Category: Uncategorized

A bill has been introduced in the Washington D.C. City Council to legalize assisted suicide. And thus yet another battle is before us in the cultural meltdown of our land. Unpleasant though it is, dear reader, consider with me the proposed legislation and why we, as both Christians and those dedicated to Natural Law and the common good, must vigorously oppose it.

As a tool for reflection, I am using an article published recently on the website DCist.com. I present here some excerpts from the article. The full article is here: Cheh Introduces ‘Death With Dignity’ Assisted Suicide Bill. As usual, excerpts from the original article appear in bold, black italics, and my comments are in plain, red text.

Currently, assisted suicide is legal in only four states, but D.C. could soon join that list. (Why am I not surprised? This same city has been among the jurisdictions “leading” the way to legalizing same-sex unions, pot smoking, and now assisted suicide.) Earlier this week, Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) introduced a bill that would allow terminally ill patients with only months left to live the choice to end their life on their own terms.

One thing must be said to fellow Christians: Don’t you ever end life “on your own terms.” That is not for you to say. Your life is not your own. God gave you that life and you are a steward of it, not its owner. Scripture says, You are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:19-20).

Saying that you can take life “on your own terms” is another way of saying, “Jesus is NOT Lord.” That is a terrible renunciation of our faith. Jesus teaches us clearly of the Cross in our life and its value to us who believe. Any Christian who says that people should be able to end life on their own terms is denying the Cross, denying our faith, and denying that Jesus is Lord and has sovereignty over life. Don’t do it.

And do not be deceived by sugar-coated arguments that seek to represent the philosophy of assisted suicide as anything less than a denial of these central truths of our faith.

Don’t even think of going to the judgment seat of Christ and saying, “I did it my way.” Ponder the callousness of standing before our Lord, who was tortured to death for us, and saying to Him, “I deserved to die with dignity.”

Please consider the thinking behind this euthanasia movement and how unfit it is for any Christian to think this way or even to be supportive of others who do.

Suicide for those who are despondent is tragic. But what is being proposed here is a prideful philosophy by those who are well and of sound mind to coldly and with calculation end their life, or be “supportive” of others who do so.

The preceding appeal is to those who say they have faith. Another approach is given below to appeal to non-believers or “lip service” believers. 

Under the proposed “Death with Dignity Act of 2015,” a mentally competent patient suffering from a terminal illness that’s “likely to result in death within six months” can request medication that would allow them to choose the time, place, and circumstances of his/her death.” … [He or she] can coordinate with his or her attending doctor and a consulting physician about the possibility of assisted suicide. Once both doctors verify the patient’s terminal diagnosis and determine his or her mental competency, the patient can request a lethal dose of medication they can use when they’re ready. …

Asking a doctor to help you kill yourself is like asking a priest to help you sin. It is wrong and an abuse of the purpose of the medical profession. I hope large numbers of doctors will note this and speak up against it. Doctors and nurses are supposed to bring healing and comfort. Causing death is not in not their job description.

Thankfully, increasing numbers of doctors and nurses are speaking out against this abuse of their profession and I hope none of them will allow themselves to be used in this way. Sadly (as with abortion), there will always be those willing to do it, either for money or  because they have wrongfully accepted the premise that helping people commit suicide is “good medicine.”

Rigorous provisions have been included in this bill to protect patients from undue influence or coercion and to ensure that vulnerable populations are protected. 

Sorry, but “rigorous” protections aren’t going to help. Sanctioning the suicide of the sick and dying is going to put pressure on all the sick and dying to “check out” and stop consuming “valuable resources.”

All your rigorous protections are not going to stop a souring of the understanding that those who are suffering and dying are worthy of our care. It doesn’t take a trained sociologist to see how these things will play out. It’s simple: 1. Erode the sacredness of human life as wholly belonging to God, 2. Put such decisions in human hands, 3. Add a little economic pressure and pepper it with insurance limits and long-term care clocks that run out, and  4. Voila! Now that Grandma can decide to kill herself, perhaps she ought to decide to do so. “Really, it’s for the best, given the shortage of resources.”

Sorry Ms. Cheh and all proponents of “death with dignity,” but in the end all we end up with is death, and dignity itself is put to death.

And by the way, don’t you dare suggest that my father, who died after a long illness, did not “die with dignity.” Your little slogan is disrespectful to all who suffer but refuse to take your poison pill or ingest your philosophy.

Some will say that “dignity” is merely a reference to our freedom to choose. But where will this dignity go when the pressure to “end it all” grows and the “choice” becomes an expectation?

Asked if she’s discussed the bill with any other Councilmembers yet and has support on it, Cheh says that she “[hasn’t] really tried to take their temperature” on it, and would rather “let it percolate around the building” than trying to rush it through to Bowser’s desk.

Regardless of what may happen with the bill, Cheh said she’s relieved to have finally introduced it. “I felt a great sense of happiness about it,” she said. “I really think it’s something people should be entitled to have … if somebody is capable of making this decision and wants to do it, they should have that choice.”

Notice that in her reasoning there seems to be no sense whatsoever of the common good. It’s all about personal rights and entitlements. She says that people should be able to take their own lives (if they meet all her rigorous “criteria”), but there is not a word about what impact this might have on others.

Why does any government need to sanction this form of suicide at all?  For those who really want to kill themselves, there is little that can be done to stop them. We’re certainly not going to prosecute them after they’re dead. It’s also unlikely that we’re going to be able to track down the people who slipped them the means to do it.

Why should the government facilitate such behavior by granting it legal status? Why do so many people demand that government sanction their behavior?

The likely answer to this is that we are dealing with something more than concern for the dying here. We are dealing with advocacy for a movement with its own agenda. This is a movement that has existed for a long time in this country. It wants legal standing so as to grow, gain status, become more well-funded,  and draw others to its strange view that suicide is in fact a good thing rather than the awful thing we have always thought it to be. It is a branch of another movement generally called secularism and is another result of moving God to the periphery and man to the center.

Rooted in secularism and, I would argue, pride, the demand to legalize suicide is but another facet of a stone hurled by those who reject the “limits” that faith proposes. They seek to further the notion that man is the master of all things and that there should be no limits placed on our actions by God, organized religion, or religious tradition. Whether this is conscious or not on the part of everyone who advocates this view, I cannot say. But the premises of secularism and anthropocentrism are essential to such an argument winning the day.

To advocates of this sort of secular pride that rejects the authority of God or faith, we can only advance an argument that appeals to the common good:

I cannot prevent you from killing yourself, but please do not ask me to approve of it, or ask our government to fund, regulate, or sanction your death-directed drives. You do not have my support to take what does not belong to you.

In terms of natural law, you ought to consider how your selfish desires will endanger everyone. Cease and desist from your demand that we sanction your view and carefully consider the harm you will bring to the dying, the chronically ill, and the handicapped, whether you intend it or not.

What you claim to offer as optional will soon enough become expected. I don’t know if that is your intention, but it is sure to be the result. Stand down from this misguided notion. Even if you don’t believe in God and even if you think that you actually own your life, please consider that you endanger my life and the lives of others by sanctioning an ultimately self-indulgent notion of suicide.

Think about it! Consider that your insistence on some newly crafted individual right harms the common good in a way that is both unnecessary and unjustified. 

 Here’s a song that once had an innocent ring to it. Now it is more frighteningly real. The song asks, “Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?” … or 84, or dying, or chronically ill …

There is a marvelous chapter in the Book of Proverbs that ought to be studied by every young person who must live in this lustful world. It sets forth plainly the stance that any son or daughter of God should have regarding the lust so often celebrated by this age.

Many preachers and teachers wince at the Book of Proverbs on this topic since it tends to portray seduction and lust as coming from women.

However it must be recalled that Proverbs features a father speaking to his son. So the context is that of a young man experiencing seduction from a certain class of women (not all women).

The silence of this chapter of Proverbs on the problem of men seducing women should not be taken as a denial of this problem; it is simply not the context of the discussion. Any woman ought to be able to take the advice given here and translate it for her own sake as well.

With that in mind let’s look at this masterful advice from the Wisdom of God. The alliterations (on the letter “D”) are based on a talk by Rev. Adrian Rogers that I heard many years ago. While the alliterations are his, the content of this article is wholly mine.

I. The Discretion we should follow – 1 My son, be attentive to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding; 2 that you may keep discretion, and your lips may guard knowledge.

As we have seen, the Book of Proverbs takes up the form of a father advising his son. One of the most critical roles a father or parent has is to teach and hand on the preserved and tested wisdom that comes to us from God and from experience. Hence a father should teach his children at length regarding all matters of life, including sexuality. He should also insist that his children both listen (incline their ears) and apply (attend to) the wisdom that comes from God.

With the modern breakdown of the family on a wide scale, this basic function of fathers, specifically, and parents and elders, in general, is poorly executed in many cases. Children today are often without critical moral instruction, at least of a healthy sort.

Add to this problem the concept of the “generation gap” that emerged in the cultural revolution of the 1960s. During that time, young people widely believed that “old people” were out-of-touch, repressed, and without any real wisdom to offer. While this is a somewhat typical tendency in adolescence, it was powerfully affirmed in the popular music of the time, which reveled in rebellion against authority, the use of drugs, and the celebration of “free love.” Young people were encouraged to break away from the repression and outdated notions of their elders. Rebellion (almost for its own sake) was the key to ushering in a new reality.

But without respect there can be no teaching. Thus many foolish and destructive tendencies (such as the abandonment of self-control and personal responsibly) were ushered in, ones that more functioning cultures learned long ago were dead ends.

The opening verse encourages the son to hearken to the wisdom of the elders so that he may keep discretion. In this case discretion refers to the ability to exercise good judgment and to having cautious reserve. Discretion is the ability to make responsible decisions. Sound teaching is meant to assist sound decisions.

The son is also encouraged to hearken to wisdom so that his own lips may preserve knowledge. In other words, one day he will need to teach others. What comes from his mouth ought to be the tested wisdom of God, not the passing and often foolish slogans of the world.

Sadly, when one generation largely fails to teach wisdom, the next generation is not only poorly instructed, it is ill-equipped to teach, and this allows the problems multiply quickly.  What was once common sense isn’t very common anymore. It does not take long for the whole culture to start crumbling if good sense cannot be restored.

Hence there is a discretion, a received wisdom that ensures sound judgment that we must receive, keep, preserve, and pass on.

II. The Deception we should avoid – 3 For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; 4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; 6 she does not take heed to the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it.

Here then is the description of “Lady Lust” by way of personification. Surely she is the antithesis of Lady Wisdom! Again let us recall that the personification, though feminine, does not mean that lust and seduction are unique to women (any more than wisdom is unique to women). Men, too, can seduce and surely can be lustful and draw others to lust. However, as a general rule, men are more immediately susceptible to lust, and even if you wish to debate that, recall that this book is a collection of teachings of a father to his son.

Note the description of sweet lips and smooth talking. Lust always plies her wares by emphasizing her sweet delights, never mentioning the cost. The bill comes later! And her smooth talk assures that this will all be OK, that those who object are sexually repressed, judgmental, and just don’t “understand.” She assures that “experts” have found “healthy” societies where free love is practiced. She cites statistics that almost everyone fornicates and thinks it is OK. And, after all, can the majority of people be so wrong? Yes, she’s a smooth talker all right.

But then comes the bill and the results are bitter as wormwood. Lust cuts like a sharp but jagged knife and in her deathly ways she drags souls to hell.

And yet as the text says, Lady Lust has lost sight of her own lies. She has even convinced herself of her lies and deceptions. This occurs because of the way that sins, especially sins of the flesh, cloud the intellect. St. Thomas notes that the sins of the flesh (lust and gluttony) are not usually the most serious (sins of the Spirit such as pride are more serious), but they are the most disgraceful because of the way that they darken our mind. St. Paul says the same in Romans when he says that those who suppress the truth claim to be wise, but are fools and their senseless minds are darkened (cf Rom 1:17ff).

Thus, Lady Lust cannot even see for herself how foolish her own notions are. She believes her own lies and so do those who fall into her trap. Even middle school students can see how unhealthy promiscuity is. They can observe that homosexual acts violate the very design of the body and that the “parts don’t fit.” But this is because their hearts have not yet been blinded by lust, nor their minds darkened by it.

But Lady Lust and her followers soon become blind and fail to see even the most obvious facts before them; their minds are darkened. Jesus says, Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? (Lk 6:39) And so it is for Lady Lust: she is blinded by her lust.

III. The Distance we should keep – 7 And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8 Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house;

Yes, stay away. How many have been snared by her for merely coming too close! Today addiction to Internet porn has reached shocking levels. Many young men think it impossible to break free. Worse still, the addiction descends into ever darker and even unnatural places. What begins as sinfully looking at “ordinary” nudity soon descends to viewing depictions of some of the vilest sexual practices. Children today can find displayed before them practices that normal adults would not have even imagined just 50 years ago. Deeper and darker, many today descend into lust’s worst effects. Even animals do not do the things routinely pined for by those addicted to lust. There is a great debasement described in the literature and by experts who try to help those lost in lust. Even if they can break free, their minds may be sullied for years, even for life.

Hence, scripture says here to stay far away, to venture not even near the door of “Lady Lust.” Elsewhere, St. Paul writes, Flee Fornication! (1  Cor 6:18) There is to be no dabbling with her, no risk-taking, no testing of the limits, no teasing, no occasional looks at risky websites to satisfy curiosity. One must soberly, carefully, and prudently avoid any and all commerce with Lady Lust. Otherwise, she too easily gets her hooks in. And once that happens, for too many it is goodbye to innocence and healthy notions of human sexuality.

Keep a safe distance. Install web filters. Engage in prudent dating practices. There is a distance that we must maintain. If we do not, the damage that will come is powerfully described in the verses to follow.

IV. The Damage we will suffer – Many damages are described! 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless; 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of an alien; 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed, 12 and you say, “How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors. 14 I was at the point of utter ruin in the assembled congregation.” 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you … 21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he watches all his paths. 22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin. 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The following damages can be listed:

A. Dissipation – 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless; 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of an alien … 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you …

Practically speaking, many fornicators and adulterers find their income reduced by alimony, child support, etc. Those who flee these responsibilities are often pursued by the government and have their wages garnished. They must pay numerous fees and penalties for their lack of compliance. They assume the financial costs but without the benefits of a loving wife and children, a common home, and the shared joys that God intended to go with the challenges of marriage and family.

Hence the text speaks of the honors, strengths, and fruits of labor of the fornicator and adulterer going to strangers, to homes where he does not live or enjoy the warmth and love thereof.

Why should this be, O lover of lust, that your wealth and resources be scattered?  Resist lust now or you will find your resources scattered to alien homes.

And this is the first damage that Lady Lust exacts: dissipation.

B. Disease 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed,

Practically speaking, the text points to sexually transmitted diseases (from herpes to AIDS).

More spiritually and emotionally, the text can also refer to the emotional and spiritual damage that comes from giving your body over to strangers and to lust. There is the anger and depression of being used and discarded. Intimacy cannot be exchanged in a merely physical way; humans are just not made that way. Our soul and psyche are deeply connected to our body, especially in matters of profound physical intimacy. And to be joined in this way can never be as casual as the lustful say it is. There is a connection that sets up and is hard to break. There is a whole subset of deliverance ministry that is devoted to helping people break their “soul ties” to past sexual “partners.”

Add to this list of ailments the awful sorrow and gnawing guilt associated with post-abortion syndrome.

Many groan under the physical, spiritual, psychological, and emotional weight of their sins. And even for believers who know somehow that God has forgiven them, it is often harder for them to forgive themselves. It is a weight of guilt, embarrassment, and shame that for many is hard to shake. Lady Lust does not like those who have discovered her lies, and she taunts them with guilt and shame.

The verse also points to the end of life. And though at the end of our life we are meant to be surrounded by loving children and grandchildren, many who served Lady Lust will die far more alone than they should.

C. Disappointment – 12 and you say, “How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors … ”

At some point, if the sinner ever wakes up, his disappointment with himself is often colossal. He feels foolish and regrets that he pridefully rejected instruction and regarded it as stupid or old-fashioned. I meet people like this all the time who “wish they had it all to do over again.”

It is so easy to scoff at instruction when we are young, and even when we are not so young. And in a culture fixated on adolescent rebellion, a culture that thinks it knows better than Mother Church, there are still some who finally grow up and realize what a mess they have made of their own life and that of others.

The promises that sexual and other sinful pleasures make are cast on the rocky shore of disappointment and betrayal.

D. Disgrace – 14 I was at the point of utter ruin in the assembled congregation.

Our private sins have a way of going public. The Internet porn addict discovers that his browsing habits are known by search engines, the FBI, and  even prospective employers who do background checks. Security clearances are threatened. The adulterer is found out. The boyfriend running from his duties to the pregnant girlfriend is summoned to answer for himself. The sinful priest is turned in, arrested, and loses his parish and ministry. The sexually abusive stepfather is arrested. The public school teacher has her escapades with the teen boy displayed on the nightly news.

At some point it would seem that even Lady Lust and Satan himself tire of the sinner and like to see him suffer before Hell comes. Though Satan risks having the person repent and ultimately be saved, it would seem he can’t quite resist making an early “snack” of some of his followers.

And thus what is done in the darkness will be brought to the light.

Even a world that says sexual sin is “no big deal” turns on its own at some point. The sinner cannot escape the special shame and scorn that goes with sins of the flesh like sex, drinking, and gluttony.

On account of envy, many fellow sinners delight in pointing to someone in worse shape than they are. Somehow they think that this will make them feel better. Maybe, but only for a moment; envy is the sin that keeps on taking.

E. Domination – 22 The iniquities of the wicked enslave him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin.

There is an addictive quality to lust and especially to Internet pornography. Many reach a point where they feel enslaved. They want to stop, but feel incapable. And though their habit is costing them dearly in all the ways already described, even this cannot motivate them to stop. They are enslaved and dominated by Lady Lust.

F. Death – 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The death described here is surely a spiritual death. However there are those, not few in number, who have physically died from syphilis, gonorrhea, and AIDS.

St. Paul says, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23). We were made to be alive in the Lord and free, but sin (in this case indulged lust) drags us to death and Hell.

Jesus also warns, but He advances a solution as well: Therefore I say to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Only the grace of God, working through our faith and God’s mercy, can cancel the death that will ultimately come upon the unrepentant slave of lust (or of any of her nasty sisters, cousins, and aunts). Scripture says, The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God … Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap  For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life … (Gal 5: 19-21; 6:7-8).

The text says that this death comes upon one who lacks discipline. The word discipline is rooted in the Latin word discere (to learn). In English, the word discipline also speaks to applying what one has learned as a way forward. And thus one can be said to engage in the discipline of learning or the discipline of science. To lack discipline is to reject sound teaching or to refuse to apply it.

The text adds that it is a great “folly” to do so. Folly is related to the word “fool.” Who is the fool? The one who refuses received and taught wisdom.

Make no mistake then, to refuse or reject God’s wisdom, handed on through the Church, is foolish, shows a lack of discipline, and brings death.

V. The Design that we should follow – 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 A loving doe, a graceful fawn–let her breasts always satisfy you; be lost in her love forever. 20 Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an adventuress?

Yes, here is God’s design: that a man should leave his father and mother, seek for a wife, and having found her, cling wholly to her in an embrace of growing and fruitful love. This plan has its difficulties and requires sacrifice, mercy, and mutual forgiveness. But, unlike lust, God’s plan gives life. Fruitful, faithful, and lasting matrimony is God’s answer to a lustful world.

Lady Lust is no lady. And as another proverb says, Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised … An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain (Prov 31:30, 10-11).

The readings of “Ordinary Time” (Tempus per annum, in Latin) focus a lot on the call to discipleship and the living of the Christian Faith. The readings for today’s Mass are no exception, as they present us with a number of disciplines for disciples. These disciplines free us to serve Christ and His Kingdom joyfully, energetically, and wholeheartedly. We can group these disciplines into three broad areas, such that discipleship is undefiant, unfettered, and untiring. Within these three categories are some other reflections as well. Let’s consider each area of discipline as reflected in the readings.

I.  Undefiant – The first reading today covers the ministry of the reluctant prophet, Jonah. In today’s reading we get only the end of the story. But as most of us know, Jonah was not merely reluctant in accepting his mission as a prophet, he was downright defiant. Recall his story:

1. His Refusal – The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai, “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it … ” But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish (1:1-3). Thus, Jonah defiantly runs from God; he refuses the mission.
2. His Running – Now Nineveh was 550 miles east of Israel. Tarshish was 2,500 miles west of Israel. Do you get the picture? Jonah was doing some serious running! Rather than go 550 miles to do God’s will, he was ready to travel 2,500 miles to get away from God’s will. It’s always a longer trip when you defy God. God wants to spare us the extra mileage!
3. His Resistance – As Jonah runs away from God, great storms arise at sea. The storms of defiance rage, but Jonah sleeps. And the storms affect not only him, but those who sail with him as well. Yes, our moral decisions DO affect others around us, despite our individualistic notion that what we do is no one else’s business. And thus, for some of us, great storms can come into our lives. Has it ever occurred to you that some of the storms in our lives may be related to a situation in which God said, “This way,” but we defied him and said, “No, that way”? Maybe we need to wake up and say, “What does this storm mean?”
4. His Return – Swallowed by the great fish, Jonah is brought back to the very place where he sailed away from God (Joppa). And, in effect, God says, “Let’s try this all over again.” So Jonah makes ready and goes to Nineveh, according to the LORD’s bidding. Yes, Jonah was smart this time.

So the point is that disciples (we) must learn to be undefiant. In effect, God wants to save us some mileage. Obedience to His will is always easier than disobedience.

Consider, too, how undefiant the Ninevites are as they hear and heed Jonah’s message. And notice how this lack of defiance saves them from destruction and a world of hurt.

It’s always easier to follow God. I did not say it’s easy, just that it’s easier. Someone may think sin is more pleasurable and easier in the moment. And, frankly, it may be. But sin unleashes a world of difficulties and complications in its wake. If you do not think this is so, just read a newspaper and consider how many of our difficulties are directly tied to our sinful attitudes and choices. Frankly, the vast majority of this world’s suffering is directly attributable to the rebellious sinfulness of humanity.

The first discipline of discipleship is undefiance. By this discipline, we are spared many difficulties and remain teachable and open to God’s wisdom.

II. Unfettered – To be unfettered means to be unchained, unshackled, and free to move about. The second reading today presents a vivid and sober portrait of what being unfettered and detached looks like:

I tell you, brothers and sisters, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world, as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away (1 Cor 7:29ff).

Now this text does not mean that we have no recourse at all to these things and people, but rather that we live “as” not having them. In other words, we must seek the gift to realize that nothing in this passing world remains. Nothing here, not even marriage, is the sole reason for our existence or the sole source of meaning for us. God, and God alone, is the source of meaning and the lasting goal of our life. All else will pass.

For most of us, detachment form this world is THE battle, the central struggle we face. On account of our attachment to this world, we are strongly hindered from freely following Christ. A couple of passages come to mind:

1. Mark 10:22ff Jesus, said [to the rich young man], “If you would be perfect, go and sell all that you have, (and you will have treasure in heaven) and then come and follow me.” At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
2. Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money … So do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall we wear?” For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

But the world so easily has a thousand hooks in us. We are chained and fettered; our freedom to follow Christ is severely compromised.

The fact is, the battle to be free and unfettered is a process. God can give us this freedom, but it takes time and obedience from us. Little by little, God breaks the shackles of this world, and all its treasures come to seem as of little value. Slowly we come to what St. Paul came to say,

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ (Phil 3:7-8).

III. Untiring – Consider that among Jesus’ first followers were several fishermen. The text of the Gospel today says, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

But, we may ask, is there some meaning in the fact that fishermen were among His first and most prominent disciples? Perhaps so.

Consider that fishermen have some important qualities that are helpful for discipleship:

1. Patient – Fishermen often need to wait for many hours, even days, for a catch. Disciples need great patience as do evangelizers.
2. Professional – Fishermen need to spend time learning about the types and behaviors of fish, learning to observe the water and navigate, learning the right time of day and the right season to fish. They need to know the right bait, the proper use of the net. All of these traits are good for disciples and are especially helpful in evangelization, which is “job one” for the disciple. Through growing in practical knowledge, we come to know our faith and learn effective ways to be fishers of men.
3. Purposeful – When fishermen are out fishing, they are entirely focused on their endeavor. That’s all they do; everything is centered on the main task. They are single-minded. Disciples surely need more of this attitude. The Book of James says, The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). St. Paul says, But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:13-14). Every disciple needs to be more single-minded.
4. Pursuing – Note that they simply go to the fish. Too many Catholic parishes merely open the doors and hope that people will come to them; that is not evangelization. The key word for disciples and evangelizers is “Go.”
5. Partnered – Fishermen work in teams. Thus Jesus sends disciples out, two by two.
6. Persistent – If fishermen don’t make a catch today, they’re back out tomorrow. Disciples surely need to persist, both in their own journey and in making disciples of others.

Thus, in today’s readings are a number of disciplines of discipleship. The green vestments of Ordinary Time remind us of growth, both our own personal growth and that of the Church. Ultimately, a free heart is a joyful heart. It is a heart that is not easily tired, because it is not divided by serving two masters. It is a heart that ungrudgingly serves the Kingdom.

Here’s a song that speaks of the patient, purposeful, and persistent action on behalf of God’s kingdom. It is a song that can only come from a heart that is undefiant, unfettered, and untiring; from a heart that says, “I keep so busy workin’ for the Kingdom, I ain’t got time to die!”

For most people, the word “virtual” has become a synonym for the Internet or the computer world, as in “occurring or existing primarily online.” But the word virtual has an original meaning that is actually quite descriptive of a modern problem.

Prior to its application to the computer world, the word virtual meant being something in effect, though not actually, or expressly being such. In other words, something virtual has aspects of the real thing, but is not the real thing. So, in the sentence, “He is a virtual goldmine of knowledge on the subject,” one would be silly to look for a physical goldmine or to think that he is either gold, or a mine, or both. There is no actual, no physical goldmine. His knowledge has aspects of a goldmine (value, worth, depth) but he is not an actual goldmine.

The adverb “virtually” means, for the most part, almost. In other words, it is close to the thing, but is not the thing or quality described. So in the sentence, “He was so exhausted, he was virtually dead,” he is not, of course, actually dead, but, rather, shares some of the qualities of the dead (unmoving, unconscious, lying down, etc.).

So virtual may mean “almost,” “like,” or “similar,” but NOT “is.” The virtual is not the full reality. It is lacking in existence and other important qualities of the actual reality.

And this is a very important truth to recall in today’s “virtual” world of the Internet. Many people are substituting too much of the virtual for the actual. They spend more time interacting with Facebook friends than physically interacting with actual friends and family members. Many people digest large quantities of virtual Internet life and only small amounts of real life. In an actual meeting with real people present, many have their heads in their phones and are only vaguely present in the real meeting (see photo above right).

I have noticed some tourists here in DC so buried in their phones (perhaps reading about a particular monument), that they spend little time looking at the monument itself. Some fiddle so much to get the perfect picture that they miss the actual moment. A picture is not real, it is virtual. It shares aspects of the real thing but is not that thing. We spend a LOT of time with our eyes focused on a virtual world while often neglecting the real world among us.

A strange migration has happened for many today wherein we interact more “virtually” than really. As a result, old-fashioned things like dating, marriage, meeting new people, and just getting together with friends have declined.

Another problem with the virtual world is that it is, most often, self-defined. We select our favorite sites and bookmark them. We set up Facebook filters, RSS feeds, Twitter feeds, iPod playlists, and the like. In effect, we create our own little virtual world. Meanwhile the real world, with all its diversity and less desirable things, is increasingly neglected. Our world becomes smaller and our personal formation more stilted.

Even more so, our ability to listen and be a “captive audience” has declined. We increasingly demand that everything should appeal to us quickly. Otherwise we should be able to click on a new bookmark, change the channel, or skip to the next song in the shuffle. But the real world is not quite so accommodating. Patiently listening and working with what “is” seems more odious as we start to prefer the virtual to the real.

Well, let the following video make the point. Enjoy a humorous look at how virtual notions do not work in the real world.

There’s a common “moral” standard that many like to employ today, especially regarding sexual matters, that goes something like this: “Two consenting adults can do what they please, as long as no one gets hurt.” But of course the sinners who talk like this seem to think that they get to determine if anyone gets hurt. Generally their notions of “no one” are very egocentric. But even there they are often quite wrong.

Today, I marched with many who tried to give a voice to the at least 50 million who didn’t just get hurt by the behavior of certain “consenting adults”—they got killed.

Consider the fact that 85% of abortions are performed on single women. That means that fornication (premarital sex) is the single largest contributing cause to abortion. Many of these couples went into their dalliances insisting that nobody would get hurt. But the babies they aborted would beg to differ. They got hurt and then they got killed.

The claim that no one is getting hurt is a lie.

Add to this a few others who fill out the number of those hurt by sexual immortality:

1. Those who grow up in single parent homes – Thank God they survived at all—most don’t. But because their “parents” had sex but didn’t even have the commitment or maturity to say “Now that there’s another life involved we’d better grow up, be less focused on our own happiness, and think of someone else.” Some others made a bad choice for one night or for a brief time and to get married would have made little sense. But still, the result is that a child is raised (usually) without his or her father. Thankfully those babies were not killed, but still they are hurt because they deserved a complete home with a mother and father there to love them.
2. Our Culture, our nation, and the Church – None of these three sectors will be strong if the traditional family is not strong. Fornicators, adulterers, and homosexual offenders all weaken the family, and the family is the basic foundation of everything. If the traditional family is not strong, “Sayonara.” It is very hard to find a culture or a nation that can survive the loss of family structure and loyalty, or the loss of sexual self-control. The “nobody gets hurt” people think they can go on taking the prerogatives of marriage (e.g., sexual intimacy and parenthood) and not “harm” the culture. They are wrong, and both history and common sense, as well as current statistics, show that we are all harmed, exceedingly, by the “as long as nobody gets hurt” crowd. The number of abortions has skyrocketed as has the number of teenage pregnancies and single mothers, while the number of marriages has plummeted. This is not healthy for any culture or for any child who has to be raised in such a “culture.”
3. The “nobody gets hurt” people themselves – After enough of their antics, they often have sexually transmitted diseases, “unwanted” pregnancies, broken hearts, and quite frequently end up feeling used and discarded. They go in saying no one is getting hurt. They come out hurt, bitter, diseased, pregnant, post-abortive (most tragically of all), alone, and usually unfulfilled. And did I mention alone? Alone, very alone in terms of support, but bearing many burdens.

So, at the end of the day, those who say “no one gets hurt” cannot truthfully say that, nor can they give any assurance that no one is getting hurt or will be hurt. How can they possibly know that no one will get hurt? Experience and common sense (which isn’t so common today) say otherwise.

Today, I marched for at least 50 million who got hurt by being killed. Add to that the shattered lives of many of their mothers who felt “driven” to abort because they were either pressured or alone. Any counselor or Catholic Priest will tell you that post-abortion trauma is real. And, sadly, it is deep and does not go away easily. Abortion is an act of violence perpetrated not only on the baby but also on the body  of the woman. Few who come away from this act can honestly describe it as anything other than violent and traumatic.

Lots of people are getting hurt! Enough of this “Consenting adults can do what they please as long as no one gets hurt” lie. There is no such thing.

And lest we who believe forget, let us add to this the fact that Jesus got hurt for what we have done. Every sin ever committed added to his pain and suffering on Calvary.

There is a lot of hurt, and anyone who says otherwise is deceived and the truth is not in him.

In yesterday’s post, there was a critique of a flawed moral perspective that sets up a false dichotomy between mercy  and moral teaching, and between love and the law. As noted yesterday, well-ordered love and mercy must be rooted in truth. The greatest mercy is to keep people out of Hell and to save them from all the suffering that comes from sin.

Jesus exhibits this in His person, for He who is love insists on moral uprightness, faith, and acceptance of His truth without compromise. No one loves us more than Jesus does and yet no one warned of Hell and judgment more than Jesus did. Love and law are linked; God, who loves us, says, “This far, but no farther.” He does this not because He is mean or wants to take away our fun. He does this because He loves us and does not want sin to destroy us and Satan to drag us to Hell.

Yet many today think that calling sin what it is, is unkind, unmerciful, unloving, mean-spirited, and so forth. Never mind that mercy cannot exist unless sin and wrongdoing exist. To deny these is to deny the need for mercy.

In today’s post, following up on yesterday’s, we do well to ponder that being loving is not the same as being kind. In other words, love should not be reduced to mere kindness. But we live in a reductionist culture that has tended to reduce love to kindness. As we shall see, the results are often quite problematic. To reflect on this problem, I want to use some insights from an article by Peter Kreeft, written some years ago.

Kindness is a very good thing and has an important place in our relationships. Kindness is evidenced by goodness and charitable behavior, by pleasantness, tenderness and concern for others. According to Aristotle, kindness is an emotion manifesting itself in the desire to help someone in need without expecting anything in return.

Peter Kreeft defines kindness as “sympathy, with the desire to relieve another’s suffering” [Envoy Magazine, Vol 9.3, p. 20].

However, as Kreeft himself notes, it is a very great mistake to equate kindness with love. Kindness is an aspect of love, but it is necessarily distinct from love. For it sometimes happens that love, which wills what is best for the other, may deem it best not to remove all suffering. For example, a father may impose punishment on his child out of love.

Kindness generally seeks to alleviate suffering and negativity. But love understands that suffering often has a salvific role. My parents disciplined me out of love. Had they been merely kind to me, I would likely have been spoiled, undisciplined, and ill-prepared for life.

Paradoxically, the more we love, the more we see mere kindness diminish. Consider how kind we can be to strangers. We may sometimes give money to strangers with few questions asked. But if our children ask for money we may want to know why. And then even if we give it to them, we may lecture them about being more responsible with their money. The interaction may be less kind, but it may be more loving, for it seeks to end the problem rather than merely relieve the symptom.

The good eclipses the best. And herein lies the danger in reducing love to kindness. In simply seeking to alleviate the suffering of the moment or to give people what they want, many deeper issues go unresolved and can even worsen.

Welfare has created a slavish dependence for many in our culture. And it is not just the poor in our cities. There is corporate welfare and many other subsidies and entitlements that too many feel they can’t do without.

Rather than addressing the root causes of poverty, dependence, or poor economic conditions and bad business models, kindness interrupts love’s deeper role and treats only the suffering of the moment. In this sense, the merely good (kindness) replaces the truly best (love). True love gives what is best, not merely what is immediately desired. Kindess too often looks merely to relieve whereas true love looks to heal, something that often involves some painful choices.

Further, many false expectations are centered on the exaltation of kindness over love. In our culture, this is manifested in the fact that suffering of any kind is seen as obnoxious, and even the reason for legal action. It has also led to our demands for comfort getting out of control. Demand for euthanasia flows from this sort of thinking as well.

A final and very terrible effect often flows from mistaking mere kindness for love: it disposes many towards atheism. Here I will simply quote Peter Kreeft directly, because he says it so well:

It is painfully obvious that God is not mere kindness, for He does not remove all suffering, though He has the power to do so. Indeed, this very fact — that the God who is omnipotent and can, at any instant, miraculously erase all suffering from the world, deliberately chooses not to do so — is the commonest argument that unbelievers use against him. The number one argument for atheism stems from the confusion between love and kindness [Peter Kreeft, Envoy Magazine, Vol 9.3, p. 20].

Kindness is a very good attribute and it surely has its place. But we must carefully distinguish it from love. Exalting kindness over love amounts to a denial of the wisdom of the Cross. Kindness focuses on comfort and alleviating suffering, and this is a very good thing. But love is a greater thing, for it focuses on healing and it wills what is best, not merely what is desired. But, sadly, many prefer relief to healing.

Kindness is an important and necessary virtue, but it is not an absolute one and it must be governed by love and right reason.

In the divorce/remarriage debate and in many other issues such as same-sex unions, euthanasia, and so forth, we must insist on what is right, and do so in love. But, sadly, some will never see what we do as loving, for many have reduced love to kindness, and kindness to mere affirmation. Sometimes the most loving, the most merciful answer is “no” to those who demand that we affirm what is wrong. Sometimes the most loving, the most merciful thing to do is to point to the Cross, for by it we are saved, and apart from it we are more miserable and lost.

Do not allow others to “shame” you by calling you unmerciful or unloving. Tell them, “I love you too much to lie to you.” And do not allow others to simplify Jesus, either, by reducing Him to merely being kind. There is a place for kindness, but love must sometimes overrule it. And Jesus is love. He, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, surely loves us too much to lie to us.

This video tells a beautiful story of how kindness is tied to sacrificial love and seeks to bring healing (even at great cost) rather than mere relief.

It is sadly evident that the Church is currently divided into two camps over the question of divorce and remarriage, this in the aftermath (confusion) of the recent synod in Rome and in the rampup to the synod this coming October. Please pray a lot!

If you read the blog here often, you know that I am strongly opposed to any notions that would seek to set aside what I regard as the ipsissima verba Jesu (the very words of Jesus) in this matter, words that are, to my mind, not at all unclear or in any way ambiguous. His teaching in Matt 19, Matt 5, Mark 10, and other places is that those who leave valid marriages (“what God has joined”) and enter another union are in a state of ongoing adultery. These are Jesus’ words, not mine.  We must often deal, with pastoral solicitude, with many who are in this situation (sometimes before they met Christ), and we must hold them as close to the Church and Christ as possible. But cancelling Jesus’ teaching (a teaching that was objected to on the very day that He said it) is not an option.

Sadly, there are many of great influence who are advancing theories and interpretations suggesting that Jesus’ very clear and oft-repeated teaching is in fact not clear and can give way to newer interpretations that they claim are more merciful. Among these are some bishops and theologians of considerable influence. Let us consider an example.

In the latest issue of the theology quarterly “Urbaniana University Journal,” Fr. Guido Innocenzo Gargano says that Jesus’ words about marriage must be understood by what God says through Hosea: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” Fr. Gargano is professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Pontifical Urbaniana University. As such, he is a highly influential biblical scholar and patrologist. He is also a Camaldolese monk, and former prior of the Roman monastery of San Gregorio al Celio.

So we are not dealing with an obscure article by an obscure author. And I, though out of my league as a lowly Monsignor and pastor, have unfortunately found myself opposing the views of some bishops and scholars who outrank me. Yet, emboldened by the Pope’s invitation to a vigorous discussion (an invitation about which I have reservations), I would like to present brief excerpts from Fr. Gargano’s article. It is a lengthy article and more of it can be viewed at Sandro Magister’s site. You have to be able to read Italian to read the whole thing, though.

In responding, I make it clear that I disagree with Father Gargano. I do so publicly because I consider this debate a very serious matter. Frankly, I think it is going to be necessary to develop a mechanism through which ordinary priests like me can weigh in together with our strong belief that the Church’s teaching and discipline in this matter must be upheld unchanged. Perhaps, before the synod, a statement can be developed (à la the Manhattan Declaration) that priests and bishops can officially “sign.” In the meantime, it’s just little ol’ me and a few others up against some pretty influential people on “the other side.”

As usual when I comment, I present the article by Fr. Gargano is in bold black ink and my comments in plain red text. These are excerpts; the fuller article is available here: Chiesa Espresso – Fr. Gargano Speaks

Fr. Guido Innocenzo Gargano writes,

What interpretation should be given to the expression of Jesus in Mt 5:17: “I have come not to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them”? How should we understand the reference to hardness of heart in Mt 19:8ab: “For the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to repudiate your wives”? What force should accompany the observation of Jesus in Mt 19:8c: “In the beginning it was not so”?

In order to attempt a step forward in the reflection on this series of questions, let us recall first of all […] what Jesus himself said in Mt 5:19: Therefore, he who transgresses even one of the least of these precepts and teaches others to do so will be considered least in the kingdom of heaven. But he who observes and teaches these commandments will be considered great in the kingdom of heaven.

The first observation that asserts itself in this regard is that in Mt 5:19 Jesus is not talking about “exclusion” from the kingdom of heaven, but only about the situation of “least” or “great” in the kingdom of heaven.

I guess St. John Chrysostom never got the memo that Jesus wasn’t excluding. Chrysostom writes, But when you hear the “least in the Kingdom of Heaven,” you are to think nothing but hell and punishment. … Think of the one who calls a brother a fool. That one transgresses only one commandment, maybe even the slightest one, and falls into Hell. … Jesus means that the one who transgresses only the one of the commands will on the final day be the least, that is, cast out, and last, and will fall into Hell (Gospel of Matthew, Homily 16.4).

Cyril and Jerome have similar views. 

I will concede that St. John Chrysostom is not the last or only word on this, but Fr. Gargano is stepping away from both the tradition and the rather plain meaning of this text. Jesus is not trying to find room in the Kingdom for those who would do the least. The whole thrust of the Sermon on the Mount is that we exceed the bare minimum of the written law, not fall into minimalism and mediocrity.

No commentary I have ever read considered being “least” in the Kingdom as a good or even acceptable goal. At a bare minimum, the least in the Kingdom will likely have a lot of purgatory. But the more common opinion is that Jesus uses the word “least” as a play on words: those who break the least commandment will be least in the Kingdom. But the traditional teaching is that the least are the Hell-bound (if they do not repent), as stated by Chrysostom above.

The observation has its importance because Jesus says immediately afterward and with a certain solemnity, in Mt 5:20, “I say to you in fact: if your justice does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” in this latter case explicitly excluding from the kingdom of heaven those who simply stop at the justice pursued by the Pharisees and are unable to go on to the point of discovering mercy and acting accordingly.

No, not at all. Jesus is plainly affirming the law and surely not opposing it to mercy as Fr. Gargano says. Rather, Jesus is saying that on account of grace we must do more than what the old law said or permitted. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not replace it; he is calling us to “fill it full” in terms of its most solemn principles.

If Jesus is opposing a matter of law at all in this matter, it is on account of the minimalism of some of the Scribes and Pharisees He sees them and others as setting aside or minimizing God’s vision for marriage because they have hard hearts. In no way is Jesus simply reacting to legalism. He is affirming God’s plan for marriage without exceptions—legal, social, or cultural.

Here, too, St. John Chrysostom says, Jesus does not find fault with the old Law but makes it more strict. Had the Old Law been evil Jesus would not have accentuated it. Instead he would have discarded it.

Chrysostom goes on to say regarding marriage and the following of God’s plan: After the coming of Christ we are favored with a greater strength and … are bound to strive for greater things (Gospel of Matthew Homily 16.4).

So, according to Chrysostom,  Jesus is not watering down; he is building up and insisting on greater adherence to the true nature of marriage. 

[…] Now, however, we must also ask ourselves which precepts Jesus is talking about and understand if this is a matter only of the observance of the written/oral Torah under the aspect of the fence of what are called the “mitzvòt”; or if the teacher of Nazareth also intends to include certain precepts understood instead as concessions, like that of making use of the permission to repudiate one’s wife, on the condition that the act of repudiation be written down as prescribed by the text of Dt 24:1.

No, actually we don’t need to do this nor should we. We ought rather listen to what Jesus is clearly saying and not engage in speculative theories about what sort of Jewish precepts He had in mind or what their sources were or weren’t. None of our speculations change what Jesus clearly says: we are not to divorce and remarry, and those who do so (where a valid marriage is concerned) commit adultery.

Jesus seems to rule out the idea that in the case of divorce one may speak of entrance into the kingdom, with the explicit reference to the text of Gen 2:24 that refers to the Law inscribed in the stars: “Let man not divide what God has joined” (Mt 19:6). But when those who are speaking with him ask, “Why, then, did Moses order the act of repudiation and to repudiate her” (Mt 19:7), Jesus, seeking the fundamental motivation of that first principle, realizes that in fact the Mosaic prescription manifested a leniency that is characteristic of God.

Why does Father say “seems”? Jesus is quite clear to describe that divorce from a valid marriage (what God has joined) followed by entering a second union is adultery. There’s no “seems” about His teaching; it is quite clear.

And as for the Mosaic practice manifesting leniency, fine. But Jesus says no more of that sort of leniency in the era of grace. As Chrysostom says above, we are bound on account of grace to strive for greater things. Having hardened hearts is not an option or excuse for divorce in the order of grace.

Finally, saying that Jesus “realizes” something seems ignoble to this reader. It suggests that Jesus is somehow struggling to find the best answer or is “thinking on His feet.” I see no evidence that Jesus, based on a dialogue with these ancient Jews, suddenly “realizes” that Moses somehow had it right after all.  Rather, Jesus is acknowledging that God, for a time, was lenient in this matter, but that time has now passed.

The result: on the one hand the observation that “for the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to repudiate your wives” (Mt 19:8); on the other the absence of any decision to eliminate this Mosaic prescription, in keeping with what he solemnly declared in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not believe that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). Two attitudes that rule out the possibility of reading our pericope from a solely juridical or, even worse, compulsory perspective, as it tends to be considered in the Western Christian tradition and in that of Catholicism in particular.

But, of course, Fr. is absolutizing Jesus’ statement about not abolishing the law. Clearly Jesus did set aside some interpretive precepts (especially related to the Sabbath) and other things like Kosher laws (Mk 7:19). Father Gargano surely knows better than to absolutize like this.

Fr. also describes his opponents as reading the passage from a “solely juridical” point of view and describes our view as impossible. I expect better than this from a reputable scholar.

I am a pastor and consider the indissolubility of marriage to be an eminently pastoral and merciful framework. The person who wants to divorce and remarry is not the only one deserving of mercy, so are the discarded spouse and the children who have to grow up in a world of broken families.

The preservation of marriage and the sanctity of Holy Communion ARE pastoral and merciful teachings from Jesus and the Apostles, not just juridical “uptightness.”

In this case, in fact, we would be looking at an interpretation of the text that would dispense completely with the global context of the life and teachings of Jesus as they appear in the New Testament and from the cultural and religious context in which the teacher of Nazareth acted and taught, as emerges from the language analogous to that which is used by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount, including the stereotyped phrase “but I say to you” (Mt 19:9). It also cannot be denied that it is precisely leniency, and therefore the primacy of mercy, that characterized the teaching of Jesus and distinguished it from that of all, or almost all, the teachers among his contemporaries.

Now this is a common hermeneutic of many who have wished to set aside rather clear biblical teaching about homosexuality. And now it would seem that many want to apply this to divorce and remarriage as well.

Put colloquially, the interpretation is, Jesus was merciful and lenient so we should largely downplay any passages in which he seems angry or demanding. This was not like the “Jesus I know.”

Of course such a hermeneutic must discard hundreds of verses in which Jesus demands that we take up our cross, verses that say we are not worthy to be His disciples unless we renounce all our possessions, that say we must prefer nothing and no one to Him, etc. Such a view must ignore Jesus’ consistent warnings about judgment and Hell, His reminders that we will be accountable for our neglect of the poor, our impure acts and thoughts, our calling a brother “Raqa,” and even our idle words.

While many today oppose clear moral teaching from the love and mercy of God, they set up a false dichotomy to do so. God does not command us except in love, neither does He warn us except in love. In the Church, too, well-ordered love and mercy must be rooted in truth. The greatest mercy is to keep people out of Hell and to save them from all the suffering that precedes and comes from sin. Further, there must be a balance between concern for individual needs and the common good. Every false dichotomy in these matters must be avoided. Love without truth is not love at all, neither is it mercy. Seeking to cancel clear moral mandates from Jesus by an a appeal to a “God is love” principle or a “Mercy uber alles” standard is a false dichotomy. It is not love; it is not mercy; it is not authentic to the true Jesus of Scripture, who holds all these in balance and does not pick one and throw away the other.

Please remember to pray diligently for the Church in this hour. If any age is ill-equipped to teach on marriage, family, and sexuality, it is ours. The Church cannot afford to take cues from a confused and darkened culture. Jesus must always be our light, He and none other, speaking through Scripture and Tradition. Pray!

Our Lady of Cana, pray for us!