I have met a good number of people who said that they would never become Catholic and now are. Some are lay leaders in the Church and some are even priests! I have met other people who said they would never believe in God, yield to any religious instruction, or confess to “any man” and now do (and teach others to do the same).
Growing up I never thought I’d become a priest; the thought just never occurred to me. And if you told me in those days that I would one day be a priest, I would have shaken my head in ridiculing laughter. But here I am, 26 years a priest and quite happy, thank you.
“Never say never.” It’s one of those wonderful phrases in which you break the rule in the very act of announcing it. God must laugh when we tell him our plans, and especially when we say, “Never.”
Pray God, though, that we never say that final “No” to Him, and that we never leave our sacred duties. May we seldom say never, but when we do, may it be when it matters.
At the bottom of this post is a 2010 CBS news story reporting hat anything you’ve copied on a digital copier going back years is stored on a hard drive inside the copier. These drives are evidently so large that they can store more than 20,000 documents and hundreds of thousands of pages.
Hence if you have ever photocopied personal materials (e.g., social security numbers, checking info, personal data) it is likely on that hard drive. The CBS news crew showed how easy it is to remove the hard drive and download its contents. It’s a stunning little segment; I recommend you watch it and share it with 500 of your closest friends!
When it comes to privacy there are problems in two different senses.
The first is the usual one: the erosion of privacy we have come to expect in this day and age. Our data is out there in cyberspace and can too easily be intercepted. GPS devices track our whereabouts, Internet browsing history is retained, and “cookies” on our computer track our habits. YouTube and our cable boxes faithfully record our viewing habits. And, as you can see in the video below, just about everything we have ever copied on any copier built after 2002 is dutifully saved. I’m not sure why this is done, but the information is there.
In many ways our life is an open book. In some ways having our information out there is a convenience. In other ways, though, it is alarming and arouses suspicion. There is less and less privacy each day. And don’t even get me started on those full body scanners at airports!
There is a second, very different sense in which privacy is a problem. In a very important way we must remember that to God, there has never been anything private about our life. He sees everything. He is the searcher of minds and hearts. The Book of Hebrews says, to him everything lies naked and exposed (Heb 4:13). No thought, deliberation, or action of ours is hidden from God.
One of the problems of the modern age is that we too easily forget the fact that God witnesses everything we do. In school settings I have often reminded students (who are pretending they’ve done nothing wrong), “Now be careful. God is watching and knows everything you do. He also knows if you are lying to me. You might slip something by me but you won’t fool God!” But it is not only children who need to be reminded of this. Yes, God sees and knows everything we think and do. In this sense there is no privacy. God is watching. Deep down we know this, but our weak minds forget. And when we do remember our crafty minds try to reinvent God by saying foolish things such as, “God doesn’t mind,” or “God understands,” or “God doesn’t punish.”
Absolute privacy is an illusion. We may well be able to carve out some privacy from one another, and well we should. But we should not seek privacy from God, nor can we. There is something medicinal about recognizing the presence of God. The more we experience that God is present and watching, the more we accept Him on His own terms; we do not try to reinvent Him. The more we do this, the more our behavior can be reformed. A little salutary fear can be medicinal while we wait for the more perfect motive of love to drive out sin.
Frankly, acknowledging the fact that not only is God watching us but others are as well, can have a positive effect. We may not approve of the fact that others might be watching us, but in the end it can be helpful. A few examples might help illustrate what I mean.
Internet Pornography – As a confessor, I increasingly hear the sin of Internet pornography confessed. One of the things I try to remind penitents of is the fact that when they are on the Internet they are essentially out in public with a name tag on. All of their browsing habits are stored on their own computers, on the sites they visit, and in the browsing engine they use. If they think they are in the privacy of their own room they ought to think again. Personally, this knowledge keeps me far away from bad sites of any kind on the Internet. There is a kind of salutary fear in knowing that I am out in public when I’m surfing the Internet.
Cable TV – Those boxes send data about what I watch and for how long back to the cable company. My viewing habits are known to those who can find them. Frankly, it keeps me out of trouble. I hope other virtues do as well, but remembering that I am in public is very helpful.
E-mail, Facebook, blogs, etc. – Once you press send or publish, you’ve just made history. The contents of what you have said are out there to stay. You may delete it, but the information will remain on servers for potentially a very long time. Be very careful what you say, because no matter how private you may think it is, it is not. You are always within earshot of some server that loves to keep your data. What you type in the darkness will be brought to light and what you post in secret will shouted from the housetop (to paraphrase Luke 12:3). I may not like that what I send or post is ultimately public, but in the end it makes me more careful about what I say and type.
Accountability – As a priest, I think it is important to live a rather transparent life. I very rarely just slip away from the rectory. I almost always tell someone on the staff where I am going (at least generally) and when I expect to return. I am a public figure. Sure, I have some privacy up in my rectory suite, but overall I make it a rule to account for my whereabouts. I also usually wear my clerical attire (except on a day off). There are certainly times when I expect the rectory to be a private home (after 9 PM), but even then I live with three other priests. And though we have separate apartments, the communal quality of the rectory provides a salutary sort of accountability in terms of personal behavior.
What I am ultimately saying is that demanding too much privacy can also be a problem. In the end, the Lord intends for us to live in community, such that we are accountable to others. Some degree of accountability and transparency is both helpful to and necessary for us.
It is clear that there are significant problems with the erosion of our privacy today. We ought to continue to insist that proper boundaries be respected.
However, we should also remember that some demands for privacy are unrealistic. At some point, we simply need to accept that the being online is the same as being out in public with your name tag on. That’s just the way it is, so behave yourself.
Finding the proper balance between our public and private lives can be difficult. Certainly privacy is to be insisted upon in many cases. But it is also true that overly expansive assumptions of privacy are neither possible nor always healthy. Being in public will always be a necessary part of life and thus being aware when we are in public is important. In fact, you are in public right now because you are online.
Before commenting, please take a few minutes and watch this video. (And never sell your copier without insisting that you be permitted to destroy the information on the hard drive!) This report was a real eye-opener and will make me more cautious about how, when, and where I copy confidential documents and personal information.
Our relationship with God’s law is complex and we don’t often get it right. When it comes to God’s law we cannot forget that it is personal. That is, it is given to us by a loving God who wants to save us. Therefore, it is important to know both the law and the lawgiver, who is God.
In the Deuteronomiccode, each law is often followed by the phrase “I am the Lord.” It is as if the Lord is saying, “This is God talking, the God who saved you, parted the Red Sea for you, and led you through the desert and into the Promised Land. I, the one who loves you, am telling you this.” The old rabbis put it this way: When God added to the law the phrase “I am the Lord,” He was saying, “Look, I am the one who fished you out of the mud; now come over here and listen to me.” J
So the law is personal and we must strive to know both the law and the lawgiver. Two errors are to be avoided when it comes to the law:
The first error is that of legalism, which elevates the law to the point of idolatry, such that one is kept “safe” by the law rather than by a saving relationship with God, the lawgiver. In such a system there is little room for understanding the Lord’s intent. There is also a failure to grasp the often general nature of God’s law, which covers common circumstances but does not address every specific situation perfectly. For example, the obligation to attend Mass is generally binding, but illness or the need to care for the ill can be a valid excuse.
The other error is assuming a kind of autonomy based on the claim that one knows God so well that the law is largely irrelevant. A common form of this is resorting to a “God is love” argument to set aside the moral law. Never mind that God Himself gave us the moral law. Making this error I claim that God doesn’t care if I skip Mass, live with my girlfriend, etc. He doesn’t care about that sort of stuff because He is a loving God, affirming and merciful, who is not uptight the way the Church is. A person with such an attitude dismisses large parts of the moral law based on his own authority and the exaggerated notion that he knows God better than even God’s very own revealed word. He claims that a loving and kind God wouldn’t ask difficult things or rebuke sin. But such a notion confuses true love with mere kindness. While kindness is an aspect of love, so are challenge, rebuke, and even punishment.
Neither error will do. The key is to find a balance such that both the law and the lawgiver are properly respected.
As usual, St. Thomas Aquinas provides great insight. And while the context of his remarks is the arena of civil law, the principles he sets forth are applicable to divine and ecclesial law as well. He takes up the question of law and the lawgiver in Question 96 (article 6) in the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologica.
St. Thomas considers whether one who is under a law may act apart from the letter of the law.
St. Thomas answers with a qualified yes and, as always, provides important distinctions and premises. He begins with a helpful quote from Hilary of Poitiers, who notes that the limits of written law are subject to the limits of all speech, including in its written form:
Hilary says (De Trin. iv): “The meaning of what is said is according to the motive for saying it: because things are not subject to speech, but speech to things.” Therefore, we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than [merely] of his very words (I, IIae, Q 96, art 6, Sed contra).
St. Thomas goes on to note that laws are intended for the common good and speak to the general or common situations, but that no lawgiver can envision every circumstance, and this should be taken into account. Thomas writes,
Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed (Ibid, respondeo).
St. Thomas imagines the following example:
For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.
I’m we can all think of more modern examples such as breaking the speed limit to rush someone to the hospital, or jaywalking to hasten across a street help someone in trouble. Charity is the highest law and saving life is more important than observing laws that are merely cautionary.
But St. Thomas next notes the important point that it is only in urgent cases that the law may be set aside without consultation with lawful authority:
Nevertheless, it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.
If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.
Thus urgency and necessity permit quick dispensations of the law, whereas ordinary situations require us to consult and defer to those to whom jurisprudence and legislation are consigned.
Now again, St. Thomas is referring here essentially to civil law. But if these truths and distinctions apply to human civil law, with all its imperfections, how much more so to God’s law. If civil law ought not be casually set aside without consultation and deference to proper authority, how much more so God’s law.
God has set forth a lawful authority in the Magisterium of the Church, to ponder His revealed law and teachings and to interpret them properly and authoritatively. He has also given the Church the power to bind and loose. What Thomas says regarding civil law (it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful … those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws) is also the case with respect to God’s law and Church law. No Catholic (except in urgent moments of grave necessity) should dispense with the moral law on his own. No one is a judge in his own case.
That said, even God’s law needs proper application to particular circumstances. St. Thomas (quoting Hilary) noted the following: The meaning of what is said is according to the motive for saying it, because things are not subject to speech, but speech to things. Therefore, we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than [merely] of his very words. He also commented, then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Therefore, the Lord left His Church to apply His word to particular circumstances. Without the remembrance that even God’s law speaks to the general and not to every specific case, the written law, univocally read without any reference to God’s overall will, could be reduced to obtuse absurdities and a hurtful legalism.
Consider the often bewildering legalisms in Jesus’ day related to work on the Sabbath. A law given to us by God for our sake became a kind of prison cell and often an occasion for a grave lack of charity toward others. Jesus had to remind people that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mk 2:27).
So law—especially God’s law—is essential, and it usually applies. But there are exceptional circumstances, and many laws can and do admit of certain exceptions. St. Thomas traces out for us a good balance to seek between legalism and a sort of autonomy that claims the personal right to be dismissive of law as one sees fit. This is good advice for a balance that many in the modern world get wrong.
Here’s a song that reflects the immature, rebellious attitude toward the law that is common today:
One of my favorite composers is Antonio Vivaldi (1678-1741). While I love his secular pieces (such as The Four Seasons), I am especially fond of his Church music. It is so light, bright, and tuneful! Vivaldi loved to go up and down the musical scale, varying the theme a half step at a time.
Ah, Vivaldi, he’s right up there with Handel, Bach, and Mozart! I consider him to be an especially Catholic treasure given his large body of sacred Latin liturgical music.
Here are just a few things I’d like to share about Vivaldi, things you may or may not know:
1. Vivaldi was a Catholic priest. He was ordained in Venice in 1703, at the age of 25. However, it would seem that the active priesthood did not suit him. Within a year, he asked to be excused from the daily celebration of Mass due to a “tightness of the chest,” which he complained of his entire life. Most scholars think that this is a reference to asthma, although there may have been other causes, including heart-related matters. But a deeper reason may lie in the fact the Vivaldi was pressured to become a priest. In those days, often the only way a poor family had to ensure the free schooling of a son was to send him to a seminary. Music seems to have been Vivaldi’s passion. Some biographies of him relate that he would sometimes leave the altar in mid-Mass to go into the sacristy to write down a musical idea that had just come to him!
2. Vivaldi spent most of his musical career working in an orphanage (mostly, though not exclusively, one for girls). While this may seem an odd and unfruitful place for a composer, it actually was not. The Ospedale della Pietà, where he worked for many years, was one of four well-endowed orphanages in Venice. Most of the children were the illegitimate offspring of Venetian noblemen who fathered them in the course of their (sadly common) dalliances. The noblemen funded orphanages to care for these children of theirs. In Venice, these homes developed a reputation for fine music, all performed by girls. The girls were trained in music from their earliest years and concerts were a way for the orphanages to raise money. At the Ospedale della Pietà, some of the girls remained well into adulthood, continuing to perform there. The video below depicts what such a setting was like, and shows how Vivaldi would give performances, secular and liturgical, with “his ladies.”
3. Not all found Vivaldi’s music as outstanding as many of us do today. Carlo Goldoni, an Italian playwright of the time, described Vivaldi as “… this priest, an excellent violinist but a mediocre composer …” But Vivaldi also had fans and patrons, and he earned a decent living selling copies of his many concertos, operas, and Church works.
4. In 1720 Vivaldi began living with a woman, Anna Giraud. To be fair, though, he always maintained that she was with him as a housekeeper and a friend. Furthermore, her sister also shared the house with them. Vivaldi trained Anna to sing and she had an excellent reputation as a singer. Vivaldi stayed with her until his death. Were they more than friends? It’s hard to say, but why not take Vivaldi at his word?
5. Vivaldi’s works all but disappeared after his death in 1741 and were not heard regularly or known widely again until the 1950s! In this sense he was an “opaque luminary.” (This expression refers to a person who shines brightly in his own time but is largely forgotten after death.) From his death until 1950, the name Antonio Vivaldi was largely unknown.
6. Vivaldi’s works began to come back to light beginning in 1926. It was at this time that the Salesian Fathers, wishing to sell a large number of old volumes in their archive, invited Dr. Alberto Gentili, professor of music history at the National Library of Turin, to assess their value. Many of the 97 volumes in the archive contained Vivaldi manuscripts. And thus Vivaldi music reappeared on the landscape. Although the Second World War slowed the process of compiling and collecting the full library of Vivaldi music from other sources, the hunt was on! In 1951, concertgoers in England were among the first to hear this newly rediscovered baroque master. Since then, Vivaldi has assumed his place alongside Bach and Handel, and is considered by most to be their equal. With them, he paved the way to Mozart.
7. Vivaldi died in 1741 at the age of 63. The cause was said to be “internal fire,” probably another reference to the asthma that plagued him all his life.
Yes, Vivaldi, the gift of his music is great!
The video below depicts the way in which Vivaldi’s Church music was likely performed. It shows how Vivaldi probably gave performances, secular and liturgical, with “his ladies.” Note that both the orchestra and the choir contain only women. This particular performance takes place in the Church of the Pietà in Venice, which was Vivaldi’s church and is attached to the Ospedale della Pietà. This is the movement from the now-famous Gloria in D. The text is Domine fili unigenite, Jesu Christe. Most of us who have sung this piece are used to it being in an SATB (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) arrangement, but for historical accuracy it is performed here exclusively by women. Notice the beautiful candles, too!
Over the years I have attempted to trace the philosophical disaster of our modern world. Certainly the fundamental roots can be traced back to the breakdown of the medieval synthesis, the rise of nominalism, and the doubts of Descartes. These introduced a disconnect from reality. Descartes introduced a radical doubt in anything seen or experienced, and this disconnects us from reality. If we pull up roots from reality and the revelation of creation, we live increasingly within our mind and out of touch with reality.
Welcome to the modern, post-Cartesian age, a strange landscape in which reality and stubborn facts aren’t considered too important. (N.B. To me, it is a strange paradox of modern times that we idolize the physical sciences; I have written more on that topic here: On the Cartesian Anxiety of our Times.)
Two of the most extreme examples of the disconnect from reality in our times are the celebration of homosexual activity and so-called transgenderism. If a “cultural Neanderthal” like me suggests that the design of the body speaks against homosexual acts by a simple consideration that the biology of sexuality is violated, I am greeted with responses ranging from blank stares to indignation (“What does the body have to do with it? It’s what I think and feel that matters!”) And thus the disconnect from reality and the retreat into the mind and psyche is complete.
How did we get here?
A few years ago, we priests of the Archdiocese of Washington attended our annual professional day. In reviewing my notes from that conference, I was once again inspired and instructed by the teaching of Msgr. Brian Bransfield, who was then the Associate General Secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He presented a brief, cogent description of the stages of our collective journey out of reality and into the self-defined world of personal opinion and the mind. It was really an aside within a much longer talk, but I am always appreciative of those who can see and describe the stages of our current malaise.
Allow me to quote from Msgr. Bransfield and then supply some commentary of my own. Please direct any criticism at me, not him, since I am merely excerpting from a larger talk (and context is important).
Here is the excerpt I’d like to discuss:
We can trace the fragmentation of the last four hundred years in steps:
To establish clear certainty in his search for knowledge, Descartes set up a dualism between the material and spiritual.
And in the dualism [he] introduced a separation in which he set man’s internal mind in opposition to external reality.
[Next, he] … elevated the mind (the thinking subject) and reduced the external, objective world of concrete reality.
Man’s understanding of himself and the world has been in a downward spiral ever since. Only the mind and what the mind says is reality, is real.
[And] thus there is … a collapse between the mind and reality. And in the collapse, reality loses.
[And so] reality becomes a mere label (nominalism). The child in the womb is not called a child; it is labeled something else. A refugee seeking asylum is not called a person, but is labeled undocumented.
[So] the mind now “creates” rather than conforms to reality.
Relativism is born; the thinking subject is … autonomous. Notice that word: “autonomous.”
And [thus] the ultimate absurdity is enthroned: nihilism, nothing—not as a privation but as a positive reality. There is nothing, no relation between reality (be it the child in the womb, the prisoner on death row, or the immigrant on the border) and our conscience. There is no communion between reality and the mind.
Let’s look at each point in detail. Msgr. Bransfield’s description is in bold, black italics while my meager commentary is in plain red text.
We can trace the fragmentation of the last four hundred years in steps:
Notice the use of the word fragmentation. If we live in our heads rather than in reality, then there is very little to unite us with one another. If what I think constitutes my reality, and if the same is true for you, then we are fragmented rather than united because there is nothing outside ourselves to unite us. Each of us is living in his own little world, not in a shared experience called reality.
To establish clear certainty in his search for knowledge, Descartes set up a dualism between the material and spiritual.
This began the disconnect between the actual world and what we think. Descartes entertained or struggled with radical doubt; he could not be sure that there was really anything “out there,” that is, outside his own mind. The only thing he knew for sure was that he existed, because he was a thinking agent. (This was the source of the memorable “Cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am)). That is all that was certain for Descartes; everything else might have been a dream or deception.
Thus the wall of separation between the thinking mind and reality was introduced.
By the way, radical doubt, though an intriguing theory and one we have all wrestled with a bit, is wholly useless at the end of the day. One cannot possibly live by it. Such folks sit on chairs that may or may not be there and avoid walking into walls that may or may not be there. But of course they are there. The doubters ignore the overwhelming evidence of reality in theory, but must navigate it in actuality. Their theory of radical doubt is useless and they violate it at every moment.
But useless though it is, the theory has proven quite intoxicating to the decaying West, which loves its dualisms and prefers conflict to synthesis.
And in the dualism [he] introduced a separation in which he set man’s internal mind in opposition to external reality
And thus begins the retreat out of reality and into our minds. We start to live up in our heads and think something is so just because we think it to be so.
[Next, he] … elevated the mind (the thinking subject) and reduced the external, objective world of concrete reality.
What we think becomes more important that what actually is. Thought, opinion, and feeling trump reality. Many people today do not even sense the need to check what they think against the facts. They don’t believe it’s necessary because thinking it makes it so.
Today we often hear phrases such as “That may true for you, but it’s not true for me.” Or (more humorously) “Don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!” And thus what we think trumps reality. We actually start to believe that statements like “Truth is relative” are real arguments (they are not). It’s really just lazy “living up in our head” and a stubborn refusal to engage reality.
Man’s understanding of himself and the world have been in a downward spiral ever since. Only the mind and what the mind says is reality, is real.
This partly explains the shredding of tradition and the iconoclastic tendencies of the modern age. Who cares what the ancients said or thought? If you and I (who are contemporaries) can’t even agree on what is real, and if all that matters is what I think, then why should what I care what you think, let alone what someone who lived centuries ago thought? If we all just live up in our heads rather than in reality, then what do I have in common with you let alone with The Founding Fathers, St. Thomas, or Jesus for that matter. All that matters is what I think; everything else goes in the shredder.
[And] thus there is … a collapse between the mind and reality. And in the collapse, reality loses. Exactly!
[And so] reality becomes a mere label (nominalism). The child in the womb is not called a child; it is labeled something else. A refugee seeking asylum is not called a person, but is labeled undocumented.
And thus the modern battle over terminology: pro-abortion or pro-choice, baby or fetus, fornication or cohabitation, homosexual or gay, redefining marriage or marriage freedom, refugee or “undocumented” (or even worse, “illegal alien”).
So much hinges on terminology, semantics, euphemisms, and redefinition; thought overrules reality. If we can influence thought, then reality doesn’t matter. Never mind that a baby has been dismembered alive, this is all about “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” And “sodomy” is such an unpleasant reality; let’s just call it “gay love.” And men can call themselves women and we are supposed to say, “Isn’t that nice.”
It’s as if we suppose that our terminology and thoughts can somehow change reality. They cannot. But in this post-Cartesian fog we’re in, that is exactly what we suppose. Away with reality; all that matters is what I think!
[So] the mind now “creates” rather than conforms to reality.
Yes, or so we think.
Relativism is born; the thinking subject is … autonomous. Notice that word: “autonomous.”
And here is where things begin to get scary. Reality is what I say it is. No one gets to tell me what to do or what to think; I should answer to no one.
As Pope Benedict warned, while this attitude marches under the banners of tolerance and freedom, the ultimate result is tyranny.
This is because if you and I cannot agree on something outside ourselves to which each of us is bound (e.g., reality) and to which we must answer, then we cannot appeal to that. Instead we must resort to the use of power to enact our view. Raw power—be it political, economic, or merely the power of popular opinion—is now used to impose agendas. Appeals to reason, common sense, justice, religious values, and even to constitutional parameters are becoming increasingly difficult.
In the video below, Fr. Robert Barron laments that we can’t even have a decent argument anymore since we seem to agree on so little; we just end up talking past one another. The final result is the use of raw power. Reality is what I think; I am autonomous. If you don’t agree with me, at first I will first ignore you. If that doesn’t work, I will work to marginalize you, to eliminate your influence. And if necessary, I will destroy you.
Welcome to the dark side of the Cartesian divide.
[And thus] the ultimate absurdity is enthroned: nihilism, nothing—not as a privation but as a positive reality. There is nothing, no relation between reality (be it the child in the womb, the prisoner on death row, or the immigrant on the border) and our conscience. There is no communion between reality and the mind.
Yes, today we witness the exaltation of nothing, the outright celebration that “nothing is true.” Indeed, we live in self-congratulatory times where many, if not most, applaud their nihilism as being “open-minded,” “tolerant,” “humanitarian,” and so forth.
But as Msgr. Bransfield points out, all this really does is to sever communion. There is nothing humanitarian about it because there is no real communion between human beings possible when I just live in my own head. Further, there is nothing to be tolerant of because there is nothing out there (outside what I think) to tolerate. And there is absolutely nothing open-minded in any of it, because it is the ultimate in close-mindedness to say, “Reality is what I think it is, and that settles it.” For the modern post-Cartesian, tolerance is “your right to agree with me.” Being open-minded means you agree with me. And humanitarianism is only what I say it is.
So here we are in a post-Cartesian malaise, with the vast majority of us living up inside our own heads. In this climate the Church must keep shouting reality.
It is dark now and it will likely get darker. But reality has a funny way of reasserting itself. Our little collective experiment in unreality will necessarily run its course. Let us pray that our reintroduction to reality will not be too harsh. But I am afraid that it will be.
At every funeral I celebrate, I spend a good portion of the sermon urging everyone, including myself, to be more intent on preparing for death and judgement. I remind the assembled of Jesus’ numerous parables on this theme. I remind them that no one loves them more than does Jesus, and yet no one issued more warnings of judgment and Hell than He did. I do this at funerals because the overwhelming majority of people I see there do not attend church at any other time. I feel that I have to take advantage of the opportunity to wrest them from the sin of presumption that is so prevalent today.
Indeed, the sin of presumption seems to be at an all-time high. This is due to many factors in the world where sin is minimized or declared of little import. Even within the Church, due to the error of “universalism” (the belief that most (if not all) people will go to Heaven), a view almost completely contradictory to Scripture, few people are earnest in preparing for death and judgment. This is tragic. While we shouldn’t run around in a panic, we ought to have a lot more urgency in working for salvation. We can do this through daily prayer, frequent Confession and Holy Communion, holy fellowship, and reading/studying Scripture and Church teaching. We must practice the virtues learned in these holy sources and consistently seek the Lord’s grace and mercy.
It is foolish to fail to do this, to put it off day after day. St. Alphonsus Liguori makes this point beautifully and powerfully in his classic work Preparation for Death. He writes,
What would you say of the man who put off his preparation for a trial on which his life depended, till the day of the trial arrived? Would you not stigmatize as a fool the general who should not begin to lay in a supply of provisions and arms, till the city is besieged? Would it not be folly in a pilot [of a ship] to neglect till the time of the tempest to provide the vessel with an anchor and a helm? Such is the folly of a Christian who neglects his conscience till death arrives …. The Lord called the virgins foolish who wished to prepare their lamps with the spouse came (Preparation for Death, 8th Ed., edited by Stephen Winchell, p. 91).
And yet this is precisely what most people do. Too many are busy pursuing lesser things such as career, money, and worldly possessions. Meanwhile, death and judgment, which are both more important and more certain, get little attention. Even comparatively frivolous things like sports, television, and gossip are often given more passion and priority than preparing to die well and in God’s favor. People tend to maximize the minimum and minimize the maximum.
According to the Lord, this is the very definition of foolishness. And yet most assume that either they will be able to repent in a flash as death approaches, or that God doesn’t really care about all the things He said He cares about.
There is no basis in Scripture for the idea that last minute repentance or pleas will win the day. In the “Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins” as well as in almost every similar parable, those excluded from the Kingdom (who hear the Lord say, “I know you not”) all protest and lament loudly. Some of the passages speak of wailing and grinding of teeth as the damned depart into outer darkness or into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Why is this so? Why does God disregard such pleas? Don’t those pleas represent proper repentance? If they do, then why does God seemingly ignore them?
St. Thomas Aquinas provides some insight:
A person may repent of his sin in two ways: in one way, directly, in another way indirectly. He repents of sin directly who hates sin as such; and repents indirectly who hates it on account of something connected with it, for instance punishment. Accordingly, the wicked will not repent of their sin directly, because consent in the malice of sin remains in them. But they will repent indirectly, inasmuch as they will suffer from the punishment inflicted on them for sin. The damned still will wickedness but shun punishment. And thus indirectly they repent of the wickedness committed (Summa Theologica, Sup. 98. Art. 2).
It would seem that their repentance is not a proper repentance from sin, but rather represents more of a regret at the consequences. It is impossible to enter Heaven while still loving sin. Their repentance is not sufficient to grant the healing necessary to enter Heaven.
St. Alphonsus gives us an insight as to why direct repentance (i.e., the repentance of one who hates sin as such) is unlikely to be found suddenly at the moment of death:
It is necessary at death to hate sin, and to love God above all things. But how can he, then, hate forbidden pleasures who has loved them to till that moment? … It is for this reason that God is deaf to their cry … (Preparation for Death, 8th Ed., edited by Stephen Winchell, p. 92).
This is perfectly sensible. Most are simply not able to shift their desires 180 degrees in a moment. The Lord warns that if our desires at the time of our death are not for God and the values of His kingdom, it is highly unlikely that we will have a sudden change of heart. Further, when we die, our disposition either for or against God is forever fixed. The wicked do not depart wailing and grinding their teeth because they suddenly hate sin and love God and holiness. No, they wail due to more selfish motives, such as the fear of punishment. They hate the consequences, but not the sin.
Consider well these admonitions from two great saints, which speak directly and clearly against the presumptiveness and foolishness of our age. Get to work while there is still time. Tell everyone you love to set his or her house in order before the day of reckoning. Do not delay your conversion to the Lord!
The Gospel for today has a number of “sayings” of the Lord Jesus, which all amount to a kind of litany of love. It is a setting forth of the gifts that He, by His grace, is accomplishing and will accomplish in us. Let’s get right to work and consider the wonderful gifts of grace.
I. Power – Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever loves me will keep my word”
Here is a fundamental theology of grace: keeping the commandments and mandates of the Lord’s Word is the fruit of His love, not the cause of it. “Yes,” says the Lord. “If you love me, the keeping of the commandments is sure to follow.” Note that we do not initiate this love, God does. Scripture says, We love because he first Loved us (1 John 4:19).
Pay attention. No one can give what he does not have, and no one can possess what he has not received. God is the author and initiator of love. Love always starts with Him. The Lord is not setting up some sort of loyalty test here, as if He were saying, “If you love me, prove it by keeping my commandments.” That is not the Gospel! The Gospel is that God loved us before we were ever born, before we could do anything to merit His love. He loved us when we were dead in our sins. And He took the initiative and loved us, even when we hated Him and crucified Him.
And if we will accept this love, it will enable us to love God with the same love with which He loves us. And with His love in us, we will begin to love what He loves and whom He loves. We will love holiness, forgiveness, mercy, justice, compassion, chastity, and generosity. We will love our brethren—even our enemies. Why? Because God loves them; when His love is in our heart, so is His love for them.
Do you understand this? Love enables us to keep His Word, to live it and to love it. When I was young, I dated a girl who liked square dancing. At the time, I thought square dancing was silly. But my love for her meant that I started to love what she loved; I came to love her family, too. Do you see it? If we let love have its way, it changes our heart and our desires.
So if you let love have its way you will keep the commandments. The keeping of the commandments is the fruit of love, not its cause. Love is the power of grace at work in us to love what and whom God loves. Jesus says, If you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 14:15).
II. Presence – [Jesus says,] and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.
One of Jesus’ great desires was to restore us to unity with the Father. Jesus was crazy about His Father and earnestly desired to have us know Him and love Him more deeply.
If we will but accept the Father’s love and His shalom, offered through Jesus, we will have a tender and joyful relationship with our Abba, our Father. Jesus often described His Father almost as doting. He is like a shepherd who leaves the 99 in search of the one. He is like a woman who loses a coin, sweeps diligently to find it, and then celebrates by throwing a party more costly than the coin itself. He is like a father whose son effectively tells him to “drop dead,” but who, when the son finally returns, runs out to meet him and throws a party in celebration.
Do you grasp this? The Father loves you and Jesus has reconciled you to Him. Now run to Him; run to Abba, God. If you take one step, He’ll take two, and then He’ll start running to embrace you!
This is the Gospel: Jesus Christ has reconciled us to the Father, at the Father’s own request. He loves you. Now run to Him and watch Him run to you. He does not want distance; He wants intimate presence, love, and embrace.
III. Perfection– [Jesus says,] I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.
We all know that the Christian journey is not accomplished in an instant. Rather, we make this journey with God, the Holy Spirit, who teaches us and makes us mindful of all that Jesus has done for us and taught us. Little by little, we are given a new mind, a new heart, a new walk, and a new and better life. May God who has begun a good work in bring it to perfection (cf Phil 1:6).
If we are open to Him, He is faithful and He will do it. The process may be slow, but that is only because we have foreheads of brass and necks of iron (cf Is 48:4). God is faithful and patient. I am a witness; if He can change me, He can change you, too. He has promised and He will do it.
We will be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf Rom 12:2), for the Holy Spirit will bring to our mind all that the Lord is and all that He taught. Let the Lord change your mind and heart. If He does that, the rest will follow. Sow a thought, reap a deed; sow a deed, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny. And it all begins with the mind.
One of the gifts of grace is the renewing of our minds and it leads to total transformation.
IV. Peace – Jesus says, Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. You heard me tell you, “I am going away and I will come back to you.” If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.
What is the gift of peace? Peace is shalom; it is more than the absence of conflict. It is the presence in the relationship of everything that should be there. Peace is the experience that everything is all right.
For us, peace is access once again to the Father. It is being able once again to walk with Him in love, in and through Jesus Christ. And we don’t just walk with Him in some earthly garden paradise, as Adam and Eve did. Rather, we walk with him in Heaven. In Jesus we are seated with the Father in honor at His right hand.
So what does it mean when the same Jesus who said, “The Father and I are One” (Jn 10:30), also says, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28)?
Theologically, it means that the Father is the source in the Trinity. All the members are co-eternal, co-equal, and equally divine, but the Father is the Principium Deitatis (the Principle of the Deity).
Jesus proceeds from the Father from all eternity. In effect, Jesus is saying, “I delight that the Father is the principle of my being, even though I have no origin.”
Devotionally, Jesus is saying that He always does what pleases His Father. Jesus loves His Father. He’s crazy about Him. He’s always talking about Him and pointing to Him. By calling the Father greater, He says (in effect), “I look to my Father for everything. I do what I see Him doing (Jn 5:19) and what I know pleases Him (Jn 5:30). His will and mine are one. What I will to do proceeds from Him. I do what I know accords with His will.”
Here then is the source of our peace. With Jesus, we love the Father and always do what pleases Him. Jesus “goes to the Father” but He takes us with Him, for we are members of His mystical Body. In Jesus, we enter the holy of holies and sit next to the Father in love and intimacy.
Here, then, are some important gifts of grace. It is up to us to lay hold of them and to live out of them. The Lord promises them to us, so they are ours. And if at times they seem distant, reach out and take back what the devil stole from you. These are gifts of the Lord’s resurrected grace.
Here’s a song that speaks of peace and presence, not to mention power.
The animated short video below is a humorous reminder that when technology changes so rapidly, some of us can easily get left behind.
In it, there is also something of an admonition to the Church, that we not act too much like the man in the video.
1. It would seem that the old man has been sheltered away in his apartment for too long while the world has passed him by. We in the Church also have been hunkered down for too long, afraid to engage the outside world.
For the last 50 years, we have been very inwardly focused, debating things like liturgy, who should have power and authority in the Church, how to structure this or that internal program, etc. And though these are all important, while we were focused inwardly, the culture headed away from us at warp speed.
Our primary job (“Go and make disciples”) was set aside and almost wholly eclipsed by lesser (though still important) matters. And thus we are much like the old man in his apartment, seemingly out of touch with what has happened on the outside.
2. The specific text of the letter he is typing is also telling for the Church. The letter (written in German) begins this way: Dear Friend, It is about time I write you again, not simply because I owe you some long lines, or my guilty conscience has gotten to me … Indeed, in many ways the Church has been too silent, at least collectively speaking. Many Catholics tell me that they never hear topics addressed from their pulpits that need addressing: abortion, divorce, homosexuality, same-sex “unions,” fornication, modesty, the obligation to attend Sunday Mass, death, judgment, Heaven, Hell, euthanasia, witness, courage, and so forth.
Yes, many Catholics would attest that Church leaders might well begin by saying, “It is about time that I write you, that I speak to you …”
And if Catholics in the pews feel that way, how much more so unbelievers in the street? A Church too silent, too inward in her preoccupation, needs to begin the conversation with many again: “It is long past time that I speak with you …”
3. The old man is still typing using an outdated method of communication: the manual typewriter. This is a problem for the Church, too. While it is true that we proclaim an ancient and unchanging wisdom, the challenge for us it that our proclamation of it must be non nova, sed novae (not a new thing, but in a new way).
Not only have we been slow to pick up on the “new media” but we also struggle to proclaim our magnificent faith in compelling ways. Collectively, we are doing much better, but we have a long way to go. Many parishes and priests still have little Internet presence. Too many homilies are filled with abstractions and generalities and do not apply the faith to modern issues frequently enough. Too many catechisms look like comic books from the 1970s.
And while some may wonder how it is possible to stay abreast of all the latest technology, it is too important to ignore. Parishes and dioceses must invest resources and enlist skilled staff to ensure that all forms of modern communication are being used and that the results are professional.
Please be assured, dear reader, that I do not mean that the Church’s job is merely to be “relevant” and to reflect the current age. That is not our job. Our job is to represent the teachings of our founder and head, Jesus Christ. But we cannot be content to use the equivalent of a manual typewriter in doing so.
We have to be as wise as serpents in the use of new technology, while being innocent as doves when it comes to embracing the false relevance insisted on by the worldly minded. The message cannot change but the means must progress and the results must be both professional and savvy.
4. At last the man journeys out into the world and finds out what has been going on.A crisis and the inability to continue on as usual has driven him to venture out into the world. Similarly, the Church, like a sleeping giant, is now waking up and going back out into the world. We cannot continue to do business as usual. The various crises within and outside of the Church have driven us forth. The Church’s presence in the new media is growing and is becoming more and more professional. EWTN, Catholic Answers, New Advent, and many other Catholic websites are now engaging the culture.
5. But then comes the twist at the end of the video.The man, while having made some progress, misses the boat. We discover that his use and understanding of the new technology is flawed at best.
Similarly, we in the Church must not simply think that having all the latest technology is enough. We have to know how best and most effectively to use it. Otherwise, we risk making silly mistakes like the one made by the man in the cartoon.
Enjoy this video and learn its lesson. Pray for the Church, that we learn to get it right and that we have the courage to journey outside the comfort of our own four walls to preach effectively the truth we have received.
I have met a good number of people who said that they would never become Catholic and now are. Some are lay leaders in the Church and some are even priests! I have met other people who said they would never believe in God, yield to any religious instruction, or confess to “any man” and now do (and teach others to do the same).
