Back in February I gave a talk to a large group (300+) at the Blessed John Paul II Shrine here in Washington. The topic was a pastoral plan for the family. The video of that talk became available recently and I thought I’d share it here.
So you think the idea of the 12 Steps is new. Well, if you think you’ve got a new idea, go back and see how the Greeks put it, or in this case how the Medieval Latins put it. St. Bernard of Clairvaux identified twelve steps up the mountain of pride. These are detailed in a work by him entitled Steps of Humility and Pride.
In today’s post we focus on the Twelve Steps of Pride. Tomorrow, on the Twelve Steps of Humility (from St Benedict’s rule). Here I list the 12 Steps of Pride only briefly and give a brief commentary on each which is mine, so don’t blame St. Bernard. 🙂 Again, the list is his. The inferior comments are mine.
One will note how the 12 steps grow far more serious as we go along and and lead ultimately to the slavery of sin. The steps tend to build on one another, beginning in the mind, moving to behavior, and then to deepening attitudes of presumption and ultimately bringing forth revolt and slavery. For if one does not serve God, he will serve Satan.
Twelve steps up the mountain of pride. Think of these like escalating symptoms:
(1) Curiosity – There is such a thing as healthy curiosity but often we also delve into things we ought not: other peoples affairs, private matters, sinful things and situations, and so forth. What makes such curiosity to be annexed to pride is that so often we think we have a right to know things we do not. And hence we pridefully and indiscreetly look into things that we ought not, things that are not for us to know, or which are inexpedient and distracting for us, or perhaps the knowledge which we seek is beyond our ability to handle well. But casting all caution aside, and with a certain prideful and privileged sense we pry, meddle, and look into things we ought not as if we had a right to do so. This is sinful curiosity.
(2) Levity of mind – Occupying our mind with things not appropriate grows and we tend to become playful in wider matters. Here too, there is a valid sense of humor and a kind of recreational diversion that has a place. A little light banter about sports or pop culture may provide momentary diversions that are relaxing. But too often this just about all we do and we pridefully cast aside matters about which we should be serious and pursue only light and passing things. In ignoring or making light of serious things pertaining to eternity and delving only into entertaining and passing things, we pridefully ignore things to which we ought to attend. Hours watching sitcoms and “reality” TV but no time for prayer, study, instruction of children in the faith, caring for the poor, and so forth is a lack of seriousness that manifests pride. We lightly brush aside what is important to God and substitute our own foolish priorities. This is pride.
(3) Giddiness – Here we move from a levity of mind to the frivolous behaviors they produce, behaviors in which we over-emphasize lightweight experiences or situations, at the expense of more serious and important things having to do with profundities. Silly, vapid, foolish and capricious behaviors indicate a pride wherein one is not rich in what matters to God. We pridefully maximize the minimum and minimize the maximum. We find all the time for frivolities but no time for prayer or study of Holy Truth.
(4) Boasting – Increasingly locked into our little world of a darkened intellect and foolish behavior we begin to exult in lower behaviors and consider such carnal behaviors to be a sign of greatness. And thus we begin to boast of foolish things. To boast is to speak and think of oneself more highly than is true or reasonable. While we should learn to appreciate the gifts we have, we ought to recall that they ARE gifts give us by God and often through others who helped us develop them. St. Paul says, What have you that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you boast as though you had not? (1 Cor 4:7) But the boaster thinks too highly of himself either asserting gifts he does not have or forgetting that what he does have is a grace, a gift. This is pride. And, as we have seen our boasting tends to be about foolish and passing things.
(5) Singularity– Our world gets ever smaller and yet we think ourselves even greater. We are king alright, king of an ant hill, rulers of a tiny speck of dust sweeping through the immensity of space. But as our pride grows we too easily we forget our dependance on God and others for who and what we are. There is no such thing as a self made man. We are all contingent beings, very dependent on God and others. Further, we also too easily draw into our own little mind and world and tend to think that something is so just because we think so. Withdrawing only to our own counsel we discount the evidence of reality and stop seeking information and counsel from others. The man who seeks only his own counsel has a fool for and adviser, and a prideful adviser at that. Singularity is pride. Yet this pride swells as our world gets ever smaller and more singular, focused increasingly only on our self.
(6) Self-conceit – Here is described an unjustly favorable and unduly high opinion of one’s own abilities or worth. As our world gets ever smaller and our pride ever greater our self focus and delusion grows ever stronger and we become increasingly self-referential. Something is now so merely because I say so. I am fine because I say so. Never mind that all of us are a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, sanctity and sinfulness. Too easily we grow blind to just how difficult we can be to live with. Too easily we find faults in others but fail to see them in our very self. Further, we too easily seek for others to favorably compare our self, thinking, “Well at least I am not like that prostitute or drug dealer over there.” But being better than a prostitute or drug dealer is not the standard we must meet. Jesus is the standard we must meet. But rather than refer our self to Jesus and seek mercy, we refer our self to others we look down on and give way to pride.
(7) Presumption – Now even God’s judgements must cede to ours. I am fine and will be saved because I say so. This is a sin against hope wherein we simply take salvation as granted and due to us no matter what we do. In effect we already claim to possess what we do not. It is right for us to confidently hope for God’s help in attaining eternal life. This is the Theological virtue of Hope. But it is pride to think we have already accomplished and possess what we do not already have or possess. It is a further pride to set aside God’s Word which over and over teaches us walk in hope and seek God’s help as a beggar, not as a possessor or as one legally entitled to glory in heaven. Presumption is pride.
(8) Self-justification – Jesus must now vacate the Judgment seat because I demand his place. Not only that, but he must also vacate the cross because I don’t really need his sacrifice. I can save myself, and frankly I don’t need a lot of saving. Self-justification is the attitude that says I am able, by my own power to justify, that is save myself. It is also an attitude that says, in effect: “I will do what I want to do and I will decide if it is right or wrong.” St. Paul says, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:3-4). But the prideful person cares only for his own view of himself and refuses to be accountable ultimately even to God. The prideful person forgets that no one is a judge in his own case.
(9) Hypocritical confession – The word hypocrite in Greek means “actor.” Now we will observe that in certain settings some degree of humility and acknowledgement of ones fault is “profitable.” One can get “credit” for humbly acknowledging certain faults and calling himself a “sinner.” But, the prideful man is just acting. Just playing a role and doing his part more for social credit than out of real contrition or repentance. After all, I’m really not that bad off. But if posturing and playing the role of the humble and contrite sinner will get me somewhere, I’ll say my lines, play the part and look holy. But only if the applause from the audience is forthcoming.
(10) Revolt – Pride really begins to go off the rails when one outright revolts against God and his lawful representatives. To revolt means to renounce allegiance to or any sense of accountability or obedience to God, to his Word or to His Church. To revolt is to attempt to overthrow the authority of others, in this God and his Church. It is prideful to refuse to be under any authority and act in ways that are directly contrary to what lawful authority rightly asserts.
(11) Freedom to sin – Here pride reaches its near conclusion as it arrogantly asserts and celebrates that it is utterly free to do what it pleases. The prideful man is increasingly rejecting of any restraints or limits. But the freedom of the proud man is not really freedom at all. Jesus says, Whoever sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34) and the Catechism echoes: The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to the slavery of sin. (Catechism 1733) But the proud man will have none of this and arrogantly goes on asserting his freedom to do what he pleases even as he descends deeper and deeper into addiction and every form of slavery.
(12) The habit of sinning – and thus we see Pride’s full and ugly flower: habitual sin and slavery to sin. As St. Augustine says, For of a forward will, was a lust made; and a lust served, became custom; and custom not resisted, became necessity.(Conf 8.5.10)
And thus we have climbed in twelve steps the mountain of pride. It begins in the mind with a lack of sobriety rooted in sinful curiosity and frivolous preoccupation. Next come frivolous behavior and excusing, presumptive and dismissive attitudes. Last comes out right revolt and slavery to sin. Pride is now in full flower. The slavery comes for if one refuses in pride to serve God he will serve Satan.
We have seen an escalation in these steps which is not far from an old admonition: sow a thought, reap a deed; sow a deed, reap an habit; sow a habit, reap a character, sow a character, reap a destiny.
Is there a way down this mountain of pride? Tune in tomorrow.
We have discussed before on this blog that we live in a culture where maturity is often significantly delayed. In fact there are many in our culture who never grow up. One paradigm of our culture is to that it is fixated on teenage years. Fixation is a psychological description of a person who has not successfully navigated one of the stages of infancy or youth and thus remains stuck in the thinking and patterns of that stage, to one degree or another. Out culture’s fixation on teenage issues and attitudes is manifest in some of the following:
Irrational aversion to authority
Refusal to use legitimately use the authority one has
Titillation and irresponsibility regarding sexuality
General irresponsibility and a lack of personal accountability
Demanding all of one’s rights but avoiding most of one’s responsibilities
Blaming others for one’s own personal failings
Being dominated by one’s emotions and carried away easily by the passions
Obsession with fairness evidenced by the frequent cry, “It’s not fair!”
Expecting others and government agencies to do for me what I should do for myself
Aversion to instruction
Irrational rejection of the wisdom of elders and tradition
Obsession with being and looking young, aversion to becoming or appearing old
Lack of respect for elders
Obsession with having thin and young looking bodies
Glorification of irresponsible teenage idols in culture.
Inordinate delay of marriage, widespread preference for the single life.
I have often been accused when writing in this manner, especially by younger men that I have little idea what they really face. I do plead to being guilty of being less sensitive to the struggle of men simply because I am a man. I don’t generally like to hear men make excuses, as a man it alarms me. Men tend to tell each other to make no excuses and to “be a man.”
But I was alerted recently to two other articles on this subject. One of them is by a woman who has some good insights to the lack of male maturity today. Sometimes it takes someone on the outside to better grasp the dynamics. I think she shows a little more understanding (in both the intellectual and sympathetic sense of the word), and if it helps male readers to experience greater insight than I have to offer, I offer here an excerpt with comments by me in red:
Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This “pre-adulthood” has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated.
So she coins a term here called “pre-adulthood.” I have tended just to call this “extended adolescence” but her terms does capture the fact that many of the immature men (and some women too) do live away from parents and do have jobs, but otherwise are not so different from adolescents and college preppies. So her term does include a necessary distinction.
But it’s time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn’t bring out the best in men….They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home…..
Exactly. I have had many women tell me how tedious young men are. I usually reply that a feminized culture has largely produced them. So has a culture fixed on teen themes. Men also get mixed messages from both women and culture to the effect “Be a man, but don’t do it in a manly way…Show some leadership but get out of the way…. Many men are rightly confused, especially younger men who are some two generations removed from anything resembling a patriarchal family structure. Today matriarchy is the norm almost everywhere, and if there is even a whiff of Patriarchy it is round mocked and even punished legally. Ms Hymowitz will develop this more.
Among “pre-adults,”(again, her word for the extension of adolescence)women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor’s degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends….Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys…
Yes the feminists in our culture have long ago succeed in emasculating culture and making male proclivities almost criminal. In schools young boys who show the traditional spit and vinegar are declared ADHD and medicated. They are forbidden the rough and tumble that used to be usual fare for growing boys. Leadership and the aggression (within proper limits) that often fuels male leadership is excoriated etc. In this strange land of largely feminine run schools boys are poorly formed and it makes sense that they under-achieve. Nevertheless, despite decades of this, most feminists still claim victim status and continue to double-down on further feminizing the scene. Gone are the days when Father Flanagan caught two boys fighting and issued them boxing gloves and set the time for a proper fight between gentlemen after school.
For a long time, the poor and recent immigrants were not part of adolescent life; they went straight to work, since their families couldn’t afford the lost labor and income….today’s pre-adults have been wait-listed for adulthood. Yes this phenomenon is quite recent and rooted in western affluence and to some degree decadence.
Marketers and culture creators help to promote pre-adulthood as a lifestyle…. Precisely.
Pre-adulthood has also confounded the primordial search for a mate. It has delayed a stable sense of identity, dramatically expanded the pool of possible spouses, mystified courtship routines and helped to throw into doubt the very meaning of marriage.
In 1970, to cite just one of many numbers proving the point, nearly seven in 10 25-year-olds were married; by 2000, only one-third had reached that milestone… In 1974 there were 400,000 weddings in Catholic Parishes in the USA. In 2004 there were 199,000 weddings. Cut more than in half and it has dropped like a rock since.
It’s been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.
George Guilder made this same point in a landmark Book Men and Marriage. Ms. Hymowitz does a remarkable job in just two sentences of describing the remarkable toll the break down of the family has had on men. Along with expansive (Mommy State) government usurping a provider role and the general feminization of culture, men are in a cauldron of confusion and obsolescence, a kind of perfect storm.
Today’s pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn’t say. He has to compete in a fierce job market, but he can’t act too bossy or self-confident. He should be sensitive but not paternalistic, smart but not cocky….
Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do. They might as well just have another beer. Wow.
I realize both Ms Hymnowitz’s remarks and mine too are not without controversy, especially my remarks about the feminizing of culture. I saying this I do not mean to say there is no value in femininity, only that things have gone out of balance for men. Comments are open.
The first reading from today’s Mass is an extraordinary moral tale from the Book of Daniel. It is the story of Susanna. The full passage (which is quite lengthy) can be found here: Daniel 13:1-62. Interestingly it is missing from Protestant Bibles which use a truncated version of the Book of Daniel. As such it is a lesser known passage, even among Catholics since it is only read on a weekday Mass once a year.
It features the story of a beautiful young woman, Susanna, married to a man named Joakim. One day as she is bathing in a private garden two older men who have hidden themselves there out of lust try to seduce Susanna who rebuffs their brazen overture. They threaten to falsely accuse her of having committed adultery with a young man in garden if she does not give way to their desires. She still refuses and they follow through on their threatened lie. They further demand that she should be stoned. Things look bleak for Susanna until Daniel comes to the rescue and, through crafty interrogation, exposes their lie for what it is. The story is a small masterpiece. If you have never read it, you should. In the course of its engaging tale it gives us a kind of anatomy lesson of sin. It is good to consider the teachings here.
In a remarkable description the story describes a threefold source from which their sins spring forth. The text says: They suppressed their consciences; they would not allow their eyes to look to heaven, and did not keep in mind just judgments. (Daniel 13:9). I’d like to take a look at each of these three sources from which sin springs.
1. They suppressed their consciences– What is the conscience? The Catechism defines it thus: For Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God, This is his conscience, there he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths… (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) # 1776). So, in effect, the conscience is the voice of God within us. God has written his Law in the hearts of every human person.
Thus, in terms of basic right and wrong, we know what we are doing. There may be certain higher matters of the Law that the conscience must be taught (eg. the following of certain rituals or feasts days etc.). But in terms of fundamental moral norms, we have a basic and innate grasp of what is right and wrong. Deep down inside we know what we are doing. We see and salute virtues like bravery, self-control, and generosity. We also know that things like murder of the innocent, promiscuity, theft, destruction of reputations etc are wrong.For all the excuses we like to make, deep down inside we know what we are doing, and we know that we know. I have written substantially about conscience elsewhere (HERE).
But notice that it says that they “suppressed their consciences.” Even though we know something is wrong we often want to do it anyway. One of the first things our wily minds will do is to try and suppress our conscience. To suppress something is to put it down by force, to inhibit or to try and exclude something from awareness or consciousness.
The usual way of doing this is through rationalizations and sophistry. We invent any number of thoughts, lies and distortions to try and reassure our self that something is really OK, something that deep down inside we know isn’t OK.
We also accumulate false teachers and teachings to assist in this suppression of the truth that our conscience witnesses to. St. Paul wrote to Timothy: For the time will come when men 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. (2 Tim 4:1-3).
It is quite an effort to suppress one’s own conscience and I would argue that we cannot ever do it completely. In fact the whole attempt to suppress the conscience is not only quite an effort, it is also very fragile. This helps explain the anger and hostility of many in the world toward the Church. Deep down they know we are right and often, just the slightest appeal to the conscience to awaken its voice, causes quite an eruption of fear and anger.
So here is the first stage in the anatomy of a sin: the suppression of the conscience. In order to act wickedly and not face deep psychological pain of significant guilt these men in the story first suppress their conscience in order to shut off the source of that pain. Step one is underway.
2. They would not allow their eyes to look to heaven– In order to sustain the fictions, stinking thinking, rationalizations, and sophistry that are necessary to suppress the conscience, it is necessary for one to distance himself from the very source of conscience, God himself.
One way to do this is to drift away from God though neglect of prayer, worship, study of the Word of God and association with the Church which speaks for God. Drifting away may become more severe as times goes on and the refusal to repent becomes deeper. Drifting soon becomes absence and absence often becomes outright hostility to anything religious or biblical.
Another way that some avert their eyes from heaven is to redefine God. The revealed God of Scripture is replaced by a designer God who does not care about this thing or that. “God doesn’t care if I go to church, or shack up with my girlfriend etc.” On being shown scripture quite contrary to their distorted notions of God they simply respond that Paul had hangups, or that the Bible was written in primitive times.
Culturally the refusal to look heavenward is manifest in the increasing hostility to the Catholic Christian faith. Demands growing increasingly strident that anything even remotely connected to the faith be removed from the public square. Prayer in public, nativity sets, Church Bells, any reference to Jesus or Scripture in schools, etc. It must all be removed according to the radical seculars who refuse to turn their eyes heavenward or even have anything around that reminds them to do so.
The cumulative effect is that many are no longer looking to heaven or to God. Having suppressed their conscience they now demand a Godless public square. Still others reinvent a fake God, a false kingdom, an idol. Either way, the purpose is to isolate and insulate the self from God and what he reveals.
This makes it easier to maintain the rather exhausting effort of suppressing the conscience.
So for these men in the story, step two in engaged and it further supports the suppression of conscience necessary to commit sin without the pain of guilt.
3. And did not keep in mind just judgment– Finally lets throw in a little presumption which dismisses any consequences for evil acts. This of course is one of THE sins of our current age. There are countless people, even many Catholics in the pew and clergy too who seem outright to deny that they will ever have to answer to God for what they have done. But of course this is completely contrary to Scripture that insists that we will indeed answer one day to God for what we have done.
This final stage of presumption is meant to eliminate the salutary fear that should accompany evil acts. The sinner at this stage has had some success in alleviating the psychic pain of guilt and even a lot of the fear that used to accompany sin when the voice of conscience was less layered over and muted.
But, even after suppressing the conscience and refusing heaven’s influence, still some fear remains so now an attack is made on any notion of consequences. Perhaps the sinner exaggerates the mercy and patience of God to the exclusion of God’s holiness which sin cannot endure. Perhaps he denies the reality of hell which God clearly teaches. Perhaps he denies that God exists at all and holds that there is no judgment to be faced. However he does it, he must push back the fear the punishment and/or judgment.
Here then is the anatomy of sin. Having suppressed the conscience, the voice of God to the extent possible and having removed oneself from heaven’s influence, and then denying that anything of negative consequence will come, one is freer to sin gravely. It is as though one has taken a number of stiff drinks and anesthetized himself sufficiently to proceed without pain.
But guess what, it’s still there deep down inside. The voice of conscience remains. Under all the layers of stinking thinking and attempts to insulate oneself from the true God, deep down the sinner still knows what he is doing is wrong. Even the slightest thing to prick his conscience causes increasing unease. Anger, projection, name-calling, ridiculing of anyone or anything awaken his conscience will increasing be resorted to. Sin is in full bloom now and repentance seems increasingly difficult or unlikely. Only great prayers and fasting by others for him will likely spring him loose from the deep moral sleep he is currently in. Pray for the conversion of sinners.
Well, since this post has been a little heavy it might be good to end on a lighter note:
The Gospel for Mass this past Saturday contains one line that deserves some attention from us. At one level it seems like a mere scene-ender, a line that merely ends a section and has the dramatis personae (cast of characters) walk of stage. But as most who have any familiarity with Scripture know, there is perhaps not one wasted syllable in the whole text, especially in John’s Gospel. Quite profoundly, there is not one word or syllable that should be merely cast aside as filler when the Holy Spirit is at work inspiring the sacred authors.
The line in question appears in the 7th Chapter of John’s Gospel at the end of a debate among the Temple leaders as to the identity of Jesus. They wrestle with the question of who Jesus is and if he is or is not the coming Messiah, and also the eternal Son of the Father as he claims.
The majority of the interlocutors reject Jesus out of hand based on mistaken notions and due to the fact that he comes from Galilee and “no Prophet has EVER come from Galilee! One of their number, Nicodemus, encourages them to be more open to the possibilities and have greater command of the facts before rendering judgement. After much debate the pericope (passage) ends thus:
Then each went to his own house. (John 7:53)
This line ought not be overlooked, since, if we allow it, it invites great significance. Let’s consider three ways of seeing this line. We can distinguish here three rather separate understandings: an inward meaning, and outward meaning and an eternal meaning.
1. At the inward level each one returning to his own house can be understood as descriptive of how we must ultimately enter into the “house” of our our soul. We must all go to that deep, inner room of our heart and mind, that place were we are alone with our God, that place were we ponder and reflect, where we deliberate and discern.
This is that place where we must ultimately decide for ourselves the deepest questions of life: who am I? Who is God? What is the meaning of my life? What am I doing and why. Who is the man (or woman) that God has made me to be? Yes, here is that deep inner sanctum, the holy place where we are alone with God.
Too often, when we are with others, there is posturing by us. Too easily do we merely seek to conform in response to pressure and other social influences. In these sorts of settings there is often undue influence from persuasion or excessive human respect, from group pressure and group dynamics. In a word, there is posturing.
But there comes a moment when we are summoned by the Lord to come apart, to go to our own house, to enter into that quiet place of our innermost self and answer the deeper questions, and listen carefully to voice of God that echoes in our heart. (cf Catechism # 1776).
In the cited Gospel above, the Temple leader have had their debate. They have sought to influence one another. Some have experienced pressure and persuasive argumentation. Many of them also likely experienced the human tendency to ingratiate themselves to others and to fit in by speaking in certain ways they perceive will advance them in the opinion of others.
Now all that posturing is over and it is time for each man to go, each to his own house and there privately ponder and decide what he really thinks. Yes, it is decision time. The Lord is calling a question: who do YOU say that I am? It is time for these men to go to their own house and be face to face with God.
Sadly today, many reject this requirement to “go to our own house” and to deeply reflect. Most take little time today to enter the room of their own soul. In our modern world, with its extensive distractions, most prefer to flip on the T.V. rather to “go to their own house.”
But ultimately we cannot wholly evade this call from God to decide inwardly, in that inner room of our own “house” who God is, and how we will respond to him. For those who go on too long refusing to go to their own house, God has ways of supplying it anyway. Maybe its one of those sleepless at 3:00 AM moments. Maybe it is a time of crisis that provokes soul searching. But ultimately, at some moment each of us must “go to his own house” that there reflect quietly with God, away from social pressures, away from posture. And there we, alone with God must face the deepest questions.
2. At the outward level, this text involves a very different perspective, an insight that is almost opposite. For, while it is of critical importance to go to that secret place, that house of our own soul and there reflect with God, it is also of critical importance to stay connected to the reality that is outside our house. Thus, in saying that each of the Temple leaders went off to his own house, there may also be understood the human tendency to go off and live in our own little world, to retreat for any evidence we don’t like, to avoid anything that challenges our worldview.
Jesus had earlier confronted these Temple leaders with evidence of his divinity and his identity as Messiah and Lord. He spoke to them of his miracles, of his fulfillment of prophecy, of the Testimony of John the Baptist, and of the Father’s voice echoing in their hearts. (cf John 5:31-47).
But for many of us there is the tendency merely to retreat to our own little world, our own house, no matter the evidence. In effect we retreat from reality to our own made up world.
There is an old saying, “Don’t Believe everything you think.” For, we tend to think something is so just because we think it or agree with it.
There is another saying, “Who is an adviser to himself has a fool for a counselor.” Yet too easily we take counsel merely with our self. Or, we surround ourselves only with teachers who tickle our ears.
Thus, these Temple leaders, though having been confronted with many facts that point to the veracity of Jesus’ identity as Lord and Messiah, choose instead to brush it off and merely to go each of them to his own house, his own little world.
Further they err with the facts, for they argue that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was born in Galilee. But of course their command of the facts is poor here, for Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Never mind all that, they just go off to their own house, to their own little world. And too often many do exactly this.
The challenge for us all to live in reality, not merely in the confines of our own house, our own little world, our own (sometimes flawed or incomplete) thoughts.
3. The Third and eternal implication is the ultimate home, the ultimate destination to which we all journey. Thus when the text says they all went each to his own house, it may also refer to that place where they will dwell for all eternity. Where that house is, in heaven or hell, depends on our stance regarding Jesus.
These Temple leaders, having scoffed at Jesus, now head off each to their home. Sadly, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus, and thus their home is somewhere other than the heart of the Father.
There is an old saying, “You made your bed, now lie in it.” And thus, you and I too must choose where to make our home. And where that is will depend on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus.
There comes a day when each of us will have said of us: Then each went to his own house. Where will your house be?
Somehow I am reminded of an old song from my youth about that secret place of the heart:
The Word Honesty comes from the honestas meaning an honor received from others, a kind of “standing in honor” before others (honor + stas (to stand)). It’s an interesting insight in the word that most people are willing to be a little phony in order to get vague appreciation or to be thought of well. (The whole cosmetics industry is based on this). But when one is actually “honored” in a formal way by others, there is an elevated sense that we need to truthfully deserve the honor. And thus honor calls forth honesty.
A similar concept is sincerity. The Word sincerity comes from the Latin as well: sine (without) + cera (wax). It seems that sculptors in the ancient world often used a hard, resin like wax, to hide their errors. But every now and then there was the perfect carving, with no wax, nothing phony about it, no coverups.
I thought about these words as I saw this commercial. In the ad the “honor” of engagement draws forth honesty and sincerity. The honesty of one person brings forth the honesty of the other and they both end up more relaxed in each others presence.
In recent weeks leading up to the Conclave, and this day after, an awful lot of people, Catholic and Non-Catholic, are trotting out their agendas and looking for the new Pope to somehow bring he Church into conformity with what they want and demand.
Chief on the list of the world are things that include the ordination of women, a total surrender of the Church’s sexual teachings, embracing of the homosexual agenda etc.
The worldly experts often opine that unless the Church surrenders to this agenda, we are destined to be empty halls and “irrelevant” to the modern scene.
Of course one need not go far to test this little theory and see if surrender really works. One need only look to the example of the Episcopal denomination and a good number of other liberal mainline Protestant denominations. There it will be observed that their halls are far more empty and getting emptier all the time.
You name it they’ve got it: Homosexual unions, Gay clergy, LGBTQ-sensitive worship, women clergy, abortion is OK, environmentalism, “pet-friendly services, etc; a veritable menu of every modern demand and trendy idea. Yes they got the rainbows out, and talk endlessly of every latest form of inclusion, and their “halls” are more empty than ever.
Yes, the T.V. and Newspapers have the spotlight on any dissenter they can find to give the usual reportage cut from the usual “Church it out of touch” template, and demands that the Church to strive to fit in more, be kinder and gentler than in the past, and that her essential mission is merely to accept everyone and make sure they feel good about themselves. Yes Mother Church ought to be more appealing and less “alienating” then her membership will increase. Otherwise we are simply “on the wrong side of history.”
But is this really the role of the Church? Is it really her role to be “with the times?” Surely not, since she is the Bride of Christ and also Body of Christ (for in this holy Marriage she and her spouse are one).
And frankly, to be even more bold, the job of the Church is not to reflect the views of the world or even her members, but to reflect the views of our Head and Founder, Jesus Christ. And perhaps we might do well to remember that Jesus, despite modern attempts to remake him into “Mr Rogers”, did not exactly fit into his times either. No Jesus was a sign that would be contradicted, and so to his body, the Church. He promised to his true followers not popularity, but hatred from the world. (cf Jn 15:18)
Consider too the words of Simeon to Mary as he held the infant Christ:
Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce)so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. (Lk 2:34)
And in holding the infant Jesus, Simeon was also holding the Church, for the Church is the Body of Christ. And Simeon looked to Jesus and saw that he would be a sign of contradiction to many. Surely Jesus would not be the affirmer-in-chief, but rather, as one who spoke the truth and feared no man, he would stand clearly and announce the truth without compromise. Some would love him and many would hate him, but no one could remain neutral. He would make us choose, tertium non datur (no third way is given).
And, as we have already alluded, Christ said two very important things to the Church:
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. (John 15:18-21)
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.(Luke 6:26)
So, that world hates us is not necessarily due to the fact that we have done anything wrong. It is often a sign that we have done something precisely right for it is often our lot, as the Body of Christ, to be a “sign of contradiction.” That is to say that we must announce the Gospel to a world that is often and in increasing measure, stridently opposed to it.
St. Paul admonished Timothy to preach the Gospel, whether in season or out of season (2 Tim 4:2). Increasingly now it is out of season and the world hates us for what we say. But we can do no other, for if we are faithful, we must speak.
Pope Paul VI said it so well in the very in the “out of season” encyclical Humane Vitae:
It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man. (H.V. # 18)
We in the Church must courageously accept our lot. Simeon spoke of it clearly in the beginning as he held the infant Christ (and thus the infant Church).
And then, looking at Mary, who also represents the Church as mother and bride, he says. “A sword will pierce your heart too!” So the Church as Body of Christ and the Church as Bride and Mother cannot evade the fact that we will often be called to be a sign of contradiction.
And we will often be required to suffer for our proclamation. The world will try and shame us, try to cause us to experience guilt through indignant outcries and labels such as: Rigid, backward, conservative, right wing, fundamentalist, homophobic, judgmental, intolerant, harsh, mean-spirited, hateful and so on.
But do not be amazed and do not buy into the false guilt. Simply pray and accept the fact that the Church is a sign of contradiction and we must continue to address ourselves to the conscience of a world that seems bent on going morally insane. To this world our announcement of the Truth of Gospel must be courageous, clear, consistent, constant and quite often a sign of contradiction. This is our lot, we can do no other, we can be no other.
If you can bare to watch it, here is a silly video of one of the update-demanding groups. It is supremely illustrative that the video was filmed here in DC among the ruins of an old Episcopal parish (St. Paul’s destroyed by fire back in the 1970s). So, in effect we are told to imitate the example of the Episcopals, a rapidly depopulating denomination barely one third of its former size and shrinking fast. How powerfully the ruined Church in the background shows the irony the demands of those who call for such relevance.
And here is the emblematic interview of Shepard Smith which summarizes well the demands of the modern world:
When we heard the chosen name of the New Pope, “Francis” most of us likely thought of St. Francis of Assisi. Though on closer examination it is possible our New Pope, as a Jesuit, has St. Francis Xavier in mind. But either Saint has a lot to recommend to our thoughts as we pray for our new Pope, Francis I.
N.B. I am not a Vatican Insider and I don’t know Vatican insiders. And frankly, a lot of the “insider” stuff both alarms and bewilders me. Thus, my reflections are pure speculation and rooted only in the meditation on the lives of two saints and how they might frame our thoughts as we consider the work ahead for Pope Francis and how we must pray.
A few thoughts, in today’s post on St. Francis of Assisi. Tomorrow, St. Francis Xavier.
1. On the possibility of radical conversion and the role of affliction and humiliation – St. Francis of Assisi had lived and experienced the life of great wealth. The son of a successful cloth merchant, he enjoyed a very affluent easy life growing up and partook of the permissiveness of the times. He was a natural leader and drew to himself a crowd of young people who spent their nights in wild parties. His biographer, Thomas of Celano, said of him that him that, “He attracted to himself a whole retinue of young people addicted to evil and accustomed to vice.”
He had visions of grandeur and became a knight. Perhaps the horrors of battle and a year as a prisoner of war began a gradual conversion in him. The Fourth Crusade was called in 1205 and Francis impulsively bought new armor and sallied forth. But perhaps his own anxiety, and more surely a vision, wherein God rebuked his manner of life, led him to turn back. At home he was derided as a coward and suffered great wrath from his earthly father.
This crisis in his life led ultimately to his conversion, and a dramatic one at that. The Book of Psalms says, Before I was afflicted I strayed. But now I have kept your word, O Lord (Psalm 119:67).
We all know people whose conversion seems unlikely. But God may yet humble them and draw them to conversion. Further, we ought never underestimate the fact that affliction and humiliation may be a necessary component of conversion for many of us. At times we may feel as though God has abandoned us, or others we love. In fact he may be doing some very important work.
Our greatest enemy is pride and our best friend is humility. Humility and affliction may be gifts in strange packages. Learn to trust in God’s ways, painful though they may be, sometimes. God may be drawing us, and those we love, to deeper conversion.
Pope Francis takes the helm of a Church in need of constant purification. Further a large part of the flock in the affluent West is proud, rich, is rooted in hardened sinful habits and unbelief, and has left the practice of the faith.
Yet as St. Francis of Assisi shows, even hardened sinners can be reached. And as they are reached, others are reached too. The name of our New Pope is a reminder to all that radical conversion in the world is possible.
2. On the freedom of poverty and simplicity – Francis and his early companions embraced a life of radical poverty. So severe was this poverty that some thought them mad and rebuked their ways as beyond rational. St. Francis responded, If we had any possessions we should need weapons and laws to defend them. One hagiographer says, Possessing something was the death of love for Francis. Also, Francis reasoned, what could you do to a man who owns nothing? You can’t starve a fasting man, you can’t steal from someone who has no money, you can’t ruin someone who hates prestige. They were truly free. [1]
Not all of us may be able to embrace this radical poverty due to our obligations to others. But, more and more, we ought to experience a growing simplicity of life that frees us from the power of this world.
Poverty and simplicity are powerful and fruitful gifts of God. Once again, they are gifts in strange packages. But, if we can learn to embrace them, we discover greater freedom.
Though we are just getting to know him, our New Pope exhibits a humility, and is well known for his love of the poor of a life of simplicity. It is said, though a “Prince of the Church,” he rode the bus to work each morning.
One great danger of the Church is that we “have too much to lose.” Embracing greater simplicity and less in the way of worldly power seems to have been a track the Lord has had us since the proud days of the late Middle Ages, when St. Francis lived and surely since the heady days of the Renaissance Popes. Perhaps St. Francis of Assisi will help us to keep the proper balance of dignity and simplicity.
3. On the Love of God’s Church and how reform is best accomplished – During St. Francis’ lifetime the Church was in need of reform. Greed, worldliness and scandal were problems among clergy and laity as well. Heresies were abundant.
Some, noting sin in the Church, have chosen to hate the Church and leave her. But others, like Francis, hear the call of God, who never ceases to love His Church, and they, themselves, intensify their love for the Church and work for her reform. In a vision, St. Francis sensed the call from God: “Francis, Repair my Church.” Gradually he deepened his understanding of the Lord’s call and began that reform by seeing first to his very own life.
It is possible for critics of the Church to excoriate the sins of others, but not see their own. Francis began in the vineyard of his own life and then went forth gently preaching conversion by personal example to his neighbors.
The movement for reform spread. It was grassroots, it was personal. True reform begins with me. Simply denouncing the sins of others or the Church, real though these sins may be, seldom has lasting effect.
The best reform starts with personal conversion. Personal conversion spreads to others, and reform is underway. Within 10 years there were over 5,000 men in Francis’ community and the Poor Clares were also well underway. It works. If I let God set me on fire, then I can spread that fire.
Pope Francis has in St. Francis a power ally who loved the Church, worked for required reforms and led others to personal conversion and love for the Church. May our new Pope experience many blessings from St. Francis.
4. On unity with all creation and the gift of wonder and awe -St. Francis thought of nature, all God’s creation, as part of his brotherhood. In some sense, the sparrow was as much his brother as the Pope.
There is a radical tendency today, by some in the environmental movement, that sees man as the enemy of the natural world, rather than an integral part of it. We can tend to see ourselves as outsiders of the natural world, rather than partakers and members of it. But for St. Francis there was brotherhood.
And in brotherhood there are legitimate needs we supply one another. Nature supplies us and we in turn help to perfect nature. We have done this in our best moments by helping to increase the yield of our fields and bring far greater bounty to the earth by agriculture and animal husbandry. We also seek to master disease and push back the destructive boundaries of what is unruly in nature, such as infestations and the like.
It is true we have often transgressed by unnecessary pollution and the like. But in the end we are not the enemies of nature, we are companions and “brethren” to the natural world.
Pope Francis faces many challenges related to a lack of balance in modern man’s relation to the natural and physical world. Too many today have turned environmentalism and the physical sciences into a kind of religion, verging on idolatry. In St. Francis the Pope and the Church can be inspired to help our modern world recover sanity and balance in these matters. In the first video below is a meditation based on the poem and prayer of St. Francis known as the Canticle of the Sun, his meditation on the magnificence of creation.
5. On the Need to Evangelize the Muslim World – We may think that the struggle with the Muslim world is new. It is not. In his life, St Francis decided to go to Syria to convert the Muslims while the Fifth Crusade was being fought.
In the middle of a battle, Francis decided to do the simplest thing and go straight to the sultan to make peace. He and his companions were captured and Francis was taken to the Sultan, Melek-el-Kamel. Francis challenged the Muslim scholars to a test of true religion by fire; but they refused. Francis proposed to enter the fire first, under the condition that if he left the fire unharmed, the sultan would have to recognize Christ as true God. The offer was turned down but the sultan was so impressed that he allowed Francis to preach to his subjects. Though Francis did not succeed in converting the sultan, the last words of the sultan to Francis of Assisi were, Pray for me that God may deign to reveal to me that law and faith which is most pleasing to him.
This work of Francis and his attempted rapprochement with the Muslim world had far-reaching consequences, long past his own death, since after the fall of the Crusader Kingdom, it would be the Franciscans, of all Catholics, who would be allowed to stay on in the Holy Land and be recognized as “Custodians of the Holy Land” on behalf of Christianity. [2]
In times like these, when extremist forms of Islam have emerged, we need, more than ever to have the courage of St. Francis to engage the Islamic world and seek to bring them to Christ.
It may be difficult work and successes may be few at this stage. But God calls us to be faithful, not successful. Ultimate success is up to God. We who are Catholics have a special role in this evangelization since the Muslim world shares with us a respect for Mary, Mother of Jesus our Lord. More on that in a future post.
And thus Pope Francis who has a significant challenge in dealing well with the Muslim World and increasing radicalism there has a powerful ally, intercessor and example in St. Francis of Assisi.
Just a few thoughts on what’s in a name. Pope Francis, and St. Francis of Assisi: ally, intercessor, example and Saint. Tomorrow some thoughts on St. Francis Xavier, the great Saint of Evangelization.
Back in February I gave a talk to a large group (300+) at the Blessed John Paul II Shrine here in Washington. The topic was a pastoral plan for the family. The video of that talk became available recently and I thought I’d share it here.
