The Archdiocese of Washington has formed an Anti-pornography task force which is bearing good fruit. I’ve invited Mr. Rick Kramer, Associate Director of Evangelization and Family Life to share the work of the task force.
The Gift of Human Sexuality
We were made to see God! But since the beginning our eyes have strayed. Genesis tells us that when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit they saw that they were naked and sewed figs leaves together to hide themselves. In his great teaching, commonly called the Theology of the Body, Blessed Pope John Paul II teaches that rather than being an expression of true love, our bodies became objects of sinful desires. Through time the sinful desire for the human body has taken many shapes. In our own era of technology it has become pandemic through easy and immediate access to pornography.
Donald Cardinal Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington, in his pastoral letter Disciples of the Lord: Sharing the Vision tells us that “The attempt to recast human sexuality as casual and entirely recreational has led to an untold weakening of and continued assault on marriage and family…” This is a powerful obstacle to hearing the Good News, but as faithful Catholics we know that there is more to the story. God sent his Son, Jesus, to heal our hearts and bodies and restore our sight. Cardinal Wuerl continues: “But no darkness, no matter how dense, can thwart or shroud the seed of new life waiting to emerge in this fresh moment….” This fresh moment to hear the Good News about Jesus again is an opportunity to renew our own faith. Truth be told, the use of internet pornography today is no less prevalent among Catholics than anyone else; but like nowhere else, we have the tools required to combat this sin: faithful science and God’s grace.
Purpose of the Task Force
In December 2011 the Archdiocese of Washington implemented a task force comprised of experts in parish ministry and clinical psychology in the attempt to formally address the assault of pornography on our families and children. The purpose of this task-force is to listen to the needs and concerns of priests and laity and to set annual goals for parishes and schools to teach and equip families and individuals with the tools to protect themselves from the harm of pornography.
There are three areas the task force is focusing on: 1) Increasing awareness so that the effects and prevalence of porn and its harmful effects are truly known; 2) Education, through which parents and educators can gain assistance with creating safe environments at school and home for children and families to thrive; and 3) Healing by offering resources to clergy, schools, parish leaders for distributing to help heal wounded hearts and raise up the fallen so that forgiveness may be found and marriages healed.
Please see our website for resources for individuals and for families www.adw.org/healing You may also contact me in the Office for Evangelization and Family Life at 301-853-4546.
There is a trend that has set up for years now, and that is that Catholics are waiting many months to get their children baptized. I suspect that what we have here is a combination of a much lower infant mortality rate and, also, a less fervent practice of the faith by many. Further, there seems little sense among the faithful today that an unbaptized infant would be excluded from heaven.
As regards the last point, I think it is pastorally sound to trust in God’s mercy for infants who die before baptism. However, I do not think it follows that we ought to disregard or substantially delay a sacrament which Jesus commands, and which the Church indicates ought not to be delayed. The Code of Canon Law says the following:
Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it. If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay. Can. 867 §1,§2
The Catechism also states: The Church and parents deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250) So it seems clear that a higher priority should be given to scheduling the baptism of babies within the first few weeks after birth.
Protestant practice departs from the received Tradition – Another factor for American Catholics is that many are influenced by the Protestants. Protestants, (though not all of them) disagree with our Catholic practice of baptizing infants. They usually wait until a child is between 8 and 12 to baptize, reasoning that the child will know and understand what is happening and be able to claim Christ for themselves.
But, I hope you see the supreme irony of this in the fact that the Protestants, who so emphasize that salvation does not come from works, delay baptism on the grounds that the infant has not achieved (i.e. worked up to) the proper level of maturity. To know, requires one to learn, which is a work. And we Catholics, who supposedly teach salvation through works (we do not), baptize infants who can work no work.
Novelty – Indeed, the Protestant denominations (mostly Baptists (another irony), Pentecostals, Fundamentalist and Evangelicals) who refuse baptism to infants, engage in a novelty unknown to the Church until recent times.
It is a simple historical fact that the Church has always baptized infants. Even our earliest documents speak of the practice. For example the Apostolic Tradition written about 215 A.D. has this to say:
The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. (Apostolic Tradition # 21)
Scripture too confirms that infants should be baptized if you do the math. For example
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-17 NIV)
So the Kingdom of God belongs to the little children (in Greek βρέφη (brephe) indicating infants and little children still held in the arms, babes).
And yet elsewhere Jesus also reminds that it is necessary to be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of God: Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 NIV)
If the Kingdom of God belongs to little children, and we are taught that we cannot inherit it without baptism, then it follows that baptizing infants is necessary, and that to fail to do so, is a hindering of the little children which Jesus forbade his apostles to do. So both Tradition and Scripture affirm the practice of baptizing infants.
Many of the Protestants who do refuse infant baptism also water down (pardon the pun!) the fuller meaning of baptism, no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se, but more as a symbol of faith that they claim to have already received when they said the “sinners prayer” and accepted Christ as their savior. But what a tragic loss for them, since baptism and particularly the baptism of infants, says some very wonderful things about the complete gratuity of salvation and the goodness of God. Consider these points:
1. The baptism of infants is a powerful testimony to the absolute gratuity (gift) of salvation. Infants have achieved nothing, have not worked, have not done anything to “merit” salvation. The Catechism puts it this way: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. (CCC # 1250) The Church is clear, salvation cannot be earned or merited and infant baptism teaches that most clearly. Salvation is pure gift. How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse, themselves, to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement to me. That the child must meet some requirement, seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications….Achievement (of age)….Requirements….it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit. To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuity of salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are not capable of meriting, attaining or earning.
2. The Baptism of infants also powerfully attests to the fact that the beauty of holiness and righteousness is available to everyone regardless of age. To be baptized means to be washed. Washed of what? Original Sin. At first this seems like a downer, “Are you saying my baby has sin?” Yep. All of us inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. We are born into a state of alienation from God that is caused by sin. The Scriptures are clear: [S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12). So even infants are in need of the saving touch of God. Now why would we wish to delay this salvation and resulting holiness for 7 to 12 years? The Catechism says this,
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by Original Sin, children also have need of new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and be brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God….The Church and parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250).
St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the 3rd Century was asked if it was OK to wait to the 8th day to baptize since baptism had replaced circumcision. He respond with a strong no:
But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day We [the bishops] all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Epist# 58).
So then here is the beauty, that infants are summoned to receive the precious gift of holiness and righteousness and that they are summoned to a right relationship with God by having their sin purged and holiness infused. Infants are called to this dignity and should not be denied it. With this done, some of the holiest and most innocent days of our lives may well be our first years. Then, as the will begins to manifest, and reason begins to dawn, the grace of holiness gives us extra strength to fight against the sinful world that looms.
3. The Baptism of Infants also attests to the fact that faith is gift for every stage of development– To be baptized is to receive the gift of faith. It is baptism that gives the true faith. Even with adults, true faith does not come until baptism. Prior to that there is a kind of prevenient faith, but it is not the Theological Virtue of Faith.
Now faith is not only an intellectual assent to revealed doctrine. It is that, but it is more. To have faith is also be be in a righteous and trusting relationship with God. An infant relates to his parents long before he speaks or his rational mind is fully formed. He trusts his parents and depends on them. It is the same with God. Thus the infant can well trust and depend on God and be in a right relationship with God, in an age appropriate way.
With his parents, his or her relationship of trust with parents, leads the infant to begin to speak and understand as he or she grows. It is the same with God. As the infant’s mind awakens, the infant’s faith grows. It will continue to grow until the day he or she dies (hopefully) as an old man or woman.
That faith accompanies us through every stage of our life, and develops as we do, is essential to its nature. An infant needs faith no less than an old man. An infant benefits from faith no less than a teenager or an adult. To argue, as some Protestants do, that you have to be a certain age before faith can exist, hardly seems to respect the progressive nature of faith which is able to bless EVERY stage of our human journey.
I have some very vivid memories of my experience of God prior to seven years of age and I will say that God was very powerfully present to me in my early years, in many ways even more so than now, when my mind sometimes “gets in the way.”
Too many Catholics are waiting months, even years to have their children baptized. Precious time is lost by this delay. Infant Baptism speaks powerfully of the love that God has for everyone he has created and of his desire to have everyone in a right and saving relationship with Him. Surely baptism alone isn’t enough. The child must be raised in the faith. It is the nature of faith that it grows by hearing and seeing. Children must have faith given at baptism but that faith must be explained and unwrapped like a precious gift for them.
Don’t delay. Get started early and teach your child the faith they have received every day.
In the gospel for today’s Mass we see how the Lord Jesus encounters frightened and discouraged men and, in effect reorders their lives. As we shall see he does through what is essentially a liturgical experience with all the basic elements of the Mass. I wrote last week (HERE) about the way the Lord uses the Liturgy to reorient and reorder our lives. Today’s Gospel is another example.
Let’s look at this reordering which Jesus, like a Divine Physician accomplishes. It may be helpful to see it in three stages.
I. Critical Care – As the Gospel opens, we see ten frightened apostles. The text describes them in various ways as terrified, troubled, doubting and questioning. In this sense we can see their lives as disordered, for they are dominated by fear, doubt, and forgetfulness. They are forgetful in the sense that the Lord had told them many times over that he would rise on the third day. They seem wholly to have forgotten this, to a man. Not one recalled, or announced the Lord’s promise. Even now, on the evening of the resurrection, even having heard multiple reports of the Lord’s rising, they still remain deeply confused, doubtful and frightened.
Into this disordered scene, the Lord will appear, and he minister to them a restore them to order. He will perform a kind of critical care for them. And this critical care has all the fundamental elements of the Mass. Consider the following aspects of the Mass that we can see.
1. They are gathered, just as we gather for Mass. It is true, they gather with many struggles and concerns. But they are gathered just as we gather with all our struggles and concerns, joys and victories.
2. The Presence of the Lord and the Greeting by him – Scripture says, Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them (Matt 18:20). Sure enough, into this gathering of two or more, our Lord comes, visibly present, and he gives the greeting: “Peace be with you.” So too in our midst does the Lord come, and in the person of the priest or Bishop, he greets us. While only a bishop is permitted to say, “Peace be with you,” the liturgical greeting of the Priest, “The Lord be with you” serves a similar purpose of announcing the Lord’s presence and calling us to a faith in the reality of that presence.
3. Penitential Rite – These gathered men, to whom the Lord appears, need to have their lives reordered and the Lord goes right to work. In a kind of penitential rite, he asks them: Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? In a way, this is what the Lord says to us, through the priest, at the penitential rite. For many of us have brought troubles and sorrows with us to Mass, yes, sins and struggles. We are encouraged to lay them all before the Lord, to acknowledge our sins and struggles and ask the Lord’s mercy. Contrite and humbled before the Lord we ask his mercy and, receive reassurance as we recall the wounds he suffered for us, and the mercy he shows. Yes, the Lord showed them his wounds, he also shows us. Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy!
4. The Liturgy of the Word – So here we are in the critical care unit, if you will, our lives disordered, and our fears evident. Having bestowed his mercy, the Lord now applies the medicine of his Word. The text says, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And he said to them, ““Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Thus the Lord not only quotes Scripture, he opened their minds to the understanding of it. He applies and interprets it for them in a kind of homily. And this too is what the Lord does for us. For whatever fears and struggles we have brought, the Word of God has answers for us, reassurance, vision and perspective.
And what is that perspective? It is the Paschal mystery of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection. Yes, there is the cross, even death, but there is always victory if we stay with the Lord! There are crosses, but the cross wins! It ALWAYS wins!
In effect this is the meaning of every liturgy of the Word. The Lord, through his body the Church, declares his word to us, reminds us of our victory and summons us to live victorious lives, free of sin and fear. And this medicine of the Word, especially received regularly over time, works, along with the sacraments, prayer and fellowship (cf Acts 2:42) to reorder our lives.
5. The Liturgy of the Eucharist – In this case the Eucharist is very stylized, but its contours are still very clear. The Lord, in order to reassure them, says, Have you anything here to eat?”” They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them.
While it is true that we usually think of the Eucharist in terms of bread, nevertheless, fish too was a very common sign of the Eucharist, and of Jesus, in the early Church.
When the Lord fed the multitudes in a kind of precursor of the Eucharist, he multiplied the loaves AND the fishes.
Perhaps for this reason, the early Church often spoke of the Lord, and also of His presence in the Eucharist, in terms of the symbol of the fish. The Greek word for fish was ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthus) which served also as a acronym for Jesus: Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior. In many early depictions of the Last Supper fish are seen on the table, a plate not common to the Passover meal, but placed there by Christians as a sign of the Eucharist.
Thus, Jesus eats in their presence and, in a Eucharistic manner, he eats fish.
And note how this too he does to reassure and reorder their lives away from fear and turmoil, and unto confidence and serenity. This eating is to reassure them that he is not a ghost. For eating pertains to living humans, not to angels, spirits, demons or ghosts.
Further, we read in the 23rd Psalm an important reminder of how the Eucharist is an essential and important sign of the Lords protection and our ultimate victory: You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies: you anoint my head with oil; my cup runs over (Ps 23:5). Yes, the Eucharist is both the sign of our victory and an overwhelming experience of it. And through the confidence that comes from the Eucharist, and the strength of this food from on high, we are strengthened and reassured of victory against every enemy and oppression. In this way too the Lord reorders our broken and fearful lives.
6. Ite Missa est– Jesus, having reordered their lives by calming their fears and giving them new visions, says simply, Forgiveness of sins, [is to] be preached…to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
Yes, he sends them forth, having reordered their lives. It is the same for us. Drawing us into the liturgy by gathering us, drawing for our fears, cancelling them by his Word and Sacrament, the Lord now sends us forth with the same command to announce his name to all and to be witnesses of all he has done.
II. Crucial Questions – Just as a personal practice you and I might make it a fruitful thing to get in the habit of answering the questions Jesus asks. It is too easy for us merely to wait and see how the apostles or other biblical figures respond to the Lord. But in the end, it is YOU and I who must answer these questions. And what are the questions the Lord asks? They are two, simple but also questions that cut to the core:
– Why are you troubled?
– And why do questions arise in your hearts?
Answer him. Why? Why are our lives so frequently disordered by fear and doubts? What is the origin of that for you? Do you feed your negativity so that it grows? Do you lack gratitude for the gifts of the past? DO you minimize or forget what God has done for you, and what he has promised? Have you failed to recognize that God sets a table for you in the presence of your enemy the Devil? Have you forgotten his love? Has it ever really dawned on you what he has done for you?
The questions could go on. But the point is, answer the Lord. If he is going to reorder your life, these are questions which we must answer, and realities that we must allow Him to diminish for us. Fear and doubts have to go and only God can do it. And be aware of the Medicine he will use, Prayer, Scripture, fellowship, and the Eucharist (cf Acts 2:42).
III. Commissioning – In every Mass the Lord looks to reorder our lives. Has he done this for you? How? Are you a witness of these things? What testimony do you have of how the Lord has blessed you over the years as you have attended mass and experienced his healing? The Lord wants to send you forth with the message of a new and reordered life. Go tell somebody what the Lord has done for you!
On of the most common sins committed, and yet, one of the sins least confessed, is the sin of Rash Judgment. The commercial below humorously depicts the sin and how wrong we can sometimes be.
But in reality the sin is not often humorous and can lead us to some very dark places. We may, on account of rash judgments, harbor grudges, resentments, fears, and unjust anger. We may allow rash judgment to foster our pride as we feel superior to others, and we may carry deep hurts, or even seek revenge, all based on misinformation, or misinterpretation of what others do. And gossip is usually the daughter (or son) of rash judgment.
St. Thomas speaks of rash judgement as those times, When the human intellect lacks certainty, as when a person, without any solid motive, forms a negative judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, it is called judgment by suspicion or rash judgment. (Summa Theologica, Quest. 60, art 2)
According to Fr. John Hardon:Rash Judgment is unquestioning conviction about another person’s bad conduct without adequate grounds for the judgment. The sinfulness of rash judgment lies in the hasty imprudence with which the critical appraisal is made, and in the loss of reputation that a person suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely (Modern Catholic Dictionary).
The Catechism places rash judgment in the context of the obligation we have to preserve the good reputation of others:
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way (CCC 2477-2478)
All this said, rash judgment is often committed in weakness. Our minds are weak and we often lack patience or determination to carefully discern the whole truth. Sometimes we commit this sin based on hurts of the past, or the general climate of cynicism that permeates our culture.
On account of these roots in weakness, the necessary antidote is humility, and a quick appreciation that, in most incidents, we do not have all the facts at first. Further, we must often admit that we may never have all the facts in certain cases. In our humility we ought, usually, to presume the more benign interpretations of uncertain matters unless, and until, the facts require otherwise.
In our instant media culture of 24/7 news, we are encouraged to make quick judgments. News outlets often rush to “analysis” before most of the facts are in. And, with plausible “experts” at the anchor desk, rash judgments often seem “credible” when, in fact, they are little more than rash judgments.
Be very careful. Rash judgment, especially when shared with others, can do a lot of damage. It is not a sin to be taken lightly, even if it is often committed in weakness.
Perhaps then a little humor will make the point. In this commercial, a man with all the best of intentions, looks quite guilty of all the worst intentions. Enjoy.
It is common for all of us to have to struggle as to the great mystery of God’s providence and will. If it is not our own struggle then we must often commiserate with others who are in distress. One person is losing her young daughter to cancer, a friend is struggling to find work, still another has a husband who is drinking. Some will say to me, “I’ve been praying, Father. Nothing seems to happen.” I am not always sure what to say and God doesn’t often explain why we must suffer, or why he delays, or why he says, “No.”
Just think of how he answered Job. Job wanted answers as to why he was suffering. And God spoke from the whirlwind and upbraided Job with provocative questions meant to humble him. But in the end he gave him no real answer. He DID restore Job though. And somehow in the midst of God’s mysterious ways we DO have to remember that if we are faithful God is going to more than restore us one day. But in the midst of trials, future restoration seems pretty theoretical.
So, often in the midst of trials, the best we can do is to be still. To breathe, to sigh and yearn, and to weep with those who weep. Scripture says, The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD (Lam 3:25).
Scripture does give some answers as to God’s delay and to his “No.” And while these explanations may not always satisfy us emotionally, they do provide a teaching which can ultimately assist us in not allowing our sorrow, anger or disappointment to interact with our pride and lead us away from faith. Let’s look at a few of these explanations as to God’s “No” and his delay. Some of these explanations pertain to God and some to us. I place the word “sometimes” before most of these since they do not all apply to all of us, all the time.
1. Sometimes, “No” is the Best Answer – We often think we know what is best for us. We want to have this job, or we want that person to fall in love and marry us. We want to be delivered from a certain illness or receive a financial blessing. We see these as good outcomes and are sure that God must also see them this way. But God may not, in fact, agree with our assessment as to what is best for us. And thus his “No” is really the best answer to our prayers.
For example we may always prefer that God answer our prayer that none of our children be born with any disabilities. But God may see that the experience of disability may be just the thing that we or the child may need in order to be saved ultimately. St. Paul prayed for deliverance from some sort of physical affliction: Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:7-10).
The fact is, we really don’t know what is best for us or for someone else. We may think we know, but we do not. God’s “No” to Paul helped to save him for it helped him better understand the power of the cross in his life and how we must learn to depend on God. So too for us. We may prefer certain outcomes, but God alone really knows if our preference is truly good for us or just apparently good.
2. God is love –Many confuse love with kindness. Kindness is a common attribute of love but it is not the same as love. Any parent knows that they must often times discipline their children, and that it is the loving thing to do. A parent who is always kind and never punishes, spoils that child and does not exhibit true love. Parents will sometimes inflict pain on a child by limiting their freedom and insisting that they do what is right. They will bring an unwilling child to the doctor for shots, they will insist that they finish their homework before play. They may give a firm “no” to certain requests that they know are harmful or interfere with greater duties. Kindness always wants to say yes, but love sometimes says no and even inflicts hardships where necessary.
God is a Father. Kindness has its place but love is more essential for us than mere kindness which is but an attribute of love.
Scripture says, My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son….God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Heb 12:5-6, 11). And Again: Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus….Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this (2 Tim 2:3,7)
3. Sometimes our request cannot be affirmed without violating another’s freedom– It is a common thing that we may pray for the conversion of another person. Or we may pray that they make some decision that we prefer. God is all powerful and could force outcomes, but this would violate the freedom of others to truly decide. If freedom is contingent upon God’s whim then it is not really freedom. God can exhort through his Church and the Scriptures. He can send special graces to be of influence, but in the end, we are free and he will not generally force an individual to choose what we want or ask in prayer. The Scriptures affirm our freedom. For example: There are set before you fire and water; to which ever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, which ever he chooses shall be given him (Sirach 15:16-17).
4. Sometimes our request cannot be granted due to the harm it might cause to others- We can sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that we are the most important thing on God’s agenda. We want a sunny day for our picnic but the farmers are in desperate need of rain. Whose need is more important? It would seem that the farmers might be a bit higher on God’s list than my picnic, however, even this, I leave up to God.
The prophet Jonah went reluctantly to the Ninevites to preach. And he didn’t want them to be converted. He wanted them to refuse repentance and be destroyed within 40 days. He had, in his own mind, good reasons to want this. The Ninevites (Assyrians) were amassing an army that was a great threat to Israel, and if they were destroyed Israel would be spared any further threat. But the Ninevites DID repent. And Jonah was sullen and bitter. God rebuked him for wanting the Ninevites destroyed with these words: Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city? (Jonah 4:9) We may not be praying for another’s harm but it may sometimes be the case that what we ask for would adversely affect others.
5. Sometimes our faith is not strong enough – Jesus said: “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (Matthew 21:22) And the Book of James says, But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; (James 1:6-7) There is also the sad fact of Nazareth where the Lord could work few miracles so much did their lack of faith disturb him (Matt 13:58)
6. Sometimes we ask for improper things or with wrong motives –The Book of James says : “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures”
7. Sometimes unrepented sin sets up a barrier between us and God so that our prayer is blocked – “Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor His ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities (sins) have separated you from God; your sins have hidden his face from you so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1-2).
8. Sometimes we have not been generous with the requests and needs of others – “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered” (Proverbs 21:13)
9. Sometimes God cannot trust us with blessings for we are not conformed to his word or trustworthy with lesser things – If you remain in me and my word remains in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be given to you” (John 15:7) and Again: So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? (Lk 16:11-12). Thus we must prove trustworthy in smaller matters to be trusted with greater blessings.
Again, please remember the “explanations” above may or may not apply to you personally. Some, others may not. In the end we have to accept the mystery of prayer and come to accept that not everything is fully explainable. We see so very little of the whole picture God sees. Humility must be our constant disposition.
This Song says that some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.
The video below is almost two years old and I recall hearing something of this story then, but I have never seen the full video. I remember only hearing a grainy recording and so it made less impact. But in this video two statements by Mrs. Pelosi are juxtaposed and the impact is stronger than the story I heard back then.
In the first half of the video, Minority Leader of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi goes on at some length about the Word becoming flesh. She sort of goes into preacher mode and I get the feeling that she is suddenly quite uncomfortable with where she finds herself. Suddenly a woman who is not unaccustomed to public speaking becomes slow and halting and rather grasping for words. But the gist of her comment is this:
When people ask me about my word, I say it is the Word. The Word became flesh and that is beautiful. And we need to give voice the Word in terms of Public Policy.
She goes so far as to say that we are going to answer to God for whether we do this or not.
OK, I am with you Mrs. Pelosi. The Scriptures should surely inform public policy. But I want to add immediately that I’d like to see the unabridged version of Scripture used. Care for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, the disadvantaged, all to be sure. But also the unborn. And while we’re at it, there are a few teachings about homosexual activity, and the sacredness of traditional marriage, and more than a few comeuppances to people in power. We could go on but you get the point.
But wowsa! Talk about setting yourself up for a doozy of a followup question. The Word made Flesh…are you really sure you want to go down that road with your pro-abortion stance?
Perhaps this explains her rather sudden stammering and searching for words. You can almost see the gears turning in her head, and the discomfort on her face.
Sure enough the question comes later. In the second half of the video the reporter asks in effect,
Mrs. Pelosi at a community conference, you have remarked how the Word becoming flesh should be reflected public policy. Can you state when the Word became flesh? At the annunciation or at the birth?
Mrs. Pelosi’s answer indicates a sudden shift away from the notion that faith should be discussed in public or affect public policy. She consigns any such discussion to the closed doors of a Church. So much for the Word becoming flesh being reflected in public policy. Her exact quote is:
Whatever it [i.e. the Word made Flesh] was, we bow our heads when we talk about it in Church and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.
Hmm… So in one public setting, at a community conference, she gets to wax eloquent about the Word made flesh and even with the fire of preacher warns us of judgment day, if we don’t abide by the vision. In the another public setting she dismisses it as a topic unfit for a setting outside the Church.
A word about this video. I do not personally care for the subtext “Pelosi eats her words in xx Seconds.” In the first place, though I vigorously disagree with Mrs. Pelosi on most things, I consider it disrespectful to refer to public officials merely by their last name. This is done a lot today even at the presidential level, Bush this…. Obama that. Public officials, even those with whom we have vigorous disagreement, should be called either by their title, their full name or by the prefix Mr., Mrs., or Ms.
Further I don’t know if eating her words is an appropriate expression. It is too gleeful for a tragic situation. Mrs. Pelosi is tragically misled on the question of abortion and other matters of the faith. To the degree that she has voted to fund abortion or advocated for such funding she is guilty of at least material cooperation in abortion. Gleeful attitudes, while understandable for those who have been in the fight so long, are not the right attitude. Prayerful hope that the reporter’s question may have sparked her conscience is better, and prayer for a conversion of mind and heart in this matter is best.
With that in mind, here is the video. I beg your pardon if this is old news for you. But I missed it, and thus suspect others did too.
By the way, in the comments let’s prescind from the question of denial of communion to pro-abortion Pols. It’s above our pay grade and there’s nothing we can do about it. Leave it to the bishops, and/or send your remarks directly to them. I am only a pope…err… a Msgr. Pope.
As an idealistic, optimistic, college student, I was introduced to the documents of Vatican II, specifically, the opening paragraph of Gadium et Spes. “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts.” This perfectly captured my desire to serve the Lord by serving the poor. I applied to the Jesuit Volunteer Corps and asked to be assigned to Alaska because I wanted to work among people of a culture other than my own. The JVC was happy to oblige and before long I found myself standing outside my new home—on the banks of the Yukon River in Tanana, Alaska, in front of a bright yellow trailer that was capable of running water but did not have it at the moment or in the next two months.
Quickly, it became clear that I was seduced by the idea of poverty and completely unprepared for the reality. For example, I never imagined it involved a yellow trailer with the ugliest orange and yellow shag carpet I had ever seen. Poor is so much more than lack of money. I had never had to live in a community in which no one was untouched by the toll of alcoholism. From its effect on unborn children, to the destruction of family life to the social toll within the community, life was often bleak. What really, I asked myself, did it mean that the “griefs and anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted,…are the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ?”
We are not the Red Cross
Paragraph 22, of Gaudium et Spes suggests “Through Christ and in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful. Apart from His Gospel, they overwhelm us.” This was proven true for me during my year in the tundra. My JVC year in Tanana taught me what makes the charitable and social service ministry different from the Red Cross. Our vision is that of the Gospel that enables us to look at the world through God’s eyes.
I have been thinking about this because last Saturday, more than 100 volunteers in social ministry and Pro-life ministry came together for a day of formation. The reading of the day, took us back to Jesus’ suffering, reminding us that even as we glory in the grace of the Resurrection and the Easter season, it is never separated from Jesus’ suffering. These are volunteers who work on issues that seem unsolvable and with people whose suffering is overwhelming . Volunteers whose work puts them in the face of the riddles of poverty, abortion, war, bigotry, euthanasia and advocacy. They work with some people who come over and over for help but often refuse the option that will be most helpful. When they have been blessed to relieve the suffering on one person, they remember the ten people they could not help. What keeps them from despair? What keeps them optimistic and enthusiastic? For many people they remember the moment of choice—to give in to feeling of overwhelmed and walk away from the ministry and the mission, or to turn to Our Lord and the Gospel. “Through Christ and in Christ the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful.” The gift of Catholic Social Teaching is that it marries the Gospel to the existence of grief, despair and injustice. The Church does not choose to simply preach the vision of the world to come and advise people to endure the present and wait patiently for the coming of the kingdom. The Church has not offered simple answers to what are complex riddles wrapped in mystery. The Church proclaims the truth, that the riddles of this age are wrapped in the mystery of God’s plan for the building of the kingdom. What the Church has to offer is itself—a community linked, joined, bound to humankind by the deepest of bonds. The Church knows that it will be judged on its solidarity with the poor and most vulnerable.
After overwhelmed
It is the mature follower of Christ who when feeling overwhelmed can dig deep and find courage and strength to continue to enter into the mystery of suffering in the story of the Church, in our sacramental life and in service. To embrace the gift of being able to grieve with the broken hearted and be an instrument of hope, to embrace the mystery that, as Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church reflected “All the way to heaven is heaven!”
This is a very thought provoking article over at The Catholic Thing by Peter Brown on an issue I have also struggled to present here (far less capably than Mr. Brown). And that is the issue of finding the proper balance or interplay between two principles of Catholic Social teaching: subsidiarity and solidarity.
Precise meanings have been lost – The problem that has emerged is that Catholics, and others, have taken these terms into the political arena and, as might be expected, these rather careful and nuanced Catholic terms have been reduced more to slogans, and are fast losing their truly Catholic meaning. Thus, subsidiarity becomes shorthand for smaller government, and solidarity is shorthand for expansive government. They are also losing their interconnectedness and taking on a more polar opposite quality.
Interrelatedness is lost – To be sure, these terms do exist in some tension with one another, but they also compliment and depend on each other. Yet, much is lost as they become slogans and shorthand terms. Also ignored in this rather bipolar world are other principles of Catholic Social Teachings such as distributism, complementarity, charity, and the universal destination of goods.
A few thoughts on the two principles in question by your truly and then a look at Peter Brown’s Article.
Subsidiarity – The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of Subsidiarity –
The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature (1879)….A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them (1880)….but the human person is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions. (1881)…..Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (1883)…..The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order (1885).
Note the careful, interplay between levels of a society that subsidiarity envisions. It is clear that subsidiarity opposes the imposition of top-down solutions, and insists that problems should be handled at the lowest level possible, thus respecting individuals, families and local communities. But higher levels do have an obligation to support lower levels and to provide a coordinating function, where necessary, between various and numerous lower levels. So subsidiarity does oppose “excessive intervention” by the state, but also envisions some role of support in case of need, and coordination that respects the common good.
Hence what subsidiarity seeks, it would seem, is the lowest reasonable level to solve a problem. Sometimes the lowest level is in fact the family, Church, or local community (disciplining a child, providing food and shelter), at other times it is at the state level (building state roads), at still other times the Federal Government is the appropriate and lowest level (e.g. in building interstate roads, stabilizing national monetary policy, repelling international enemies and so forth).
It will therefore be noted that, even before examining the principle of solidarity, subsidiarity already admits of nuance and the need for prudential judgement as to what the most appropriate level to solve a problem is. Reasonable men and women may differ on the exact level and combination of levels to problem solve.
It does seem clear however that we have come through a time of heavy Federal and State intervention and that greater scrutiny is needed to avoid violating the intrinsic demand of limits to governmental involvement and collectivist solutions.
Solidarity – Here too the Catechism teaches:
The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood (1939)…Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation (1940). Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples….(1941).
This principle, it will be noted is far more sweeping, almost poetically so, in its vision. It is less restrictive and more proscriptive. In short we are to see everyone as our brother or sister and be prepared to stand with them for a more just social order. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Hence we are summoned to become more keenly aware of the injustice that others suffer. If we are part of that injustice, then we are summoned to repent. In all cases we are called to know and love our brethren more.
Solidarity implies above all else, a relationship. It is more than writing checks or making occasional protests. It is coming to know others and sharing their hardships as well as their joys. It is also sharing our hardships and joys with others.
It will be noted that little is said of Government in these quotes from the Catechism on solidarity. For solidarity includes subsidiarity even as subsidiarity includes solidarity. (Peter Brown will make this point well in the quote below). Rather, solidarity is about interpersonal relationships, and of individuals joining together in mutual support.
As such, groups often develop political involvement, as they have the right to do. In recent years it is clear that many such groups, that have come together for solidarity among themselves, have adopted a stance that is more insistent on political and legal solutions. But this is a trend in our society not an intrinsic demand of solidarity.
Paradoxically it will be noted that Subsidiarity makes mention of Government while Solidarity (at least in this Catechism definition) does not. Subsidiarity, while seeking to limit government and other high level solutions, does envision some role for higher levels (e.g. Government) in terms of “support” and “coordination.” The Catechism’s treatment of solidarity does not make mention of Government (though it does not exclude it).
It is therefore interesting how, in recent years, subsidiarity has come to be identified with small government, and solidarity with big government. The catechetical reality is more complicated and nuanced. As Catholics we do well to be more careful in our use of these terms.
And now for some words from the Peter Brown article I noted earlier. Mr. Brown is here referring to the Healthcare debate but makes the same basic point that “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” ought not be reduced to bipolar (opposite) notions but are in fact related. As per usual, his remarks are in black, bold italics, my minor remarks are in red plain text.
[T]he great American health care debate….has even spilled over into theology, where partisans on either side are armed with cudgels called, respectively, “subsidiarity” and “solidarity.” …
In broad outline, “Subsidiarists” are people who are fearful or hostile to the state provision of social welfare – preferring that charity be dispensed at lower levels of society: communities and families. “Solidarists,” by contrast, believe that society as a whole is often the best administrator of social welfare, and prefer that things such as health insurance be run by the state. Or so it is said by those who use these terms. But, as Brown notes the reality of these terms is more complex.
Subsidiarists speak kindly of social arrangements as they were in the old days, when communities consisted of people who knew and cared for one another and extended families. Why, in this view, should Catholics support a distant, impersonal, bureaucratic welfare state, when for most of Church history Catholics subsisted by taking care of one another?…
In his core conviction, the subsidiarist is not wrong. People did use to care for each other more and without state provision. The original risk-pooling arrangement in the West was the feudal society – with peasants and lords combining resources to take care of the sick and the dying. …With the emergence of modern capitalism, the feudal system collapsed. The provision of social welfare was replaced largely by guilds, trade unions, and friendly societies [e.g. Knights of Columbus]. For a membership fee and active participation, friendly societies would visit sick members, while underwriting doctor bills and funeral expenses. Over time, many of them arranged for long-term support for the disabled as well. [To this day, the Knights of Columbus has a strong Life Insurance Policy program for its members].
These societies also practiced solidarity, with regular member meetings imbued with a specifically religious flavor – prayers, Bible readings, and fellowship. The Knights of Columbus was originally set up along the friendly society model. The arrangement seemed a subsidiarist theologian’s dream. People taking care of one another in families and communities in Christian charity. What was not to like? [But note how solidarity and subsidiarity existed together and were quite interwove. They were NOT competing principles at all, they worked together].
[But] friendly societies actually began collapsing well before the emergence of the modern welfare state…One problem was the vast improvement in medical care…A small community could provide for the health care that was available in 1870. It was much harder in 1910. It would be impossible today with the cost of care for, say, cancer or heart disease easily running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars….
Another thing that killed the friendly societies was …social mobility. With people increasingly moving from farm to city, and from city to city, the social solidarity that made the societies work fell apart. Solidarity is in fact an absolutely necessary (though not sufficient) condition for subsidiarist arrangements to work. [Again, note the relationship and interdependence of solidarity and subsidiarity. They are not competing principles, they are interdependent ones]. And solidarity simply does not hold up well in a dynamic labor market. Want to move to Texas to accept that great job offer? Then someone needs to take care of grandpa and the disabled cousin back home.
The final blow to the friendly societies was….privately underwritten insurance. Insurance companies recognized both the rising cost of medical care, and social mobility; they could offer better rates to younger, healthier, more mobile people. This left the friendly societies with the older, sicker and less mobile. …
As the adverse selection problems [i.e. more older and sick policy holders and fewer younger and healthy ones] inherent in private insurance have grown, the state has assumed an ever greater role. Subsidiarists have not yet come up with a modern model that better manages risk. [Is this true? Perhaps the comment box will address this answer].
Consequently, we have a health care system that is not very subsidiarist – or solidarist. …
I do not know what the ideal health care system would look like. But I do know that theological terms such as “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” of themselves provide relatively little insight into where we should go. There are great dangers in turning power over to the state, but also in leaving people in modern societies without practical recourse.
On this issue as many others, the complexity of the modern age defies simplistic theological sloganeering [exactly].
Peter Brown is completing a doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America.
Bottom line: Subsidiarity and Solidarity as used in the public debate are not being properly understood or applied. Sadly, it looks like these words have been reduced to bumper stickers. Catholics do well to exercise care in their use, and to grow in a deeper understanding that Catholicism is not easily reduced to simple one-liners. As the photo above shows, sometimes solidarity means withstanding government power and is not necessarily the polar opposite of subsidiarity. Likewise, subsidiarity cannot usually exist without solidarity. Though the political world loves to divide, Catholicism does not easily fit into the political world’s simple categories.
After a rather serious post on the proper meaning of words, perhaps a little levity at my own expense is in order:
