I have remarked before on this blog that what we call “balance” is really more of a range, than a fixed point. That is to say, balance is achieved not so much by staying still on a fixed point as by moving within a fixed range on that point. In the videos below the tightrope walker is only able to survive by being able to move within a range. The same is true and even more visible in the unicyclists in the first video. The moment they stop moving, they will fall.
And in this is a picture of virtue. What is virtue? A virtue is a habit of doing good. St Thomas Aquinas, basing himself on Aristotle, spoke of virtue as the mean between excess or defect. The old Latin saying comes to mind: In medio stat virtus (virtue stands in the middle).
The virtuous act is one that is neither excessive nor deficient. So, for example courage is neither foolhardy nor cowardly, and temperance is neither total abstinence nor gluttony. Humility is neither arrogance nor subservience. Perseverance is neither obstinacy nor capitulation. (Art and Laraine Bennett, The Emotions God Gave You: A Guide for Catholics, p. 83)
Thus, as a range of motion, the balance of the virtues is not something that freezes us, but is something that is better described as a range of motion within the golden mean.
It is true that in highly specified moral acts or settings, there is often only one valid choice, e.g. abortion, fornication, murder and so forth. But virtue here is understood more broadly as a general and habitual way of acting in accord with right reason.
Understanding virtue as the mean or middle between excess or defect is important for two reasons.
First, it helps us avoid being overly scrupulous. In life there is often a range of possibilities that present themselves to us and we need some flexibility to handle the unique circumstances of each moment. Thus we must act within a range of responses that respect what faith and reason require. Scrupulosity often freezes people on one aspect, and lacking balance limits the flexibility necessary to move in a morally graceful way.
Secondly, because life has many complex things that come together in varying combinations, it is not reasonable, possible or wise for the Church, or Scripture to speak to every possible moral topic and scenario. What the Church and Scripture do most frequently is to give us principles to apply along with virtue.
There are many critics of the Church, and of religion in general, who are dismissive of rules and “micromanaging” by Church authorities. Of course there are some rules, (frankly, there are rules in every walk of life). But more often, there are principles to be applied and it is quite impossible for the Church to micromanage every situation or have a rule for every possibility. The dignity of Catholics is respected by the Church, who, teaching us, then expects us to use our intellect and reason to apply them virtuously, that is, with neither excess nor defect.
Just brief reflection on virtue.
As you view these videos, note how balance is less a fixed point, and more a range of motion. Further, if the artist is not able to move within a range and adjust to circumstances moment by moment, disaster is sure to follow. Virtue is to move and act within the golden mean, within the range of neither excess nor defect. Virtue is a form of balance.
– In this second video it is clear that a tightrope walker’s range of motion is much narrower, but still he must be able to move within that range to adjust. I also want to say I am not even sure if tightrope walking is moral. In showing this video I do not affirm taking needless risks. I know they train well etc. The point of the video here is just to illustrate the point. The morality of tightrope walking is uncertain to me, but I’d lean against it 😉
One of the more common misunderstandings of the modern age, we might even call it a delusion, is to confuse explanation with meaning. Through scientific method and other empirical ways of studying, we have gotten very good at explaining many of the processes and mechanics of the natural world.
But to give explanation, is not the same as to ascribe meaning. To answer how things work is not the same as to answer why.
Why, for example, do things exist at all? Why is there existence vs. nonexistence? Why is there observable order in the universe vs. chaos. Showing for example the wonderful and symbiotic relationship of photosynthesis and describing how it works at the molecular level, does not explain why it is there in the first place. Explanation is not the same as meaning; “how” is not the same as “why.”
The Delusion – Yet, in our modern times, perhaps as a prideful result of being able to explain so much, we often think we have wholly accounted for not just how things work, but why. We have not. Many today like to argue that the material, or physical sciences have presented a comprehensive explanation for most things. They have not. By definition the physical sciences can only look to the physical interrelationships and secondary causes of things.
Put in philosophical terms, the physical sciences deal pretty well with material and efficient causality, but are not well equipped or able to answer questions of formal or final causality (More HERE and HERE) . Further, the material sciences can address some secondary causality, but not primary Causality (More HERE).
The error of our day, that the physical sciences give a comprehensive explanation for things is often referred to as “scientism.” As Father Robert Barron and others have rightly pointed out, there is a metaphysical assumption at the basis of all the physical sciences: namely, that reality is “intelligible.” It is a necessary presumption for the scientific method that things are not mindlessly, dumbly, or haphazardly here.
Science must base itself on intelligibility but cannot answer why there is intelligibility, why there is meaning at all, or purpose to be discovered. That we “think,” and are able to extract meaning, and that things are intelligible, is self-evident. But why do we have this capacity? Why do rocks and trees, and likely most animals, not have this capacity?
Simply looking to brain chemistry etc., can tell us some of “how” we have this capacity (though consciousness and the sense of “self” remain mysterious) but not “why.”
Again, to “explain” is not the same as to “understand.” One of the great tragedies in this modern and unreflective age is that too many do not grasp or realize this. In our intellectual acumen, impressive though it is, many have stopped adverting to the wonder and awe that engages our humility at the moral level, and our faith at the spiritual level.
Man is naturally spiritual.Hence we ask the burning question or “Why?!” And, despite the relatively recent surge of atheism in the decaying West, faith is quite ubiquitous in human history, and even today across most cultures. No matter how much we think we have “explained,” deep down, there is still that lingering question, “Why?” Ultimately, even the secularists and atheists of our modern age cannot wholly avoid this question, for explanation is not the same as meaning. They may postpone, try to ignore it, or deny its relevance, but one day they will and must confront it.
There is a remarkable story told about a dying soldier in the trenches of World War I. As the 18 year old lay dying, the Chaplain spoke to him to comfort him. In his delirium the soldier said, “Why?” The chaplain thought he was struggling with why he was dying after a mere 18 years of largely hidden life on this planet. And so he asked the solider, “Do you mean, ‘Why am I dying?'” But the soldier answered by asking something far more profound: “No,” said the soldier “Why did I live? What was I here for?”
“Why” is about meaning and is not a question that science is equipped to answer. It is not a question that seems to come from our body, or “brain,” it is a question that comes from our soul. There is no evidence that rocks or plants or animals ponder meaning, seek to understand, ask “why” or agonize over nonexistence as they lay dying. It is a uniquely human question: “Why….what is the meaning…..?” To explain is not the same as to understand.
No matter how materialistic, secular or atheistic our culture becomes, no matter how widespread the error of scientism is, it is not a question that is not going away: “Why…..why!?”
We who are of faith have answers given to us, for faith is a way of knowing based on God’s revelation. Granted the answers given by God are not understood by us comprehensively and contain mysterious elements. But, the answer to why things exist rather than not, why I am here rather than not, the answer is simply this: God is, and God is love.
We of the house of faith must gently but clearly “re-up” the fundamental question of “Why” to an unbelieving age and respectfully inisist that the question be addressed. There are many ways to ask it and then respectfully wait for an answer:
Why is there existence?
Why (not how) do you exist?
Why are you angered when I mention God? You are not angry when I mention a duck-billed platypus or the possibility of ancient space visitors to this planet who sowed the seeds of life. But my mention of God seems to evoke a strong response in you? Why?
If your anger is rooted in a sense of injustice (i.e. that what I say or believe is “wrong”), why?
In other words, why do we human beings have a sense of justice, of right and wrong? Where does it come from and on what is it based?
Is there any basis for morality at all, if as a materialist you say that everything is caused by random mutation and behavior and is biologically determined?
Why do you say believing in God is “wrong” and atheism is “right?” On what do you base this?
If you point to the “evil things” believers have done such as the “Inquisition,” where does your sense of injustice come from, and why be angry with believers if we are simply doing what the chemicals in our brain made us do?
Why is anything wrong at all, if behavior, thought and decision are simply and biologically determined?
In a word, “Why?”
Some will seek refuge in debates about meaning in terms like “pre-frontal cortex,” “hippo-campus” etc. But these sorts of words and concepts are focused on how, not why. Why does the brain do what it does, have what it has, and why is it there in the first place? Why is it not there instead?
In most traditional Catholic settings we usually think of the veil as something a woman wears, and as a sign of traditional modesty and prayer. In this sense we think of it as something good and positive, though perhaps some among us are less than enthusiastic.
But in the readings of Mass from this Wednesday, the veil is presented in far more ambivalent terms:
As Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the commandments in his hands, he did not know that the skin of his face had become radiant while he conversed with the LORD….the children of Israel…were afraid to come near him….He put a veil over his face. Whenever Moses entered the presence of the LORD to converse with him, he removed the veil until he came out again. On coming out, he would tell the children of Israel all that had been commanded. Then the children of Israel would see that the skin of Moses’ face was radiant; so he would again put the veil over his face until he went in to converse with the LORD (Exodus 34).
As we see, even the mere afterglow of God’s glory was something the people of old could not tolerate. Thus Moses wore a veil to shield them from God’s glory. And this is man in his sinful state, incapable of withstanding even the afterglow of God’s holiness.
On the one hand this humility is admirable. Unlike many modern, even many religious people today, the ancients knew that God was utterly holy, and that they were not. Many and varied were the rituals that recalled God’s holiness, and our sinfulness.
An often repeated but disputed tradition, is that the High Priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year on the feast of Yom Kippur entered with much incense, lest he catch a glimpse of the Holy One and be struck dead on account of his sins. It is also said that he wore bells around his waist such that when he prayed, bowing and moving, those outside the veil knew that he was still alive. It is further said that he had a rope tied about his ankle so that if he was struck dead he could be dragged out without others having to enter the Inner Sanctum, themselves risking death, to retrieve the body!
True or not, it is clear that the ancient Jews understood that it was an awesome thing to be in the presence of a living and holy God! For who can look on the face of God and live?! (cf Ex 33:20)
How different this is from we moderns who manifest such a relaxed and comfortable posture in the presence of God, in his holy Temple. As we discussed on the blog last week, almost any sense of awe and holy fear has been replaced by a extremely casual disposition, both in dress, and in action. No need to rehearse all of that here. Read last weeks blog for that: Remove Your Sandals!
But it is clear, that if the ancient Jewish practice was at one extreme, we are clearly at the other.
However, it would be a dubious position to hold that God expects the kind of fearsome reverence manifested in ancient Israel. Jesus clearly came to grant us access to the Father, through the forgiveness of our sins. As he died on the Cross, the Scripture says:
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. (Matt 27:50-51)
Yes, the veil in the temple was torn into from top to bottom. Extra biblical traditions (e.g. Josephus) also hold that after the earthquake, the large brass doors of the temple swung open and stayed that way.
Isaiah had saidOn this mountain he will destroy the veil that veils all peoples, the shroud that covers all nations (Is 25:7). This is clearly fulfilled at the moment that Jesus dies on the cross on Mount Moriah (Gologtha) and the veil of the Temple is rent. On account of the cleansing blood of Jesus that reaches us in our baptism, we gain access again to the Father. And thus we have a perfect right (granted us by grace) to stand before the Father with hands uplifted to praise Him.
So the veil is parted, torn asunder by Jesus. And thus the veil that veiled Moses’ face has something of an ambivalent quality. Yes, it does symbolize a great reverence. But it also signifies a problem that needed to be resolved. We were made to know God, to be able to look on the face of our God and live. Sin had made us incapable of doing this. Thus the veil that Moses wore was a veil that needed ultimately to be taken away.
St. Paul beautifully speaks of us looking on the face of the Lord with unveiled faces:
Setting forth the truth plainly, we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is only veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. …For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ. (2 Cor 4:2-6)
And again,
We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away….And we, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:13-18).
And thus, for some the veil remains. It is a veil that clouds their minds. This is not a veil of modesty or reverence, this is a veil of unknowing that must be removed by the gift of faith.
And thus, in Wednesday’s readings, we have a kind of “veil in reverse.” Most of us, at least the traditional among us, think of the veil as something beautiful and reverent. And it is. But the veil of Moses spoke of the sins and the sorrows of the people, it was a veil that needed to be removed.
That said, it remains true according to this author’s opinion that we moderns must find our way back to some degree of reverence and awe before the presence of God. Even in the New Testament, and after the resurrection, there are stories of both St. John and St. Paul who encountered the glory of the Lord Jesus, manifested from heaven. So awesome was this theophany that they both were struck down. Paul, as yet unbaptized was blinded. And John, though not blinded, fell to his face.
The removal of the veil of Moses is both necessary and prophesied, and cringing fear must give way to hopeful confidence and joy in the presence of the Lord. But especially in these proud times of self-esteem, there must be some manner in which we come to realize that we are in the presence of the Holy One of Israel,
As the ancient hymn from the Liturgy of St James says, All mortal flesh must keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand, pondering nothing earthly minded, for with blessing in His, Christ our God to Earth descendeth, our full homage to demand.
The veil of Moses is removed, but the “veil” of reverence, whether literal or metaphorical must remain.
The times in which we live are often described as “secular.” This word comes from the Latin “saecula” meaning “world.” Hence in saying our age is secular is another way of saying our times are worldly.
We may think it has always been so but such is not the case.
To be sure, it IS the human condition to be a little preoccupied with the world. But previous times have featured a much more religious focus than our own. The Middle Ages were especially known for way in which faith permeated the culture and daily experience. The Rose window to the right presents a typically Medieval Notion: Christ (the Lamb of God) at the center and everything surrounding Him.
In those days the holidays were the HOLY days and one’s understanding of the calendar and the time of year centered around the Church’s calendar of saints and feasts. It wasn’t Winter it was advent, and then Christmastide. Even the word Christmas was ChristMASS. Halloween was the “Een (evening before) all Hallows (All Saints Day). Three times every day the Church bells rang the “Angelus” calling Catholics to a moment of prayer in honor of the incarnation. The Bells also rang summoning Catholics to Mass and vespers. In a previous article in this blog (By Their Buildings You Will Know Them) it was noted that even the architecture of the Middle Ages placed a large church at the center of every town.
Those days were not perfect days but they were more spiritual and the Christians everywhere were constantly reminded of the presence of God by the culture in which they lived. Seldom so today. Many people today almost never hear of God on a day-to-day basis.
But the truth is, God is everywhere. He indwells his creation and sustains every aspect of it. The Scriptures say that Jesus holds all creation together in himself (Col 1:17). Most people think of creation as a sort of machine or closed system in which we live. But that is not the case. Creation is a revelation of and experience of God’s love and providence. Not one leaf falls to the ground without God leading it there. Not one hair of our head is unknown and provided for by God. We are enveloped by God, caught up into his presence.
It is especially sad for young people today. Some of us who are a bit older remember a time when God was more recognized. I remember that we prayed every day in my PUBLIC school until I was in 6th grade.
I remember my 4th grade teacher often reminding me when I got out of line: “God is Watching!” She also kept a copy of the King James Bible on her desk and the worst thing a student could do was to put anything on top of the Bible. Within seconds Mrs Hicks would scold: “Don’t ever put on top of God’s Word….!” To this day I have a deep instinct never to place anything on top of a Bible. In that same public school we began each day as our Principal, Mr. Bulware read from the Bible, usually the New Testament, and then we prayed the Lord’s Prayer, then followed the Pledge of Allegiance….One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I remember when Christmas (not “winter holidays”) in School was actually celebrated and that we sang religious songs even in public school well into my High School years. I remember our public high school choir singing “O Come All Ye Faithful” and many songs with religious subjects. Can you imagine a public school choir singing today “O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord” ? Gone are the days.
But we need to teach and help our young people get in touch with God’s presence. Families out to pray grace at meals with their children and have numerous religious images. There ought to be family prayer and observances of the various feasts and seasons of our Church.
Question For Readers: What are some of the websites you might know that are helpful in families staying focused on God? Perhaps there are some devoted to helping Children and Teenagers experience the faith and the cycle of the Church’s year? Perhaps a few of you can also recommend sites that are helpful in this regard.
But the point is that we have to be intentional about placing reminders of God’s presence in our lives and those of our children.
In the Gospel of Monday of this week, the Feast of St. Martha, there is an interesting dialogue between Jesus and Martha. Martha begins by saying, Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you. And thus Martha expresses her faith and hope in Jesus. But Jesus seeks to draw her out a bit and to get her to focus her faith in the moment. And thus the dialogue between them continues:
Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise.” Martha said to him, “I know he will rise, in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life…(John 11:22-23)
In this exchange St Martha articulates a common human tendency to “futurize” the blessings of God. And thus when Jesus speaks of her brother rising, she says, as we all do in effect: “Yes, I know that there will be blessings for me in some distant, and future heaven.”
But Jesus interjects, saying, “I AM the resurrection.” Notice that he does not say, “I will be the resurrection.” In effect he says to her and to us, “I am your resurrection to new life now, not merely in a future heaven. The new life, the eternal life, the life of grace that I died to give you is available to you now. Yes, even at this very moment a whole new way of living, a new and transformed life is available to you.”
Yes Jesus is our resurrection. We have already died and risen with him to the new life he offers. St Paul says in Romans:
All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:3-4)
So eternal life is now. Surely it will be full in heaven. But it began at our baptism, continues now and, if we are faithful, continues to grow. The phrase “eternal life” does not merely specify the length of life, but also the fulness of life.
Of this I am a witness. At age 52 my body is older, but my soul is more alive than I ever was at 22. I am more confident, more serene, more joyful and prayerful, more aware of God and more loving of God and neighbor. I have seen sins put to death and many new graces and talents come alive. I am more alive at 52 than I have ever been before. And wait till you see me at 82!
And thus Jesus says to St. Martha, and to us: “I AM the resurrection. The life I offer you is now.”
Yet, so easily we can either doubt this, or even seek to defer it. Perhaps we doubt it on account of some struggles or suffering we are currently enduring. Or perhaps we are discouraged by a lack of progress in some area of our life. And so some of us in weakness doubt that the new and eternal life is now.
But our deferring of new and resurrected life is more pernicious for it is rooted in sloth. Too easily we can slip into a kind of excuse-making disposition that prefers to focus on our present limits than on God’s present gifts. And so we will think or say: “I am not responsible for my failings. My mother dropped me on my head when I was two, and my Father was mean….I am only human after all and I am going through a few things now.”
Whether they are true or not, focusing on our present limits and past wounds provides an easy out for the demands of our higher calling. For, if it is true that Jesus has brought us to a new and more glorious life and has set us free, with that freedom and life comes a greater responsibility and higher expectations. But all that is “too much trouble” and so we flee from it and prefer to see heaven and eternal (full) life as something off in the distant future.
This is sloth, namely sorrow, sadness or aversion at the good things God is offering. Rather than to joyfully accept the new life God offers, we draw back into the lesser but more familiar doldrums of mediocrity where excuses and lower expectations dominate.
To all this, Jesus says, “I AM the resurrection.” That is, “Begin now. Lay hold of the life I died to give you. Do not be satisfied with anything less that the vigorous transformation I offer you beginning now! Why not become totally fire?!”
St Martha thought of the blessings only in some future context. It is doubtful that she thought this merely in sloth for she was shocked and saddened by the death of her brother and not yet heir to the gospel as fully preached.
But we too often DO postpone heaven for slothful reasons. And like the Ancients Jews who often seemed to prefer the slavery of Egypt (with its fleshpots and melons and leeks) to the freedom of the desert with its challenges and responsibilities.
Again to us us Jesus offers this simple declaration and invitation: “I AM (now) the resurrection….Do you believe this?”
Beware of sloth and pray for joy at what God offers and zeal to lay hold of it.
Recent remarks by the retired Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu are not surprising for an Anglican prelate these days, but remain disturbing. Briefly put, the Archbishop says he would rather go to hell than go to a “homophobic heaven.” Here’s some more complete report page of his remarks, in yesterdays Washington Times.
South Africa’s iconic retired archbishop, Desmond Tutu, said on Friday that if he had his pick, he’d go to hell before heading to a heaven that condemned homosexuality as sin. “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this,” he said, by way of denouncing religions that discriminate against gays, in Agence France-Presse….He added, AFP reported: “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.” [1][2]
In fairness to the good Archbishop, the full context of these remarks is not included in the report but includes (but is not limited to) concerns about violence directed against homosexuals. Further, his many works on behalf of racial justice remain intact and were part of a noble struggle.
That said, there are several disturbing aspects to the archbishops comments:
1. He describes his opponents over-generally in this matter by using the term “homophobic.”And while it may be true that somewhere on this planet there are individuals who are truly “fearful” (=phobia) of homosexual persons, or who hate them merely because they are homosexual, the use of the word “homophobic” is it best unhelpful, and at worse an uncharitable and inaccurate description. Most of us who oppose the approval or celebration of homosexual acts do so not in fear, but on principle, based on biblical and natural law reasons.
It is possible that the good archbishop is speaking only of the tiny minority who fear or hate homosexuals simply for their existence. And there are legitimate concerns, as expressed by the Archbishop, about countries where homosexual acts are criminalized (along with fornication and adultery). Perhaps this is not the best way to deal with these matters. Where there are acts of violence against homosexual persons, they are rightly condemned, as a are any acts of violence.
But I was not born yesterday, and it seems clear enough that Archbishop Tutu also means people like me when he uses the term “homophobic.” And he most likely includes the Catholic Church when he denounces religious bodies that “discriminate” against homosexual persons (a charge I certainly deny) because we do not condone homosexual activity. Yes, it would seem he surely includes us in his category of “homophobic.” For he has chosen to use a word that is widely bandied about to refer to all persons, even those of sincere conscience, who oppose the militant homosexual agenda. And if the archbishop does not mean me or the Catholic Church, at the very least I should hope for a clarification on his part.
It is a tired old tactic of many who support the approval and celebration of homosexual acts to use terms to describe their opponents that are both ridiculing, and paint us in the darkest possible terms (e.g. hateful, bigoted, discriminatory etc). Surely the Archbishop must know, even if he does not agree with many of us who oppose approval of homosexual activity and same-sex unions, that we think and speak out of an ancient biblical tradition which we believe to be the very word of God.
And while some today employ many dubious, or at least debatable interpretive theories of Scripture to avoid what the biblical texts clearly do say, it remains very evident to many of us that at every stage of biblical revelation, from the first pages of the Bible all the way to its concluding pages, that homosexual activity is condemned as sinful. I have written more on that here: Letter on Homosexuality
Disagree with me if you sadly must, but I am no more homophobic than I am forniphobic for opposing fornication.
A simple request, of the archbishop would be a clarification and to avoid name-calling and simplifying the positions of his opponents. Likewise, for all who use similar tactics. It isn’t becoming to serious conversation, and surely is unbecoming of a Christian archbishop.
2. Any version of the words “I’d rather go to hell” should not pass the lips of anyone, let alone a Christian, even more so a Christian leader. Statements like these tend to invite unwanted demonic activity, and open the door to the wrong sorts of forces and drives.
While one can certainly hold the good archbishop was engaged in rhetorical flourish and hyperbole, it remains true that words to wit: “I’d rather go to hell” should not be uttered for the reasons stated.
And even if it be so that it is merely hyperbole, why should such anger be engaged and deployed so widely? Does he really mean to speak this way, about a behavior that is reasonably rejected among Christians who read God’s word?
If the good archbishop considers me his enemy in this matter, did not the Lord say something about loving our enemies? If the archbishop considers me and others like me his persecutors, did not the Lord say that we should pray for our persecutors? Why would an archbishop theoretically familiar with God’s Word, say to me or others like me in effect, “I’d rather go to hell than live with you in heaven.” Whence this anger, and the great lack of charity? It is wrong even to speak this way about those who who do act violently or hatefully toward homosexuals. Enemies are to be loved, persecutors prayed for.
3. Archbishop Tutu in an excerpt not quoted above but available by clicking on the links above equates the struggle against “homophobia” with the struggle against apartheid. As the pastor of a largely African American Parish, I know many Blacks who are troubled by the equating of the demands of homosexual activists with those of the civil rights activists some years ago. The concerns about homosexual acts regard behavior, whereas the concern of the civil rights movement was about race and discrimination based solely on that, not on behavior.
In particular, the Catholic Church distinguishes between homosexual orientation (disordered, but not per se sinful) and homosexual acts (sinful, as are acts of fornication and adultery in accord with the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture).
It is unjust to excoriate others for their opposition of behavior with the logic that pertains to a non-behavioral trait such as race.
Some will argue that “God made them this way.” I am not so sure about that but will accept that most do not simply choose sexual orientation. That said, alcoholics, diabetics, and people who struggle with anger, do not choose these inclinations or struggles either. Nevertheless they must strive to act uprightly in spite of them. Heterosexuals are also summoned to act uprightly in spite of the often unruly sexual passions we possess. The God made me this way argument is does not set aside the question of behavior.
The opposition of the Church is about behavior, not how one is tempted or inclined. Chastity remains the rule for all. Those who have not received the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the Scriptures set it forth must refrain form genital sexual contact. Those who have received Holy Matrimony must stay faithful to one to their husband or wife.
4. Some note should be given to the phrase “homophobic heaven” spoken by the Archbishop.
First of all the concept of a “homophobic heaven” is a null set. For if there is true homophobia, it is rooted in fear and possibly in hate and these do not pertain to heaven. But as for the opposition to homosexual acts (along with heterosexual acts such as fornication and adultery), that is not homophobia, it is the stated opposition of God to such acts as clearly recorded in scripture. God is not homophobic, but he does oppose homosexual acts. Calling God homophobic, or his Church or St. Paul or any other person does not make them homophobic. Opposition to the radical Gay agenda does not thereby make God or heaven “homophobic.” If it does not please Archbishop Tutu that homosexual acts are not approved or celebrated in heaven I suppose he does not have to go there. But he cannot simply expect heaven to be on his terms. Heaven is what it is, the fullness of the Kingdom of God and all it values, one of which is Chastity, and opposition to all acts contrary to it.
There is a lamentable tendency today for many Christians to define heaven on their own terms: “Heaven will be a place of pleasure, as I define pleasure. I will be among the company of those I choose, and everything will be on my terms.”
But of course, this is not what heaven is. Heaven is the fullness of the kingdom of God, the fullness of the values of the kingdom of God. Heaven is to be with God himself who is justice and truth, as he has set these forth. Heaven is about things like love of God, the liturgical worship of the Lord, love for the poor, love for my enemy, mercy, forgiveness, and yes, chastity!
Rather than to define what Heaven is for us, it is our work, to learn who God is and what heaven is as God has revealed it, and to begin by his grace to acclimate ourselves for the heaven that really is. Yes, we must be prepared to meet the real God, the biblical God, not some fake god. And we should be prepared to go to the real heaven, not some fake “designer heaven.”
Pillar of truth – We have no better indication of who God really is, what heaven is, and what God really expects of us than the revealed Word of God, in the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
Sadly, the larger portion of the Anglican denomination departed from these pillars sometime ago. Scripture is radically reinterpreted so that it often does not mean what the text clearly says. Further, The ancient biblical wisdom, both in the Old Covenant and the New, along with the apostolic and sacred Tradition have been set aside in favor of modern teachings barely 20 to 30 years old. This sadly is the course that the Anglican denomination, along with many other mainline Protestant denominations have taken.
On the other hand, the sure and certain testimony of the Word of God, about who God really is, this is where I, and others like me must stand. I can do no other, for God has revealed no other certain and surer source to know who He is what I must do. If this makes me the Archbishop’s enemy such that he would rather live in Hell than with with me, so be it.
But here I stand, I can do no other, for the Word of the Lord has spoken through his Church and the Sacred Scripture entrusted once and for all to his Church.
One of the great “evils” of our time is satiation. I put the word “evil” into quotes here to emphasize that no particular good thing that God has made is, in itself evil. But we, on account of our own inordinate drives, accumulate and indulge beyond reason. And in becoming satiated, that is filled, we leave little room for God or others for that matter.
The more affluent we become in material things, the more spiritually poor we seem to become. The higher our standard of living, the lower our overall morals. The more filled our coffers, the emptier our Churches. This is the evil of our times. And it is no theory. The numbers demonstrate well that, over the past 60 years that as our standard of living has risen, church attendance and other signs of belief and spirituality have plummeted. So has family time, and the developing of deeper human relationships. Marriage rates have plummeted, divorce has soared. Birthrates are down. Kids are a burden in a satiated world with a high standard of living.
And it isn’t just wealth. It’s all the things which distract and divert us. There are so many things, most of them lawful pleasures, but often just too much of a good thing.
One might imagine another scenario wherein we were astonished by God’s providence and fell to our knees in gratitude, and in our riches, and possession of many good things and pleasures went to prayer and church even more, out of sheer gratefulness. Alas this is seldom the case today.
Proverbs 30 says,Give me neither poverty nor riches; Feed me [only] with food that I need for today: Lest I be full, and deny you, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. (Proverbs 30:9-10).
Yes, indeed…lest I be full and denying you say, “Who is the Lord?” It is indeed a snare in our times that many think they do not need God, or others. Our affluence creates the illusion of self sufficiency and self fulfillment.
St. Augustine sadly noted in a time far less satiated than our own: I, unlovely, rushed heedlessly among the things of beauty You made. You were with me, but I was not with You. Those things kept me far from You, which, unless they were in You, would not be. (Conf 10.27).
Many other scriptures warn of the spiritual danger posed by wealth and worldly satiation:
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. (1 Tim 6:9-10)
No servant 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! (Luke 16:13)
But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. (Luke 6:24-25)
But many that are first will be last, and the last first! (Mat 19:30).
How hard it is for the rich 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.” (Mk 10:23-25)
It is amazing that, hearing all this most of us still want to be rich and would jump for joy if we won the lottery, instead of soberly cringe with fear and look for good ways to shed our excess.We still continue down a path of unreasonable desire and satiation.
Alas, the human condition, at least the fallen version of it. It isn’t very pretty and is proof positive that we are going to need a lot of grace and mercy to get home.
Think of that this as you watch this video. It’s a pretty stark portrait of the modern man. Consider how full, yet lonely he is. He speaks only of himself, and seems to interact with almost no one: lost in a self-referential world of excess, filled with every good thing, but too full for God. Somehow the man knows that the worldly things fill him for only a moment and pass. But still the answer is more! Quite a little portrait here of too many today.
We are reading the parable of the Sower in Daily Mass. Someone asked me a question: Since the sower is the Son of Man, Jesus himself, why would the Lord, who knows everything ahead of time, sow seed he knew would not bear fruit?
First, let’s review the text:
“A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep, and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it. But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit, a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold. Whoever has ears ought to hear.” (Matt 13:1-9)
So the question presents, Why then would God waste any seed on rocky or thin soil, or the path?
Perhaps a series of possible “answers” is all we can venture. I place “answers” in quotes since we are in fact touching on some mysteries here of which we can only speculate. So, here are some “answers.”
I. God is extravagant – it is not just seed He scatters liberally, it is everything. There are hundreds of billions of stars in over 100 billion galaxies, most of these seemingly devoid of life as we understand it. Between these 100 billion galaxies are huge amounts of, what seems to be, empty space. On this planet where one species of bird would do, there are thousands of species, tens of thousands of different sorts of insects, a vast array of different sorts of trees, mammals, fish etc. “Extravagant” barely covers it. The word “extravagant” means “to go, or wander beyond.” And God has gone vastly beyond anything we can imagine. But God is love, and love is extravagant. The image of him sowing seeds, almost in a careless way is thus consistent with the usual way of God.
This of course is less an answer to the question before us than a deepening of the question. The answer, if there is one, is caught up in the mystery of love. Love does not say, what is the least I can do? It says “What more can I do.” If a man loves a woman, he does not look for the cheapest gift on her birthday, rather he looks for an extravagant gift. God is Love and God is extravagant.
II. Even if the failed seed represents those who ultimately reject him, God loves that seed anyway. Remember, as Jesus goes on to explain, the seeds that fail to bear fruit, are symbols of those who allow riches, worldly preoccupation, persecution and other things to draw them away from God. But, even knowing this, does not change God’s love for them. He still wills their existence. Scripture says elsewhere, But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt 5:44-45).
Yes, God loves even those who will reject him and will not, knowing ahead of that rejection, say to them, “You cannot exist.” He thus scatters even that seed, knowing ahead of time that it will not bear fruit. Further, he continues to send the sun and rain, even on those who will reject him.
Hence this parable shows forth God’s unfailing love. He sows seeds, even knowing they will not bear the fruit he wants. He wills the existence of all, even those who he knows ahead of time will reject him.
III. That God sows seeds and allows them to fall on bad soil is indicative of God’s justice. The various places the seed falls is indicative of human freedom, more than illustrative of the intent of God. For one may still question, “Why would God “allow” seed to fall on the path, or among thorns, or in rocky soil?” And the only answer here is that God has made us free. Were He to go and take back the seeds that fell in unfruitful places one could argue that God withdrew his grace and that one was lost on account of this, namely that God manipulated the process by withdrawing every possible grace. But God, in justice calls everyone and offers sufficient grace for all to come to faith and salvation. And thus the sowing of the seed everywhere is indicative of God’s justice.
IV. The variety of outcomes teaches us to persevere and look to faithfully sowing, rather than merely to the harvest. Sometimes we can become a bit downcast when it seems our work has born little fruit. And the temptation is to give up. But, as an old saying goes, “God calls us to be faithful, not successful.” In other words, it is up to us to be the means the means whereby the Lord sows the seed of his Word. The Word is in our hands, by God’s grace, but the harvest is not.
This parable teaches us that not every seed we sow will bear fruit. In fact a lot of it will not, for the reasons described by the Lord in a later part of the parable.
The simple mandate remains ad is this: preach the Word, Go unto all the nations and make disciples. St. Paul would later preach to Timothy: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction (2 Tim 4:2). In other words, sometimes the gospel is accepted, sometimes it is rejected. Preach it any way. Sometimes the gospel is popular, sometimes not. Preach it anyway. Sometimes the Gospel is in season, sometimes it is out of season. Preach it anyway. Sow the seeds, don’t give up.
Discharge your duty! St. Paul goes on to sadly remark, For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Tim 4:3-5). Once again the message is the same: preach anyway, sow the seed of the Word, persevere, do not give up, do not be discouraged. Discharge your duty and be willing to endure hardship, just preach! Some of the seed will yield a rich harvest, some will not, preach anyway.
So, permit these “answers.” God sows seed he knows will bear no fruit because he is extravagant, because he loves and wills the existence even of those he knows will reject him, because of his justice, and to teach us to persevere, whatever the outcome.
I interpret this video to mean that God will never withdraw his offer, not that he is trying to force a solution. For though he wants to save us, and promises never to let go, he respects our freedom to let go.
