1,296 young adults who were current or former churchgoers.

Researchers found that almost three out of five young Christians (59 percent) leave church life either permanently or for an extended period of time after age 15. One in four 18- to 29-year-olds said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church.” One in three said “Church is boring.”

OK, these are serious numbers and I’ve sure heard the “Church is boring” claim. But frankly, young people find a lot of things boring including school, family gatherings, museums, conversations, reading, you name it. While we can’t ignore it, there does seem to be something inevitable about boredom at this stage of life. One of my visual images of a teenager is of a young man slouched in a chair, hands in his pocket, looking up and about, somewhat dazed, bored and with mild contempt on his face. Not every teen is this way, but it is a common trait. We can try to engage them better, but there is something of a phase they are going through that may not entirely be the fault of the Church.

As for “Christians demonizing everything outside of the church” this too sounds like a supplied view in the survey. For example, if I were a teen and heard a question, “Do you thing Christians demonize everything outside the church?” I might first wonder what “demonize” meant. Then, having been told that to demonize means “to consider as evil,” I’d probably say, “Yeah, right. That’s exactly right!” But frankly I have never heard a teen use a phrase like this and I figure it was a phrase supplied by the poll takers, not a phrase actually emerging from interviews with current teenagers.

Further I wonder as to the neutrality of the poll takers who speak of “Christians demonizing everything outside the Church.” The question seems more rhetorical than an authentic question. Would these same poll takers think to ask young people if they thought “Scientists demonize or dismiss everything outside science?” No, of course not. That doesn’t fit the narrative that says it is only Christians who are judgmental and “demonize.”

Clashes between church expectations and youths’ experience of sexuality have driven some away. One in six young Christians said they “have made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” And 40 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said their church’s doctrine on sexuality and birth control is “out of date.“

What to do? OK, but here is an example of data that is not surprising but, at the end of the day, what is the Church supposed to do? We cannot change our doctrine on this. Perhaps we can catechize on human sexuality better. But, frankly, even with a lot of education on the matter, many in today’s world still reject the teaching.

Frankly, many people reject Church teaching on sexuality not due only to lack of knowledge, but mainly because it is inconvenient to their moral life. To a great extent they do know, deep down, that much of what they are doing is wrong. I have never spoken with a cohabiting couple who didn’t know, deep down, that what they were doing was wrong.

But psychologically we usually like to deflect our guilt. And so people say the Church is “out of date,” and if you call me on it “you are being judgmental.” But, deep down, they know it’s wrong.

Also, I am not sure that the “out of date” charge from teens is unique to these times. Even back in the stricter 1950s, I am willing to bet that young people saw the Church teachings on sex as “out of date.” Things like that were just less openly discussed and surveyed in those days. And, there were more cultural mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Plus, marriage happened a lot earlier, and people grew up a lot faster, and saw the wisdom of the teaching more clearly, at least insofar as fornication and adultery go.

Contraception is another story, and much more has to be done to help people see how this hideous recasting of sex has led huge problems with promiscuity, STDs, abortion, higher divorce rates, an explosion of single parent families, homosexual confusion and on and on. In the 1960s we sowed in the wind and we have reaped the whirlwind. We have discussed that here before, and will need to do so again.

Kinnaman called the problem of young dropouts from church “particularly urgent” since many churches are used to “traditional” young adults who leave home, get educated, find a job and start a family before age 30.

Yes, this is a big shift. When I was ordained, just under 25 years ago, most couples I prepared for marriage were in their mid 20s. Now they are in their mid 30s. Starting a family was a traditional path back to Church. Not any more.

“Churches are not prepared to handle the ‘new normal,'” said Kinnaman. “However, the world for young adults is changing in significant ways, such as their remarkable access to the world and worldviews via technology, their alienation from various institutions, and their skepticism toward external sources of authority, including Christianity and the Bible.“

All this could be said for older Church members as well. There’s no doubt, we’re in a real pickle when it comes to secularization and increasingly vocal hostility to the Christian faith. The Catholic Church is especially singled out for hatred.

But here again, the Church can only do so much. Simply changing to fit the times, has been tried by most of the main-line Protestants denominations and look at them, they are far worse off than we are in the Catholic Church. Surely we must continue to engage the culture in an on-going discussion and use every form of media possible. Fr. Barron’s Catholicism Series is a good example of how we can more effectively teach the faith.

But in the end we are what we are. Paul wrote to Timothy that the Gospel must be preached in season and out of season. Right now we’re increasingly out of season. We can make some strategic moves to better communicate the faith, but at some level, there are also some cultural mega-trends that may simply limit our numbers for now. When it came to numbers Jesus never seemed all that obsessed. In fact, when the crowds grew large Jesus would often give a “hard saying.” (e.g. Lk 11:29; Matt 19:1ff; John 6; Lk 5:19ff; Matt 9:23 ff, inter al). And while it is true that Jesus said we should go to all the nations, he did say we could, should, or would please most of them.

So our task seems clear. We must not cease to evangelize, but we must also realize that these may be times of sowing more than harvesting. Turing around things simply and quickly may be difficult. But above all we must never compromise the Gospel merely to draw numbers. The Church must be the Church. I am working to double the numbers at my parish this year. But we’re not going to do it by being conforming to consumerist demands, but by being compelling in the proclamation of the truth faith.

As always, I am interested in what you think.

At some level teenage rebellion is just a phase. Sadly though our modern culture puts it on steroids by glorifying it in music etc. Here’s an example from my high school daze:

Sittin’ in the classroom thinkin’ it’s a drag
Listening to the teacher rap-just ain’t my bag
When two bells ring you know it’s my cue
Gonna meet the boys on floor number 2
Smokin’ in the boys room
Teacher don’t you fill me up with your rule
Everybody knows that smokin’ ain’t allowed in school

Posted on

On the Inadequacy of the World As Advertised

One of the implicit messages in the advertisements we see is, in effect, “You are not adequate, you are not pretty enough, thin enough, healthy enough, popular enough, rich enough.” Further, “The world is a threatening and difficult place and you are not up to the task.” And then comes the pitch, “Buy our product and you’ll make it, you’ll measure up and solve life’s challenges. You won’t be so pathetic and ill equipped.” So the basic recipe is: incite fear and push the product as a solution.

And to be fair, the advertisements often do this with humor and creativity. Further, it is not wrong to sell a product to help meet a need. Needs are simply facts of human existence and people and companies do have good products to help us meet these needs.

But in the end we need to be more consciously aware that not every fear or apparent inadequacy elicited by an advertiser is a real or legitimate fear, or actual inadequacy. We don’t all have to be young, good looking, popular and perfectly healthy to be happy. I used to be young tan and trim, increasingly now, I am old, white and fat. But God is good and I am quite happy and more blessed than I deserve. I am also reasonably healthy, despite the extra weight. And even if advertisers insist that I should look and feel as I did at 25, I’m not buying into the fear, guilt and inadequacy thing. It’s wonderful to get older. And though my outer self, my body, is less sound and sleek, my inner self is being renewed day by day (cf 2 cor 4:16). I am more alive today than I ever was at 25.

Another thing that goes unsaid is the ultimate inadequacy of anything in this world to really satisfy us. Despite the many promises of ads and other media, no one product or even a huge collection of many products can really fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. I will say, there are many things that bring convenience and comfort. But, in the end, they don’t really cut the deal when it comes to deep satisfaction. In fact, the more we have, the more dissatisfied we seem to be. This is probably due to the unrealistic expectations all these creature comforts and pervasive ads strive to create. But in the end the words of Ecclesiastes still ring true:

All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye is never satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. (Ecclesiastes 1:8-10)

Indeed, this world cannot live up to its hype. That longing in your heart which too easily is translated as “Buy a new car,” is better translated, “Seek always the face of the Lord” (cf Psalm 27:8) . Occasionally a new car is warranted but it won’t do the trick the advertisers say. A good beer, or a glass of wine can cheer the heart, but not really heal it .

So here we are in media world permeated with many unrealistic premises. We do well to ponder the often unquestioned assumptions of these marketers, even as we enjoy and use some their products.

In the following two videos, both Bud Light commercials, there are actually a couple of moments when the veil is pulled back and the inadequacy of the product is admitted, albeit in a humorous and subtle way.

In the first ad, two men are hopelessly bored  as they sit through an opera with their wives. But Bud Light (smuggled in) comes to the rescue! Unfortunately, the glass bottles prove insufficient to withstand the opera as the “fat lady” sings. Alas, the beer could not really come through in the end! But wait! There is a twist in the end, maybe it really “can.”Nevertheless, just for a moment we see that maybe beer can’t really make everything OK.

In the second ad, our beer drinkers have installed rubber floors so that they will never break a beer bottle again. But alas, there are unintended consequences that emerge. And here too is a brief moment of truth as we learn that beer isn’t everything, and that choosing to make beer the point, may cause harm to other things we value. A brief moment of truth that “Dog-gone-it, you can’t have it all, even with beer at the center!”

By the way, nothing personal with Bud Light. Your blogger enjoys a nice cold Bud light from time to time!

Photo Credit: Trash on Earth.com

Posted on

On the Inopportune Nature of Capital Punishment

Most arguments about Capital Punishment focus on whether it is intrinsically right or wrong. But perhaps there is a middle position, wherein Capital punishment is not described as intrinsically wrong, but its use is described essentially as inopportune. Let’s just call this the inopportunist position.

This is largely where I stand. I am an inopportunist, acknowledging that Capital Punishment is not intrinsically wrong, but also arguing it should seldom or ever be used under current circumstances. More on that in a minute.

But first to say, I think it is clear that Capital punishment is permitted by the Scriptures, under certain circumstances, even in the New Testament. For example, St. Paul says,

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:3-4)

With a text like this it is clear that the Church cannot simply declare the death penalty intrinsically wrong. In this sense it is different from abortion, for in abortion the innocent are murdered. In capital punishment the (presumably) guilty are killed, to both punish them and protect others.

It is also a true fact that, when asked to enforce the law that an adulteress be stoned to death, Jesus did not do so and did not agree with any insistence that the Law must be followed. Yet he did not act to abrogate the law in this respect in any judicial sort of way.  So while it is hard to demonstrate that he set aside the law, altogether, it is clear that he does not insist that punitive regulations requiring the death penalty be followed. Hence, neither are we required to apply this penalty according to Old Testament provisions.

So, to be clear, since scripture cannot be merely set aside, and since the New Testament does not explicitly abrogate recourse to the death penalty permitted in the Old Testament, then the Church does not, and I would argue, cannot, declare it to intrinsically wrong. But neither can or should we insist that all Old Testament punitive law requiring the death penalty for certain crimes, be enforced.

Prudential Judgment – So, lets argue that, given the New Testament record, we are permitted but not required to use the death penalty.  And if we are permitted, but not required to do do something, we are now in the realm of practical or prudential judgment, not merely moral judgment. And, for the Church, we are also in the realm of pastoral judgment.

“Pastoral judgment” here indicates a judgment, based on careful discernment, by the pastors of the Church (The Pope and Bishops, effectively),  of the best stance and teaching for the Church on this matter. Their judgment should be based in Scripture and Tradition, but also, as a practical and prudential judgment, takes into account the current context, and how this issue affects and influences other teachings and the Church’s capacity to teach and witness to them.

With all this in mind, I would argue that the Church has adopted, as a prudential judgement and pastoral approach, what I am calling the “inopportunist” position. Namely, that Capital Punishment, though not intrinsically evil, and permissible under certain very specific situations, is not required, and should almost never be used. The Catechism states this clearly enough:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2267)

As a prudential judgment and pastoral approach the Catechism states some of the following reasons that Capital Punish be rare, if not  non-existent. Such a position is:

  1. more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good – It would seem that here there is a reference to the overall pastoral vision of the Church to restore greater respect for the sacredness of all human life. We live in times where this is particularly doubted by many. The Church has battled powerfully to end abortion, withstand euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and so forth. Further, there is the often hidden but profound tragedy that over 90% of pregnancies with a poor prognosis (i.e. birth defects, Down Syndrome, etc) are “terminated.” In other parts of the world, and even here in America, some use abortion for sex-selection. But the Church insists that human life is sacred, even when coming to us in the non-preferred sex, or with the burdens of handicaps and challenges. Given the overall and increasing disrespect for human life, especially with regard to troubled human persons, the Church has adopted as a pastoral approach that serves the wider common good of respect for all human life, even of the guilty. This pastoral stance makes sense, for the credibility of our witness to life and to the common good that such a witness serves. And though it is possible for us to make distinctions as we did above, such distinctions are often lost on an often cynical populace. There is not a pro-lifer around who hasn’t had to answer questions cynically raised by those who scorn pro-lifers’ consistency on the issue of life. There is a good pastoral and prudential judgement that says, Capital punishment should be off the table – just don’t use it.
  2. more in conformity to the dignity of the human person – This largely includes what is said above. It may be hard for us emotionally to see and accept this, but even serious criminals do not lose their fundamental dignity. Note the Catechism does not say that Capital punishment intrinsically violates human dignity, only that eliminating it practically is “more” in keeping with human dignity.  In this regard, note that in God’s original dispensation, long before the Mosaic Law, God confronted Cain for killing his brother, and God punished him with exile in the land of Nod. But Cain feared for his life. But the LORD said to him, Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. (Gen 4:15). Hence, though punished, Cain did not loose his dignity nor was the sacredness of his life forfeited.
  3. without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – While some argue that the impending death of a criminal will help him repent, the usual human experience is that repentance and conversion take place more slowly over time. God himself adopts a great patience with us as Scripture says, The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Rather, He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). For us who would be like God, we want every one to come to repentance and be saved, even those who have done terrible things. Hence the Catechism teaches it is fitting for us to allow the guilty to live in hopes that they may come to life saving repentance.

Hence, the Church, without ruling Capital Punishment intrinsically evil, sees its use to be inopportune for the reasons stated. So what is a Catholic to do?

Why not just stand with the Pope and Bishops on this? We’re in a tremendous battle to recover the dignity of all human life (not just some) and the death penalty is a fly in the ointment. It distracts from the pro-life vision and renders the witness of many pro-lifers less effective. Recent Popes and most all the world’s bishops and the Catechism have adopted a position which excludes recourse to the death penalty and such a position makes good sense given the climate we are in.

Again, why not just stand with them? They are our pastoral leaders and have asked precisely this, that we stand together with them on this and all other life issues.Why not just do it? Why not set politics aside, and personal preferences too and say, “For the sake of unity and a more coherent and powerful pro-life witness, I will stand with the Pope and Bishops on this.”

Is insisting on the death penalty really that important? Why die on that hill (pardon the expression)? Given that the Church does not say it is intrinsically wrong,  and thus your conscience is respected, is it really so awful to say, “I will stand with the Church on this and oppose frequent use of the death penalty, that I will ask that it almost never be used” ?  Is what the Pope and bishops teach really so bad?

Think about it. Perhaps there is a “third way” in this case. Perhaps we need not argue forever on whether the death penalty is right or wrong, just that its use is inopportune, given current conditions and the pastoral challenges to restore respect for life in accord with the common good. Think practically and prudentially. Again, think about it.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In this Video Senator Rick Santorum looks at the Pro-life continuum in a stunning way: