All posts by Rob Agnelli

More than Couch Potatoes

Leisure

What does it mean when we say that man is made in the image of God?  Classically this has been interpreted as man, through his spiritual soul, being able to perform the God-like activities of knowing and loving.  It is this natural “God-likeness” that gives us dignity above any other visible creature.  The Catechism defines man as the only visible creature who is “‘able to know and love his creator’. … and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity…” (CCC 356).  But we are also God-like in our activities.  We image God most prominently in marriage and in our work.  But there is a third way that we image God that often gets overlooked—leisure.  When God rested on the 7th Day He did so not because He was tired but because He took delight in all that He had created, especially man.  In marking this resting as the sign of His first covenant with mankind it was meant to serve as a model for mankind so that we would habitually set aside time to take delight in what is.  In fact, if we apply one of Aquinas’ favorite philosophical dictum, “last in order of execution is first in order of intention” we find that the highest thing that man can do is leisure.  In fact it would seem that all other things are done in order to make this thing possible.

When Our Lord visited the home of Martha and Mary, He was, in essence, reminding Martha (and all of us) that work is not the highest good.  Work is meant as useful activity so that work, in and of itself, does not have meaning but ultimately is directed towards something else.  In other words, work must always be done as a means to some other end.  You don’t work merely for work’s sake.  For example, a furniture maker doesn’t simply saw the wood for the sake of sawing the wood.  He has the end in mind of building a chair.  Because of this, work is good.  It not only contributes to the dignity of the person, but to the common good as well.  It is also necessary.  St. Paul tells the Thessalonians that those who don’t work, don’t eat.

The Romans and the Greeks knew this truth from Truth much better than we do.  We treat leisure as little more than playing in order to get back to work.  But for the ancients work was for the sake of leisure.  Work was meant to free us up for the higher things.  In fact the Latin word for leisure is otium and the word for work is negotium, which literally means “not at leisure.”

In Leisure: The Basis of Culture , Josef Pieper defines leisure as “considering things in a celebrating spirit.  The leisure of man includes within itself a celebratory gaze of the inner eye on the reality of creation.”  Leisure is drinking reality as it really is.  It is an activity that is done for its own sake that in some way enriches the person.  An example of leisure would be to “stop and smell the roses.”  We don’t look at a rose so that we might dissect it, but so that we might gaze upon it and take in its beauty for its own sake.  In other words, leisure should be something that elicits wonder on our part.

Max Weber, an early 20th century German politician and sociologist said that “one does not work in order to live, one lives for the sake of one’s work.”  Compare this with what Aristotle said.   He said that we don’t work to live but to be at leisure.  Can you imagine trying to tell this to people today without being labeled as lazy or unproductive?

I think it is important at this point to discuss exactly what leisure is not.  It is not merely “Veging out” or amusement.  We were made for much more than merely amusement.  We were made for eternal joy, which is so much deeper than simple amusement.  I am not saying that either of these is necessarily bad, just that they aren’t leisure.  Leisure is meant to enrich us while these only serve as a distraction or break from work.  Leisure should be recreation which consists in those things by which we are “recreated.” Practically speaking means we somehow have a different view of reality—God, the world, and ourselves—after participating in them.  Leisure activities contribute to happiness it necessarily increases virtue.  This should be our measuring stick as to whether a given activity is true leisure or not.  But again, leisure is an end in itself.  We do not do them because they increase virtue, they increase virtue because they are good for us.  This can often be a source of confusion for us.  For example is exercising something that a healthy person does or is it something that causes health?  The person who does it because of the first reason does so in a spirit of festivity and joy—they enjoy it.  The second person does so minimally and grudgingly.

JPII Hiking

Why is it so necessary, especially in today’s world?  I am convinced what the world needs more than anything else today is the restoration of wonder.  Only in leisure can we look beyond the usefulness of things to their meaning.  This is the very Catholic habit of viewing reality sacramentally.  All visible reality is meant to point to the invisible reality of God, its Creator.  Creation exists so as to reveal God to us His beloved creatures.  Aquinas may have gotten the mechanics of the law of gravity wrong, but he certainly got its meaning right—it existed as a force because God is love and love, being a cause of attraction causes an object to rest in the object it is attracted to.  Even the law of gravity is a sacrament!

As is always the case, but especially when we have things totally upside down, we should look to Christ and how He lived to get our priorities in order.  We seem to have this image of Him as a serious man who never had any fun.  That is why I love the flashback scene in the movie The Passion of the Christ where Jesus has just finished building the table and Mary asks about the chairs.  His playful response is invaluable for us in understanding that God as man certainly knew how to have fun.  This was a man who grew up and lived in a Mediterranean culture where they spent a great deal of time at table with friends, drinking good red wine.  As the Second Vatican Council told us in Gaudium et Spes, “The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light” (GS 22).

So what did Christ tell us about Leisure in the Gospels?  Three particular passages come to mind.  During His temptation in the desert, Christ tells the devil that “man does not live by bread alone” (Mt 4:4).  I think this is precisely the point.  The man who does try to live by bread alone, which unfortunately is the majority of us, is the man who lacks both culture and leisure.

The second passage that comes to mind is during the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:33) when He tells us to seek the kingdom first and then all these things will be added.  The man who seeks the highest things will have the lesser things thrown in.  As CS Lewis said in his essay First and Second Things, “you can’t get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first.”  Only with leisure in its higher place can we begin to understand work in the proper way.

So how have we gotten things so upside down?  What are the causes?  I think there are three main causes, although it is hard to narrow it down to only these three.

In the Gospel of Life, John Paul II said that at the root of the culture of death is “an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency”.  This I think shows one of the main causes.  We don’t have leisure because we are too obsessed with production.  Leisure doesn’t produce anything.  It is useless and that it is why the lack of leisure also coincides with a lack of friendship.

This obsession with usefulness and utility can even be found in our everyday language.  How many times have you asked someone how they are, only to get the response of “busy”?  In fact, this happens so often to me that I am often caught off guard when I don’t get it.  We associate our well-being with how occupied we are.  Someone who understands leisure and its place should respond that they are “wonder-full”.

This manifests itself in workaholism.  This is when work becomes an end in itself and people define themselves according to their work.  Think about it.  When we meet or introduce someone, we immediately want to know what they do for a living.  It is nothing other than vanity though.  We seek approval for what we do rather than for who we are in God.

Sin is obviously the cause of all of this, but there is one of the Capital Sins that is at the heart of the crisis of leisure and it is one you rarely hear about anymore.  That sin is sloth.  Let me be clear on what exactly sloth is.  Aquinas said that sloth is sorrow about spiritual good.  It is not merely sorrow as a feeling, but it is a sorrow which steals our appetite for God.

It is not mere laziness as is often thought.  It is only laziness in that it keeps us from our heavenly tasks.  Sloth is the reason why most people don’t pray and is the reason why our spiritual lives are “choked out by the concerns of the world” (Mk 4:19).  It can actually be anything but laziness in that it takes a lot of work to avoid asking the big questions in life such as who we are and where we are going.

This is why we so often fail to wonder at beauty.  The expression of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” doesn’t say it all.  The problem is not that beauty is subjective (in fact it is objective along with goodness and truth).  The problem is that the “beholder” lacks the maturity to recognize the beauty.

The last cause I want to mention is the most important and the most obvious.  Although the majority of our culture professes to believe in God, they are practical atheists in that they act as if God did not exist.  Is there a commandment that is more closely associated with leisure than the third?  And is there a commandment that is broken more often today?  Why did God issue the Third Commandment to keep the Sabbath Holy?  We turn once again to the Catechism:

If God “rested and was refreshed” on the seventh day, man too ought to “rest” and should let others, especially the poor, “be refreshed.”  The sabbath brings everyday work to a halt and provides a respite. It is a day of protest against the servitude of work and the worship of money. (CCC 2172)

So it wasn’t because God demands our worship so much as to remind us not to become slaves to anything.  We were made to worship and only in worshipping God are we complete.  Everyone worships something.

It is also to remind us that we were not meant for the servitude of work.  Man is made for the higher things to which leisure points us.  God’s gift of the Sabbath is to remind us of that.  It reminds us that the truth of reality is that we are all useless.  God has absolutely no use for any of us.  We were created because He loved us into creation and it is His love that holds us in creation.  There is nothing we can give him that he doesn’t already have except our love and adoration.  In that way we are all useless and meant only for the highest of things.

The Biggest Fan?

Culture, Sports

Perhaps because of the number of players from Catholic Latin America, Major League baseball is the most outwardly religious of all the professional sports. Players regularly make the sign of the cross before stepping into the box and point to the heavens when they get a big hit. But most players and fans, when pressed, will say that God does not really care about the score of a baseball game. Despite the consensus, this assumption should be addressed. It reveals God as distant Father that is too busy running the universe to care about the outcome of a baseball game rather than Him in whom “we live and have our being”(Acts 17:28)
One might reasonably ask what kind of father does not care whether his son wins his baseball game. It might be that the father cares solely because his son does, but nevertheless a loving father ought to care whether his son wins his baseball game or not. But, it might be objected that the interlocutor is projecting man’s fatherhood onto God’s Fatherhood rather than the other way around. Only God is truly a Father and a man is a father only by way of analogy. For example, everyone would agree that a man who stands idly by while his child runs into the street and gets hit by a car is a terrible father. God’s Fatherhood on the other hand is not diminished when He allows the same thing to happen because His Fatherhood extends eternally. In other words, God’s Fatherhood is more than man’s fatherhood and not less. If a human father cares for his children’s happiness more so would God the Father care. We shall return to this point shortly.
In truth, the person who says that God does not care about the score of a baseball game is reversing the analogy. He is projecting the “trophy mentality” that is so prevalent among parents and coaches today onto God the Father. There is no award for excellence, only for trying. We do not care whether you win or lose and therefore God does not either.
But there is a deeper issue at play here. This type of mentality reveals a deep-seeded dualism that infects modern man. The modern dualist believes that the world is made up the two opposing realms of the secular and the spiritual. There is no real overlap between the two worlds and the gods of both realms act independently of each other. The end result is that modern man is disintegrated and lives his life in a completely compartmentalized fashion. One needs only to look at Sundays as evidence. The ritual of watching football (and usually a lot of it) honors the secular god “weekend” while we go to Mass in the morning because “giving God one hour of my week is the least I can do.” The best of us try to try to keep one foot in each realm but the secular god eventually wins out because he is literally in our face all the time. He finally wins out when we concede “God does not care how we worship Him.”
It was mentioned above that if human fathers care about the happiness of children than God cares even more. This comment deserves further explanation. To the modern mind, happiness is synonymous with contentment. It is seen subjectively as a temporary feeling that is dependent on external circumstances. That the word happy comes from the Old English word for “chance” is a perfect illustration of this. Classically understood though, happiness is a translation of the Greek word eudaimonia which defines happiness as a condition of the soul that finds its ultimate fulfillment in the beatific vision. God, because He wills our eternal happiness, cares about all those things and events that contribute to our beatitude.
What the person who says that God does not care about who wins a baseball game is really saying is that the result of a baseball game has no bearing on the sanctification of mankind. This is to suggest that there are things (or at least this one thing) that are neutral to our salvation. This is a slippery slope. If it really is neutral then the game can be played in any manner the participants and spectators see fit. If the behavior of many of the players and the baseness of the advertising we will see this Sunday is any indication then empirically this seems to already be the prevailing thought. The truth is that grace perfects nature and, not only does it never destroy it, but it also never ignores it.

Cubs Win
It also seems to reveal a denial of God’s Providence. At first glance this seems reasonable. After all, anyone who watches any sporting event is struck by how prominent a role “chance” plays. From a ball that bounces off the pitcher’s leg and ends up in the hands of the first baseman to the weather, chance is often the difference maker in a game. The truth is that a belief in chance and a belief in a Provident God cannot coexist.
What we call chance really is based on one of two things. The first is when we speak of chance that is really based on some unobserved causality. For example, a receiver slips and the defensive back intercepts the pass. The replay later reveals that what we would chalk up to chance is really due to the fact that a sprinkler head was left above the ground.
The second explanation of chance results from two or more lines of causality, neither of which is governed by chance, but act independently of each other. One of these agents of causality is God as the cause of all that is, although there may be other agents as well.
With a proper understanding of the notion of chance, we can now begin to see what someone might mean when they say God does not care about baseball games. God’s Providence imposes necessity on some things and contingency on others. It might very well be the case that God imposes contingency on the results of the baseball game. This however does not mean that it falls outside His Providence. It only means He imparts the dignity of being a cause to His creatures. To the matter at hand, the result of the baseball game may depend upon the freely chosen preparation of the two teams. Nevertheless it does not fall outside His Providence. Everything is part of His plan, even if there are different causes, and this includes who wins a baseball game.
In closing, and to be fair to those who say this, I think it bears mentioning one possible meaning to a statement like “God does not care who wins baseball games.” Like all things governed by His Providence, it is not an absolute end. He uses a baseball game as a means to His overall end of uniting mankind with Himself. That doesn’t mean only that He plots out how a Cubs victory in the World Series can bring about some other good (or the Apocalypse), but also that sports (and I think this is what makes them so attractive to us) point to higher things. St. Paul uses sports (and specifically winning) to both enlighten and motivate his Corinthian audience. The joy of winning can be a sacrament pointing to the joy of winning THE race. And that is enough for God to truly care about the outcome.

The Meaning of Conscience

Conscience, Moralilty

Pope Benedict once said that one of the greatest dangers facing the West was the “self-destruction of conscience.”  The Church is not immune to this danger as more and more Catholics invoke the “right to dissent” from long held teachings of the Church under the guise of the Church-sanctioned “primacy of conscience.”  Yet one would be hard-pressed to find a single magisterial document in which the term “primacy of conscience” is used. This type of language leads to great ambiguity in the understanding of conscience.

In order to understand conscience it is helpful to begin with a definition.  Often, conscience is spoken of as a thing.  Conscience is not, however, a thing but an act of the intellect — or, more specifically, a judgment. Like all judgments, conscience is an attempt by man to use his reason to conform his personal knowledge to objective reality. Specifically, it is a practical moral judgment of what one ought to do in a specific situation. As the Catechism says conscience is “a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed” (no. 1777).  If conscience is not a thing, then we must put away the childish notion of conscience as something external to us like the proverbial angel on one’s shoulder.

But this is not the only immature way of looking at conscience. Many Catholics labor under a false conception of conscience born of two distinct kinds of moral immaturity.   First there are the “rebellious teenagers” who must assert their freedom by embracing “the primacy of conscience”.  On the other hand there are the “obedient children” who must submit to authority and be told what to do all the time. While these two approaches seem to differ, they both make the same fundamental error in assuming that that there is an insurmountable chasm between freedom and authority. One rejects freedom in favor of authority while the other rejects authority in favor of freedom.

Those who overemphasize the primacy of conscience often cite a  passage from the Catechism — namely, that a “human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” This definition does lend itself to a “primacy of conscience” of sorts, but not in the manner often assumed. When the Church refers to conscience it is almost always attaches a modifier to it such as “right,” “well-formed,” “Christian,” or, as the Catechism has it, “certain.” These adjectives define the necessary standards for conscience.

Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary defines a certain conscience as “a state of mind when it has no prudent fear of being wrong about its judgment on some moral issue and firmly decides that some action is right or wrong.” A certain conscience is not a mere moral opinion, but a judgment based upon sound reasoning and deliberation and with reference to the moral law.   Those who espouse the “primacy of conscience” really are masking what amounts to rationalizing—coming up with reasons why it is OK to do something that is objectively morally wrong.

The key in distinguishing between mere moral opinion and a genuine judgment of conscience is in the cultivation of the virtue of prudence. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas treated prudence and conscience as though they were synonymous. Prudence is the habit of applying right reason to practical matters. The prudent person habitually knows the good and therefore conscience is a consistent guide.

Even when an action flows from a certain conscience, appeals to “primacy of conscience” suggest that it releases the person who seeks its refuge from a certain level of responsibility. Normally, no reference is made as to whether the dictates of one’s conscience are wrong or not. All that matters is that one acted in accord with it.  This subjective definition of conscience is so embedded in our language that we refer to St. Thomas More as a “martyr for conscience” — as if he merely made up his mind that the Church was right and Henry VIII wrong and “stuck to his guns.” But St. Thomas More died not as a “martyr for conscience” but, like all martyrs, as a witness to the truth. Herein lies the problem for those who hold the mistaken idea of “primacy of conscience.” Are they really willing to admit that someone like Adolf Eichmann who, when on trial said he was only being true to his conscience, and St. Thomas More are equally laudable?

St. Thomas More Execution

Within the conservative Catholic milieu, one often hears something akin to “if all Catholics would obey the Magisterium, the world would be better off.” This proposition contains a good deal of truth, but only to a point. The problem with this view is that conscience is likened to a moral GPS by which man occasionally downloads maps from the Magisterium that lead him to where he really does not want to go. Again the dictates of conscience are understood as coming from outside of  man who must force his will to conform to that of “the authority of the Church.” Despite the conventional wisdom of popular culture, obedience is still a virtue. But like all the virtues, it must be rooted in charity in order to be a true virtue. The problem with this view is that it undermines our freedom in favor of obeisance to authority. Constant appeals to authority in matters of morality eventually stunt our ability to develop conscience freely without relying on some outside authority.  It keeps us trapped in a state of moral immaturity.

Being an “obedient child” is the surest path to the legalism Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. It leads to a moral minimalism that asks, “How far can I go until this is considered sinful?” This is not the language of a man who is free to love but of one who feels himself bound by legal constraints. Our Lord came so that we might be free, because only in freedom is love possible (cf. Gal. 5:1; Jn. 8:36). Obedience does not lead to love; instead, love includes obedience.

Finding the bridge between freedom and authority enables us to grow out of the “obedient child” or “rebellious teenager” roles in which many have been stuck.   Recall from the Catechism definition that conscience is “a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.” By what standard does one determine the “moral quality of a concrete act”? Before we can answer that question, we must clarify what we mean when we speak of “morality.”

Morality, simply put, is the relationship between a human act — i.e., one done with knowledge and freedom — and the use of man’s nature in fulfilling his final end, communion with God in Heaven. Some acts are in accord with the proper use of man’s nature (we call these good) and some are not (we call these evil). Because human nature and its fulfillment are objective, certain goods are common to all men. Reason recognizes these goods as true goods, and commands that they be protected, preserved, and promoted. These commandments of reason comprise the moral law. Therefore the “moral quality of a concrete act” can be determined by how it measures up to the moral law. The moral law serves as the bridge between freedom and authority.

It remains to investigate where the moral law comes from. The rebellious teenager says that moral truth comes from within the individual. The obedient toddler says the moral law is imposed on us from the outside. Which one is right?

The word for conscience in Latin, conscientia, gives us a clue. It is translated literally as “knowledge with.” Conscience is literally the “co-knowledge” of man with God. As such, it is a correct perception of the way things really are and clarifies why conscience asserts authority.

An accurate understanding of conscience involves a synthesis of the two mistaken views we have examined. Because all creation is governed by divine providence, all things partake in the eternal law of God. From this law, all things are inclined to their proper ends. As a rational creature, man can both know his end and freely choose to participate in this eternal law. Man’s participation in the eternal law of God is, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the natural law. Therefore, the natural law comes from within man insofar as it is mediated by God through reason. Because it is a participation in the divine law, it has its source outside of man, in God Himself. Man’s knowledge by participation is referred to by St. Thomas as “connatural knowledge.” It is in light of this understanding that St. Paul refers to the Gentiles, “who have not the law,” as a “law unto themselves” because they “do by nature what the law requires” ( Rom. 2:12) without any contradiction of either their freedom or the objective moral law.

The moral law comes to us through our intellect, but because of our fallen condition we now also share in the “knowledge of good and evil.” Although our innate desire for the good cannot be extinguished, the darkening of the intellect that accompanied the Fall causes us great difficulty in discovering the good. Our reason, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, must now be “suffused with the light of God’s truth. In fact, when human reason humbly allows itself to be purified by faith, it is far from weakened; rather, it is strengthened to resist presumption and to reach beyond its own limitations.” The light of God’s truth flows through the Church. The Church informs conscience in much the same way the soul informs the body — giving it life and making it what it is.

St. Thomas teaches that we need revelation in the practical order for two reasons. First, since we are fallen creatures without revelation, the truth “would be known only by a few, and after a long time, and with the mixture of many errors.” Second, because man has a supernatural end, there are certain truths that surpass human reason. The Church, as described in Veritatis Splendor, is at “the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph. 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it” (VS, 64). The Church does not impose the truths of man’s proper use of his nature from the outside, but instead proposes those truths to man’s reason so that he may recognize them as true internal values.  It is not, however, the case that the Church is merely making suggestions.

Not surprisingly, once the thinking on conscience, which the Second Vatican Council called “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man” in Gaudium et Spes (GS, 16), becomes muddled, moral chaos quickly ensues.  To stem the tide, the Church must be free to exercise her role in forming the consciences of all men of good will, and men of good will must freely assent to the proper formation of a certain conscience.  This starts by clarifying what conscience actually is and separating it from its immature conterfeits.

The Resurrection of the Body

Heaven, Resurrection

For those who have a special devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, St. Thomas the Apostle is like a patron saint.  Although he was filled with skepticism regarding the Resurrection of the Lord, once he touched the nail marks and placed his hand upon the Sacred Heart of Jesus, he came to full belief in Jesus Christ as true God and true man.  For only a man could have a heart and only the author of life could be so alive with such wounds.  While we can hardly imagine what that actually felt like, with the help of the other St. Thomas (Aquinas) we can piece together some profound truths about the resurrected body of Our Lord.  What is probably most amazing to ponder is that St. Thomas the Apostle was able to touch a heart that was filled with blood, the same heart that he well knew bled out completely when the wound was made in Our Lord’s side.

How can we know this?  It follows directly from what we know about the Eucharist.  It is the Resurrected Body and Blood of the Lord that we receive.  Therefore, we know that Our Lord’s blood also rose with Him.  Because the heart is the organ that “houses” blood, Our Lord’s resurrected heart too would contain blood.  While this certainly aids us in our devotion, there is also a more practical reason why we should study this.  St. Paul in writing to the Philippians tells them that “Christ will change our lowly body to conform with His glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself” (Phil 3:21).  In other words, when we confess in the Creed that we “look forward to the resurrection of the body” we can gain access to the content of what it is specifically we are looking forward to in living with resurrected bodies, even if it strains our imagination what the experience will be like.

Like Our Lord, our resurrected bodies will have all of our organs intact.  This follows from one of Aquinas’ common sense principles, namely that because “‘[T]he works of God are perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4) and the resurrection will be the work of God, therefore man will be remade perfect in all his members.”  Everything that is part of the perfection of our nature, will be part of our resurrected bodies.  This includes even those things like hair and nails.  Aquinas, again quotes Scripture (“not a hair of your head shall perish”) and uses common sense (Christ clearly had hair and nails in His Resurrected Body or else he would have freaked people out as a glorified man with no hair and nails) to prove this.

By this same principle, namely that all defects of the body will be removed, St. Thomas even goes so far as to say everyone will be of a youthful age because it lacks the defect of not yet being full-grown and the defect of being no longer perfect.  He takes the idea that we will be conformed to Christ’s resurrection quite literally by saying this age is 33 since that is the age of Our Lord.  This, by the way, is also why he says it is fitting that Our Lord was crucified at the age of 33 because it was when He was at His greatest vigor.

resurrection

If all defects of the body are removed, then why do Our Lord’s wounds of Crucifixion remain?  St. Thomas says that wounds will not be in the bodies insofar as they imply a defect but will remain if they are signs of steadfast virtue and marks that will increase their own and others’ joy.  That is why some of Our Lord’s wounds remain and the wounds, say of the scourging, do not.  Saints who were beheaded will have their heads back, but there will be some marks to distinguish them as being martyred.

In his treatise of the resurrected body at the end of his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul lists four distinctive marks of the glorified body (1 Cor 15:42-44).  First he says that it is incapable of suffering, or what is called “impassible” when he says “It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible.”  Because the body will be completely subject to the soul (more on this in a moment) and the soul in complete bliss of the beatific vision, the body will be incapable of suffering.  This obviously is why those in hell, even though they too receive their bodies back, are capable of suffering in their bodies (even if they cannot die again).

Secondly, he speaks of the clarity of the resurrected body when he says “It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious.”  Clarity simply means that the glory of the soul will overflow into the body.  Because, as St. Paul says “the sun has a splendor of its own, so has the moon; and the stars theirs. Even among the stars one differs from another in brightness. So it is with the resurrection of the dead,” each person’s clarity will be different based upon their earthly merits.  Yet, there will be no jealousy among the blessed because Heaven is a beautiful whole.  Even though the clarity of the Resurrected body surpasses the sun, it does not disturb the vision of the eyes but instead soothes it, thus we will all be pleased at seeing each other.

Third, he refers to the mark of agility when he says “It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.”  Agility refers to the freedom “from the heaviness that now presses it down, and will take on a capability of moving with the utmost ease and swiftness, wherever the soul pleases” (Roman Catechism).  This is why Our Lord was able to travel about so freely during the 40 days after Easter and was a fulfillment of the promise of Isaiah (40:31) “They shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.”

Lastly, he speaks of the mark of subtility when he says, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”  The idea of a spiritual body can be confusing for many people when they read this text.  Notice that he makes the distinction between a “natural body” and a “spiritual body” and not between a “physical body” and a “spiritual body.”  It does not mean that the body is somehow changed into a spirit.  It remains a physical body, but a spiritual one that has different properties.  Again, viewing our own resurrection through the lens of the resurrected Christ we find him telling the Apostles “Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have” (Lk 24:39).  It has flesh and bones, yet it can pass through burial clothes and locked doors

To understand the difference between a spiritual and natural body, we need to clarify some important points about the human soul.  Recall that strictly speaking all living things have souls.  It is only man who has a spiritual soul, or more accurately it is man’s spirit that acts as his soul.  In this life the soul has a two-fold function, both as spirit and animating principle.  Once it is separated from the body it no longer has a body to animate and is only a spirit.  In the first animation the soul is made conformable to the body (even if it is superior to it) but because the body comes first, the soul is created to animate the organism.  It is the body that is the occasion for the creation of this particular soul by God.  In the resurrection, it is the soul that makes the particular body.  The particular soul best expresses itself through the body that it was assigned to by God at its creation, so it follows that the soul would draw that body to itself.

Although this may go without saying after all that has been put forth above, it is important to emphasize that we will receive the same bodies in the resurrection.  While it is not clear what the principle of continuity is—after all our bodies now are not composed of the same matter as they were 20 years ago—St. Paul is clear that our souls return to the same body.  As St. Thomas says,

For we cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body which after death falls rather than the soul which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body.

Clearly this does not mean that the body is the same in every way.  St Paul likens the relationship between our natural bodies and our risen bodies as seedling to mature plant.

While it is comforting for those of us who are bald to know we will have our hair back in heaven, there is a further reason why we should try to flesh out (pun intended) what the resurrection of the body will be like.  When he declared the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII warned about the rise of the cult of the body that he saw coming.  From too-skinny models to cosmetic surgery, to photo-shop, to tattoos, I think we would all agree that he was right.  By being witnesses of the Resurrection of the Body we will keep from being dragged into that.  How many women try to hide the effects in their body from all the children they have had, when in the resurrection those are likely to be “glory-scars?”  How about the effects of sleepless nights from taking care of a sick family member? Those who make a gift of themselves often have the scars to prove it.  The world says hide these, Christ says in the resurrection all these and more will add to our glory.  Rejoice, I say it again, rejoice in carrying about the wounds of Christ in your body.

Tocqueville and the Bathroom Bill

Human Dignity, Politics

Each time I pick up Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, I check the copyright date just to make sure it really was written in the 1830s.  He seems to capture the American psyche perfectly—even after almost 200 years and offers incredibly relevant insight into the political issues that plague us today.  I am reminded of this once again this week as the fallout from House Bill 2 in North Carolina continues.  This law sought to block an “anti-discrimination” ordinance in Charlotte that would have allowed people to use the bathroom of their gender identity.

Now certainly Tocqueville has nothing to say about public bathrooms, but what he does write about helps us to understand why there can be no true civil discourse, especially surrounding this issue.  When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, he found that democratic principles animated nearly every aspect of American life. What struck him most was what he called the equality of conditions among the people. Perhaps most surprising to Americans today, he found that love of equality—not freedom—was “the ruling passion of men” in the U.S. Tocqueville feared that the more the principle of equality takes hold of a society, the more pressure there is to see everyone as essentially identical. When equality reigns, any form of discrimination is bad because it classifies the other as somehow different. To discriminate seems absolutely un-American.  To exacerbate the problem, in a democracy many beliefs gain unquestioned acceptance because the only intellectual authority is the opinion of the majority. To remove the threat of the tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville thought that one crucial check was the power of religion in forming morals.

Even the most ardent secularist has to admit that the principle underlying the American hatred of discrimination—that “all men are created equal”—is the fruit of what Jacques Maritain termed the “hidden work” of the Gospel on the secular conscience. Specifically, it rests upon the dignity of the human person. No other culture and no other religion taught this.  It is only in a Christian culture that such an understanding of the equality of mankind arises.  But this equality does not mean that people are equal in every way. People are very different with respect to their roles and their contributions to the common good.  Yet, divorced from its religious grounding, the equality of men runs amok.

Tocqueville

Tocqueville also noticed that democracy and the love of equality affect the English language. In particular he found that Americans have a “passionate addiction” to generic terms because they condense many objects into a few words. Along these same lines, Americans often omit modifiers in order to avoid the hard work of scrutinizing ideas. An obvious example of this habit is the term “pro-choice,” which refers to someone in favor of performing a certain act without actually naming and, more important, scrutinizing what that act is.

Now returning to America’s obsessions with anti-discrimination, we must admit that man is a discriminating animal.  Through the use of his reason he is able to discriminate between what a thing is and what it is not. One could argue that to cease discriminating is to cease being human. To accuse someone of discrimination is to accuse them of being human—in that respect we are all guilty.  The fact that there are two bathrooms to begin with is because we discriminate between men and women and their toilet needs.  Public bathrooms are by their very nature discriminatory.

A moment’s reflection leads us to conclude that a key adjective is missing. It is not a question of discrimination, but whether the discrimination is just or unjust. By avoiding the use of the adjective just, Americans dodge the tough question of what constitutes just behavior.  And this leads to muddled thinking about a whole variety of practices.  Rather than looking at what is just we simply give in to the person who speaks the loudest (another democratic principle).  To cry “discrimination” is enough to get the ACLU involved, regardless of whether the discrimination is just or not.

In other words, any discussion about whether an action is discriminatory or not must be preceded by a discussion on justice. Broadly speaking, justice is defined as giving each man his due. Any act of justice flows from the realization that something is man’s due. In other words, a discussion of rights must come before a discussion of justice.

What does this have to do with the “Bathroom Law” as it has come to be known?  Tocqueville helps us to see our blind spots.  No one is immune to the cultural obsession with equality.  Leaving the specifics of the law to those more legally inclined than I and looking at the Charlotte ordinance it was meant to combat, we have to ask whether a transgender person has the right to use a public bathroom of their gender identity.  The problem again lies in the inability to make distinctions (i.e. discriminate).  “Transgender” is a catch-all term that includes people “whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”  In other words, it can be a person who is actively trying to change their sex (gender identity) or someone who expresses themselves as a different sex by cross-dressing and the like (gender expression).  Further complicating this is that their sexual orientation needs to be factored in.  Who exactly would be protected by such ordinances?  Does a man who dresses like a woman (gender expression), but has an attraction to women (sexual orientation) have a right to use a women’s bathroom?

Claims of “discrimination” blind us to the fact that no one can clearly articulate who the law really affects.  Without any clear distinctions, how can we even begin to examine whether the law justly discriminates or not?  These toilet torts will always be unjust because the parties that are affected are not known.  At the very least, the NC law did try to make a clear distinction by using the Birth Certificate (which can now be changed apparently).  In truth it really is the desire for anything goes.  All human beings use the bathroom, so therefore a human being may use any bathroom.

God’s Healing Sacramental Hand

Mercy, Sacraments

Without a doubt, Holy Week is, liturgically speaking, the richest week in the Liturgical Calendar.  There is a hidden gem that many people are not aware of and that is the Chrism Mass.  These Masses feature the gathering of an entire diocese—bishop, priests, deacons and lay faithful alike—and are the occasion on which the bishop blesses each of the oils that are used in sacramental anointing.  Among these is the oil of the infirm that is administered in the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.  It would seem then that it would be appropriate to offer some reflections on this great Sacrament, especially since very few Catholics seem to understand it.

One of the reasons why this Sacrament is so little understood is because we do not understand the purpose of it.  If we examine a familiar episode from Our Lord’s public ministry in Matthew’s Gospel it becomes clearer.

And there people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Courage, child, your sins are forgiven.’  At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming.’  Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, ‘Why do you harbor evil thoughts?  Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he then said to the paralytic, ‘Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.’  He rose and went home.  When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to men (Mt 9:2-8).

Because, as the Son of Man, He has authority to forgive sins, Jesus also heals the man.  Most who read his account do not go any further than that.  However Matthew says something very important at the end.  Notice that not only does Jesus have the authority to do this, but the people glorify God because He has given the power to forgive sins and to heal “to men.”  In other words, what the crowds are struck with awe about is the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

Pope Francis blessing Oil

One might say that Jesus did not actually anoint the man.  But it is clear that once the Sacrament is implemented by the Apostles anointing becomes the matter of the Sacrament.  In his letter, St. James asks:

“Is anyone among you sick?  He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven” (James 5:14-15).

Within these verses we find all the elements of a true Sacrament present.  There is the outward sign which consists of anointing with oil (matter) and the prayer of the priest over the sick person (form).  There is the inner operation of grace which is expressed through the forgiveness of sins, the saving of the soul from eternal destruction and the raising up from despondency and despair.  Finally we see that it has been instituted by Christ, namely it is to be administered “in the Name of the Lord.”

Herein lays the confusion for most Catholics.  Most treat it as simply a sacramentalized version of a charismatic healing.  But this Sacrament is ordered firstly to the forgiveness of sins and healing of the soul.  As the Catechism says, “The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effect…the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance” (CCC 1532).

Some mistakenly think this is like a get out of hell free card and thus do not take the Sacrament seriously.  But in order to truly forgive the sins of the recipient and the punishment attached to sin, the person must not only be baptized but have at least an imperfect sorrow for sin (based on a fear of punishment).  Certainly if there is any chance of this a priest will administer the Sacrament, but the personal disposition (at least at their last moment of consciousness) matters as to the effect of the Sacrament.

The Sacrament is sometimes abused because it is looked at only as a Sacrament of bodily healing.  It assumes that the recipient is capable of sin and therefore has obtained the use of reason.  Young children are often mistakenly given the Sacrament.  If there is a doubt as to whether the child has obtained the use of reason then certainly it should be given, but in general they should not be given the Sacrament (Canon 1004).  There is often a superstition attached to the Sacrament in that people will treat it as a good luck charm before surgery.  But the Sacrament should only be given to someone who is in danger of death (Canon 1004).  Furthermore, Canon Law states that the “Sacrament is to be conferred upon sick persons who requested it at least implicitly when they were in control of their faculties” (Canon 1006) and not to those “who obstinately persist in manifest serious sin” (Canon 1007).

The second effect of the Sacrament is the “the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age and the preparation for passing over to eternal life” (CCC 1532).  This effect is both for the good of the person and for the good of the whole Church.  The person is given the right to actual graces to bear their sufferings.  But it also offers them protection against the onslaught of the demons during the moments leading up to death.  The temptation to despair is never so great as during those last few moments and we are extremely dependent upon grace to persevere.  The Council of Trent, in defending the use of the Sacrament of Anointing against the Protestant reformers who would do away with it said that the Sacrament enables us to “resist more easily the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel” (Council of Trent, Canon 14).

While the Church, through the treasury of merits of Jesus, grants these graces in the Sacrament, there is a reciprocity of sorts in that the person who bears their sufferings well also acts upon other members of the Church in a co-redemptive manner.  The Catechism describes this ecclesial grace: “the sick who receive this sacrament, ‘by freely uniting themselves to the passion and death of Christ,’ ‘contribute to the good of the People of God.’  By celebrating this sacrament the Church, in the communion of saints, intercedes for the benefit of the sick person, and he, for his part, though the grace of this sacrament, contributes to the sanctification of the Church and to the good of all men for whom the Church suffers and offers herself through Christ to God the Father” (CCC 1522).

Because the Sacraments are truly performed by Christ, they produce their effects infallibly.  This is why the the third effect of the Sacrament, namely “the restoration of (bodily)health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul” (CCC 1532) can be confusing.  It seems as if this effect is conditional.  But in truth it is not.  The Sacrament will always act as a direct means to the restoration of bodily health, although this particular effect may not be felt until the resurrection of the body.  It is only when the restoration to bodily health in this life can be a means to reaching that point will it also be granted now.  It is only because we are standing on our heads now that we do not readily see that God’s “grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9).  It is by grace we are saved and for those who receive the bodily healing at the resurrection, they will know that it was the grace of the Sacrament that helped to save them.

When Jesus forgives the sins and heals the paralytic, the crowd was struck with awe.  Perhaps with a greater understanding, we too might be seized with wonder at the awe-some (in the truest sense of the word) power of this Sacrament of mercy.

 

A Right to Die

End of Life, Human Dignity, Suffering, , , ,

Ambiguity is the mother of all social ill.  The less clear we are in our social discourse, the easier it is to pull a fast one on society at large.  Many states across the country have fallen victim to this through the “Death with Dignity” movement.  “Right to die” legislation has been either been accepted or introduced into legislation in 28 states in our country.  With this issue being raised with such regularity, it is worth investigating the merit of a so-called “right to die.”

Before we can even approach the question of whether there is a “right to die”, we need to examine what a right is.  Despite all of the talk we hear about rights in our country, few can actually define what a right is.  It is the steady refusal to examine rights philosophically that leads to all the muddle-headed discussion surrounding rights.  A right is the moral power to possess, do, or exact something that is due to the person.  Within this definition we find that there are three components.  First, there is the person who owns the right.  Second, there is the person who has the duty to respect the right.  This can be either passive, as in a duty of non-interference, or active, as in the duty to satisfy the right, or both.  These two are bound together morally by the final component, the thing in question.

One of the great dangers that our culture’s obsession with rights poses is that there are always those who will use the language of rights to mask something far more nefarious than it appears to be.  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the “right to die” or “death with dignity” movement.  This is why having clarity about rights in general can protect many innocent people from suffering at the hands of those who are fighting for our “right to die.”  It will remove any doubt that there is such thing as a “right to die.”

Flatlines

First we can look at the holder of supposed right.  Is death something that is due to a person?  In the strictest sense, no, it is not something that is owed to someone.  Rights flow either directly or indirectly from human nature itself.  Ultimately any rights claim is based upon the assumption that the thing being claimed is a good.  As John Paul II said many times the right to life is the “fundamental right and source of all other rights” (EV, 72).  Even if you look to the foundations of modern liberalism rooted in the works of Hobbes and Locke, you will find that because all rights are given by nature, they assume that we all by nature have a self-interested attachment to our own lives.  In other words, the right to life is inalienable in that it flows from the fact that life is a good by nature.  This becomes clearer when we look at the person whose duty it is to respect the right.  If life is an “inalienable” right then this means that there is a corresponding duty to protect life.  Practically speaking, there is an obligation to protect another’s life when it is in jeopardy.

While this may appear to be quite cut and dry, reality is more complicated than that.  The question of a “right to die” arises not just because autonomy has run amok in the West.  Medical technology has made it so that we now have more control than ever over when and how we die.  Thanks to some medical interventions, patients can be kept alive long after nature would have taken its course.  From within this setting, we have to ask whether a person has a “right to be let to die.”

In essence the “right to be let to die” means that a person has the right to choose not to receive life-sustaining medical treatment.  In order not to interfere with the obligation of others to protect life, the treatment must be excessively burdensome in that its benefits are outweighed by its burdens.  Those responsible for taking care of the person still have the obligation to provide routine attention to the patient by bathing them, keeping them warm, controlling pain and providing food and water.

So while this means no one has the “right to die” per se, it is reasonable to assert that they do have a “right to be let to die.”  The problem at this point is that people who label themselves as “Death with Dignity” advocates have piggybacked onto this legitimate right and wedded it to something else, namely a “right to be made dead.”  By hiding behind a sweet sounding name, Euthanasia (which literally means “good death”), what is being claimed is a right to positive assistance in bringing about death.  This means that what appears on the surface to be a mere personal freedom is really about placing an obligation to kill on another person.  This obviously contradicts one’s obligation to protect life.  This self-contradictory aspect of the “right to be made dead” shows why it is not a true right.  It also helps to reveal what this is really about.

This movement has very little to do with medical technology or terminal illnesses.  What is really being sought is acknowledgment of a right to commit suicide.  Given the will, there are very few people who could stop someone that wanted to kill themselves, so why would we need legislation for a right to commit suicide?  The answer is all about money and power.  First, in the states where it is legal, insurance companies must pay out when someone commits suicide.  This means that previously what was a deterrent, namely the financial well-being of a family, is taken out of the equation.  In fact the family may end up better off financially when their loved one is dead.  One can easily see that there could be familial encouragement to end it all based on a monetary windfall.

Second, this is ultimately about some people having the power to determine who lives and who dies.  If we recognize a “right to be dead” then there is a corresponding “duty to make dead.”  Who is the one who must exercise this duty and when should it be exercised?  Already we can see how the person and the proxies could be compromised, but what if they are not coming around to what is obvious to doctors and other “experts”?  While no one likes slippery slope arguments, this is precisely what has happened in places where a “right to die” has been recognized like the Netherlands.  The emphasis is no longer on the right to die, but the obligation to take the life that has been deemed unworthy of life.

What makes this particularly evil is that it plays into people’s emotions.  No one wants to be a burden to their loved ones, especially when there seems to be a painless way to avoid that.  As usual though, it is not enough to have our hearts in the right place; we must get our heads their too.  Demanding clarity when it comes to rights, especially the “right to die,” is a good place to start the journey from our hearts to our heads.

Priestesses

Holy Orders, Women's Ordination

The Pew Center for Religion and Public Life recently released a study that looked at the desire among American Catholics for changes in the Church.  Not surprisingly, one of the issues that a majority of Catholics (59% of all Catholics and 46% of regular Mass-goers) were in favor of changing was Women’s Ordination.  We as Americans especially (interesting that this really is a non-issue everywhere else except Canada) hate being told no and won’t stand one second for any type of discrimination.

For her part, the Church has spoken infallibly on this issue.   In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis John Paul II said that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”  In other words it is an issue solely based on the authority given to the Church.  The Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women.  The Church has never said that it will not ordain women only that it cannot.

As an aside, there is a movement by dissenting theologians and priests to find loopholes in definitive Church teachings.  One of the great gifts that our current Holy Father has given to the Church is his clarity as a teacher after Vatican II.  When he was Prefect for the CDF made sure that all loopholes were closed when in the audience of John Paul II he confirmed that it was an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium when he wrote:

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

This is why I find the whole issue particularly puzzling.  If someone is a faithful Catholic they know that when the Church speaks infallibly it speaks for Christ.  To continue arguing on this issue is not an argument for priestesses but an argument against the Church as the voice of Christ.  We also know that the truths of the faith do not arise from common human experience but they come to us form God’s gracious self-giving.  A doctrinal tradition that is grounded in objective revelation must be preserved and monitored by an authority that transcends subjectivity and is capable of real judgment.

It is helpful however to understand and respond to the reasons why those in favor of priestesses are unable to hear the Church when she says “No.”  According to womenpriests.org there are seven reasons why the Church should allow women’s ordination.  While there appears to be little distinction between a few them, it does seem to adequately summarize the reasons why those in favor of women’s ordination think it something to be considered.

Jesus empowered women to preside at the Eucharist

The argument goes that Mary and the women disciples were present at the Last Supper and received the command from Christ to “do this in memory of Me.”  I have to admit that this is an incredible stretch.  All three of the synoptic Gospels say that it was Jesus and the Twelve at the table and make no mention of anyone else.  Mark says “when it was evening, he came with the Twelve.” (Mk 14:17), Luke says “when the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles” (Lk 22:14) and Matthew says, “When it was evening, he reclined at table with the Twelve.”  (Mt 26:20).

It is interesting to note that none of them mention these women disciples.  Given Luke’s affinity for showing women’s place in the kingdom you would think he might mention that there were women there.

Matthew’s Gospel is perhaps the most damning for the priestess argument.  He was writing to a Jewish Christian audience, so if there were to be priestesses he would not have omitted that important detail.  The Jews were perhaps the only religious sect that did not have priestesses at the time so if there were to be priestesses in the Christian religion he surely would have mentioned it.

To the argument that the women prepared the Passover and then Jesus and the Apostles came to the meal also has no biblical evidence.  Luke in fact says it was Peter and John who did the preparation (Lk 22:8-13).

In this case the advocates for women’s ordination are going way beyond what Scripture tells us; especially given that Tradition does not support that position either.  This brings us to arguments two and three

This is a true case of Latent Tradition. Believers have always known in their heart of hearts that women too can be priests.

I am not real clear what they mean by “latent tradition” in this case, but I assume they mean it was something that was believed early on and then was hidden away in the hearts of some of the faithful.  This is almost a subtle form of Gnosticism where there is this select group who has held on to the true teaching.

Is there any evidence to the claim that “believers have always known in their heart of hearts that women too can be priests”?  Clearly St. Paul did not teach this to be true.  In 1 Tim 2:11-14, he taught that women could not teach or have authority over a man in the Church, which are two obviously essential functions of the clergy.

The early Fathers of the Church also were unanimous in saying that there could be no women clergy.  Tertullian quoted St. Paul’s admonition that women might not speak in the church in the 3rd Century (206) saying “(I)t is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office” (The Veiling of Virgins 9).

Similarly in the 4th Century (387) St. John Chrysostom said that  “(W)hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (The Priesthood 2:2).

A natural question would be if it was rejected from the very beginning, when exactly did it go “latent”?

Women were given the full ordination to the diaconate in the Early Church.

This like the previous argument is not historically accurate.  According to the Apostolic Traditions (written around the year 400) the role of the deaconess was to assist with the baptism of women.  In the first few centuries baptism was done completely naked.  “A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women.”

Furthermore there is no evidence that these deaconesses were ordained and in fact there is evidence to the contrary.  Both the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Laodicea (360) said that they are not to be ordained but be counted among the laity.

Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.

With the historicity of their position highly suspect at best, we turn to the theological argument.  This argument is an attempt to equate or at least put on the same level the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood.  This is one of the essential differences between many of the Protestant ecclesial communities and the Catholic Church.

What exactly does the Church say about the differences?  In Lumen Gentium(10), the Second Vatican Council said the following:

‘Though they differ essentially and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are none the less ordered one to the other; each in its own way shares in the one priesthood of Christ.’

The proponents of women’s ordination say that the difference is one of only degree.  But the Church says the differences are in kind even though they are ordered towards each other.  The priest is for the laity and the laity for the priest.

What is the difference between the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood?

As part of our baptism we share in Christ’s priesthood.  The role of the priest is to offer sacrifices.  The priesthood of all believers offers spiritual sacrifices (see Romans 12:1 and 1 Peter 2:5).  They are united to Christ’s priesthood by a spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power.

The ministerial priesthood however is a personal (albeit sacramental) representation of Christ, such as offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice or forgiving sins.  Like every sacrament, Holy Orders has matter and form—the matter is the male sex.

Why the male sex?  Well, because Christ is male.  That is no mere accident or social convention.  You tread on dangerous ground if you suggest it is because then Christ would be guilty of the sin of sexism.  He came as a male because He was the Son Who came to reveal the Father.  The Father’s masculinity is essential to knowing Who He is.  God is masculine in relation to everything and thus priests who represent Him sacramentally (i.e. make visible what is invisible) must be male.

Now let me make clear what I am saying.  God is masculine in relation to everything that is.  I am not saying that God is masculine.  God has both masculinity and femininity in Him or else He could not be the source of those things.  More accurately, it would be proper to say that He transcends masculinity and femininity.

A prejudice barred women from the priestly ministry…Women were considered less than men in every respect.

Does anyone see a problem with this argument right off the bat?  On the one hand they say that the early Church did ordain women.  Now they said they didn’t.  Which is it?  I love the part where they say, “OK, in the past the Church refused to ordain women as priests.”  It’s as if they are saying that alright, alright, we made up the other reasons.  But here is the real reason.”

That being said, this statement has a hidden assumption and it really goes to the heart of the confusion not only of the priesthood but of society as a whole.  The assumption is that the only response to chauvinism is egalitarianism.  The chauvinist says that because men and women are different in their essence, one must be superior to the other.  Egalitarianists reject the conclusion that one must be superior to the other by also rejecting the premise that they are different in their essence. They say there really are no differences in the sexes.  But in reality all they have done is swung equally wrong in the opposite direction.  For what they both assume is that all differences are differences in value.  But they can be equal in value while being different in role.

That our bodies are different ought to be obvious.  But what is the body other than the form of the soul.  This means that our masculinity and femininity goes to the very depths of our souls.  When I say “I am a man” the “I” that is saying it really is masculine and not a neutered soul in a biologically male body.  This is why when your biology contradicts your ideology it is time to rethink your ideology.

Maybe instead of merely dismissing the Fathers of the Church as chauvinists, we should look at the ways in which they were right.  The Holy Spirit inspired the author of 1 Peter to call females the “fairer sex” which means that in some ways females are the weaker of the two sexes.  This also implies that egalitarianism is contrary to Scripture.

The point is that the response to the injustice that men for many generations (ever since the Fall really) have perpetuated on women is not identity.  As Chesterton said, “there is nothing so certain to lead to inequality as identity.”  Unbeknownst to feminists however they are acknowledging the superiority of the male sex in trying to become like men.  They foolishly seek to alter inequality rather than seek truth or justice.

Women Priests

In other Christian Churches women are now being given access to all the ordained ministries.

Is this really one of the best seven reasons they can come up with; “everyone else is doing it”?  It didn’t work with my mother as a teenager and you can’t imagine it will work with Holy Mother Church.  You need reasons why the Catholic Church should do it.  Keeping up with the Lutherans is not one of them.

Cardinal George is often asked why the Church will not allow women priests.  His response is very much how I would envision Christ responding—with a question.  He asks them to tell him what they think a priest is.  He has yet to come across a single person who could tell him correctly what a priest is.  That is what is behind this “argument”.  It is a fundamental misunderstanding what the difference between a Priest and other Protestant ministers is.

A Priest is not merely a minister who preaches and leads the congregation.  No, a Priest is one who stands in persona Christi or in the Person of Christ.  A Priest’s primary focus is to bring the Sacraments to the laity so that they can be empowered to go out and sanctify the world.  This is something very different than a Protestant Minister who leads a congregation in worship.  As CS Lewis says in his essay Priestesses in the Church?, that there is “an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him.”

The fact is that many Catholic women, all over the world, feel called to the priestly ministry.

Finally we come to the last of the arguments.  Many Catholic women “feel” called to priestly ministry.  This really is a question related to discernment.  Although this is a whole topic in itself, this is something that we have forgotten how to do.  When discerning any call from God as being authentic or not, there are checks that God has placed in our lives.  One of those checks is to check it against the authority of the Church who we know speaks on behalf of Christ.  Because the one who hears the Church hears Christ, if the Church says no so does He.  This is a good indication that the call is not authentic.  Again this is a rejection not of an all male priesthood, but the Catholic Church herself.

Truth cannot contradict truth.  If you claim to be receiving an inspiration and it does jibe with the Church, then that is probably a good indication exactly which type of spirit is leading you.  Like all heretical claims, it is really just a repackaging of an old heresy.  The Montanists claimed that their leader Montanus was the spokesperson of the Holy Spirit (along with 2 women, Priscilla and Maximilla).  Even Tertullian was drawn away from the Church by them.  Like all heresies it keeps dying and then is reincarnated in a different form.

What is most disturbing to me personally is that it is really functionalism at the heart of anyone who argues it is an insult to a woman’s personal worth not to be allowed to become a priest.  We are not who we are primarily because of what we do, but primarily in Who made us and Who we were made for.  Am I less valuable because the Church won’t allow me to be a priest?

I close with CS Lewis’ conclusion regarding the problem of priestesses in the Church.  He says “(W)e men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance. The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter.”

 

He Who Hears You, Hears Me

Church Authority, Magisterium

Each time the secular media picks up a quote from Pope Francis regarding the changing of some teaching of the Church, confusion quickly follows.  The foundation of much of this confusion stems from the fact that very few Catholics understand how the Church exercises her authority.  Many Catholics have the attitude that “the Pope may be infallible, but unless a Pope speaks ex cathedra on a particular moral issue, we are all free to follow our own opinions and do what we want to do.”  Very often what further muddies the waters is the fact that there are a small, though extremely vocal group of revisionist theologians that claim that the Church has never taught infallibly on moral issues.

To help clear up some of this confusion, it is necessary to understand what infallibility is and who has been given this charism.  Infallibility is essentially a negative charism; it is a gift that makes it impossible to fall into error.  It does not mean that those who exercise it are somehow impeccable, but that when and if they speak, they cannot speak in error.  It is as if, in taking a test, the student may not answer all the questions, but those that he does, he gets right.

Why it is given is also important.  It is not meant in any way to add to Revelation but instead protect and preserve it.  The First Vatican Council said

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.

This gift is given to the Church by Christ Himself.  First He gives it to Peter and His successors, when at Caesarea Philippi He tells Peter that “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19).  Later on, He grants the gift to the united Apostolic College (and their successors) (Mt 18:18).  This power to bind and loose means not that Peter and the Apostles with Him can say whatever they want, only that there is Divine protection in what they do bind and loose will be true.  In this way, “binding and loosing” is synonymous with infallibility.

Therefore, the gift of infallibility can be traced to the New Testament days.  However, only gradually (as circumstances required) did it come to be understood more fully what its actual exercise looks like.  This is why the Second Vatican Council sought to explain infallibility in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

Peter Preaching

First, the Council Fathers sought to address Papal infallibility, declaring that “the Roman Pontiff enjoys in virtue of his office the gift of infallibility…when… by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.”  Papal infallibility refers not only to the Papal prerogative to proclaim a dogma to be divinely revealed, it can extend to solemn teachings on morals as well (more on this in a moment).  Its scope includes not just strict Revelation, but also to those things connected to it.

As Chapter 18 of Matthew suggests, this is not the only way in which the Church can exercise infallibility.  It may also do so in a collegial manner.  “The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.”  There is a distinction between the two types of activity in which the body of the episcopate in union with the Pope enjoys infallibility.  The first is the extraordinary form when gathered at a general or ecumenical council.  The second is when they exercise their infallible power in an ordinary manner when in a moral unity with the Pope they “are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.”  This is what is referred to as the “Ordinary Magisterium.  In other words, the ordinary magisterium does not mean the bishops act in a strictly collegial matter but that they “agree in one judgment” on a certain issue.  Cardinal Ratzinger, in the audience of John Paul II, sought to clarify this point when he said

It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.

Unlike the Extraordinary Magisterium, when the Ordinary Magisterium is exercised it does not depends on particular formulations.  It is enough that it is part of the consensus and is said to be definitively held.

It is most often the case then that it is the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium that is overlooked.  To say that the Pope has never taught ex cathedra on a moral issue does not mean that the Church has never taught infallibly on a moral issue.  As an example, we see John Paul II refer to the ordinary magisterium in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae.  In particular, he mentions three specific moral norms related to the killing of innocent life, abortion and euthanasia that are to be held as irreformable and definitive.

This also extends to issues directly related to the natural law as well, since the Church is the “authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law” (Humanae Vitae, 4).  This means that the moral teachings that are directly connected to the natural law that the Church has always taught are also included within the scope of infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.  The Natural Law is based on unchanging human nature and therefore cannot itself change even if its application to different historical circumstances might change.

There has been much debate within the Church regarding the infallibility of the Church’s teaching regarding contraception.  Some of the issue pertains to a statement made during a press conference when Humanae Vitae was released.  However, if we apply the criteria given by John Paul II through Cardinal Ratzinger above, there is no other way to interpret Paul VI’s statement that “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (HV, 11) is an exercise of infallibility based on the Ordinary Magisterium.  Footnotes in Papal documents are very important because they show the continuity of a given papal teaching.  The footnote attached to this paragraph refers to two papal documents of Pius XI and Pius XII, who in turn refer to Leo XIII and so on.

No discussion of infallibility would be complete unless it also mentioned that the Second Vatican Council also teaches that “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals… It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God” (LG, 12).

The term sensus fidelium has been attached to the concept that the entire body of the faithful also enjoys infallibility.  This infallibility is, as Pope Benedict reminds us, “not a kind of public ecclesial opinion, and invoking it in order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium would be unthinkable” but depends upon “the guidance of the sacred teaching authority.”  In other words, it not the consensus on some truth that makes it true, but the truth of the doctrine that forms the consensus of the faithful.  We are infallible insofar as we rely on the infallible teaching of the Church.  That is why in a culture where personal freedom is paramount without any connection with truth, there is always the danger of seeing the Church’s exercise of infallibility as mere authority.  But properly understood, the authority is given to the Church precisely to protect us from falling into error regarding who God is and who we are.  In other words, infallibility, rather than somehow limiting our freedom, actually enhances it.  The spirit of the world tells me that divorce is permitted and maybe even a good thing.  The Church infallibly tells me it is not, not to hold me in a bad marriage, but to free me up for authentic love.  When divorce is off the table as an option I am more likely to love my spouse as my own flesh than if I look upon my spouse as a growth that may need to be excised.  We should rely on the Church as the steady guide in forming our consciences because of the presence of her divine Founder.  As Christ told the Apostles in Luke’s Gospel, “he who hears you, hears me.”

Why Many Could be Lost

Heaven, Redemption

In his encyclical on evangelization, Redemptoris Missio, St. John Paul II remarked that the number of those who do not belong to the Church had nearly doubled since the close of the Second Vatican Council.  While this presents a tremendous opportunity for bringing souls to Christ, the Church has been somewhat hamstrung in making wide-scale evangelization a reality.  This is because actions follow from beliefs.  Since the close of the Council, many people in the Church have come to believe in Universalism; that is the belief that all men will be saved.  A traditional motivation for preaching the Gospel has always been that there are men whose salvation is in jeopardy.  Once this motivation is taking away the urgency of missionary activity dies with it.

In addressing the falsehood of Universalism, it is important to understand what the Church means (and also doesn’t) mean when she says that “outside the Church there is no salvation.”  This affirmation comes from the fact that the Church is by its very nature as His Body linked with Christ Himself.  The Council makes this link clear in the unequivocal words that there is “‘one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim. 2:45), ‘neither is there salvation in any other’(Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him…”(Ad Gentes, 7).

In a world that is drinking from a relativistic fountain, this is often thought to be very intolerant so we need to be clear in what is being said.  First, this is not saying that a person necessarily has to be a member of the Church to be saved, only that it is because of the merits of Christ that He deposited in the Church that they will be saved.  Second, there is the level of personal knowledge and culpability.  Certainly “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (CCC 846).  This also means that “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.   Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel” (Lumen Gentium, 16).

It is a verbal sleight of hand associated with this paragraph that has allowed Universalism to creep in.  Many have read into the possibility that one might achieve eternal salvation to mean that it is probable or even definite.  But the true “spirit” of the Council seems to agree with St. Thomas’ assessment that the majority of non-Christians are lost when she proclaims that:

“…often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.  Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.” (LG 16, emphasis added).

Returning back to the first part of Paragraph 16, we find that the Council gave four conditions for the non-Christian to possibly be saved.  First, there must be no culpability for their ignorance.  Second they should be seeking God with a sincere heart.  Third, they must be “moved by grace” to live in accordance with God’s will as they know it.  Finally, they must receive whatever “good or truth” that is contained in their religion.

All Dogs in Heaven

When confronted with this, the usual response is a question—“what about the person on some deserted island who never even heard of Christ?”  St. Thomas addressed this question of invincible ignorance (i.e. ignorance that could not be overcome) by an appeal to Divine Providence based on the revealed truth that “God wills all men to be saved” (1Tim 2:4).  He says that,

“it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).”

As a necessary tangent, it seems we need to somehow reconcile the fact that St. Paul tells Timothy that “God wills all men to be saved” and yet Scripture also tells us of at least two people who are lost (while the Church has never engaged in negative canonizations declaring a particular person in hell, Scriptures tells us that the false prophet of Rev 20:10 ends up in hell and seems to suggest that Judas is reprobated.  Matthew26:24 and John 6:70, 17:2 could hardly be true were he among the blessed.).  St. Thomas makes the distinction between God’s antecedent and consequent will to make this understandable.  Antecedent will is what He wills for a thing in isolation by considering only the individual parts of His plan (a single person) and not the entire plan (all people).  In order to achieve the good, there must also be consideration of the circumstances.  This is the consequent will.  To make this clear, St. Thomas gives the example of a just judge who antecedently wills all men to live but consequently wills the murderer to be executed.  The judge not only evaluates the murderer as an individual absolutely but looks to the good of the whole of which all share.  So then, in His antecedent will, God wills to save all men, but in his consequent will He wills to save only some while permitting others to be damned.

The interlocutor seems to be asking about the deserted man’s salvation, but we should not despair of his salvation, but our own for not preaching the Gospel to him.  This is because all too often we do not believe that the Gospel is really Good News.  Those who hear it and conform their lives to it are better off not just in the next world, but even now.  Eternal life doesn’t begin at death, but now.  Christ is the answer to man’s deepest longings and aspirations and true disciples know that a life without Christ is a life that is incomplete.  So it is a supreme act of charity and a sacred duty to go out and meet the desires of all men with the liberating truth of the Gospel in its fullness.  By depriving others of the truth of Christ’s enduring presence in the Church, we are depriving them of the graces (through Baptism and Confession) that are necessary for salvation.  Men are not damned for Original Sin, but for those sins by which they are culpable.  There is only one place where those sins can infallibly forgiven and eternal life given and restored—the Church.  To the extent that we believe this, we will be missionaries.  In this way we can see that in the Church’s history missionary drive has always been a sign of the vitality of the faith of the members of the Church.

The God of Tolerance

Culture

There is perhaps no single word that strikes more fear into the heart of a Catholic than to hear that he is being intolerant.  In fact, there is no greater weapon against killing the apostolic spirit of a follower of Christ than the fear of being labeled as intolerant.  In truth though, we have so twisted the concept of tolerance that we no longer even recognize intolerance when we see it.  The word tolerance really has no practical meaning any more.  It is time that we come to understand exactly what tolerance is and what it isn’t.  Our culture has now set up tolerance as the new god and it is time that we slay this false god.

While this may seem like hyperbole, have you heard about the Day of Silence on April 15th?  In the name of tolerance, schools throughout the country are encouraging students to remain silent throughout the day to “address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior.”  So, we have replaced the moment of silence which was unconstitutional because it could be associated with the true God and replaced it with a whole day of silence to worship the new god of tolerance.

What exactly is a proper understanding of tolerance then?  First of all, tolerance is not an end in itself.  The moment that tolerance becomes an end and becomes the greatest good it means that we can no longer say out loud that anything else is either good or evil.  Tolerance is meant to be a working principle that allows everyone to live peacefully for a time.  The word tolerance comes from Latin tolerare which means to “bear or sustain” and tollere which means “to lift up”.  In other words, it implies bearing with or carrying another person’s beliefs as a burden.  It is truly a negative thing and it is certainly not a Christian virtue.  Unfortunately, it is all too often confused with a real Christian virtue, prudence.  Furthermore, you will find no place in Scripture where we are exhorted to tolerance nor Christ telling His followers to “tolerate one another”.  His command is “to love one another as I have loved you” and he did this by guiding all to the truth.

Rightly identified, what we call tolerance now is really either indifference or agreement.  What masquerades as tolerance is really an attitude that it is OK to believe whatever you like as long as I agree with you or it does not inconvenience me in any way, especially by making moral demands on me.  This is how the new version of tolerance is really intolerance.

tolerance

An example from an encounter I had comes to mind.  A self-labeled feminist that I know came to me and asked me one day and asked me how I, as a man, could dare to speak on the issue of abortion.  In her mind it was a woman’s issue and I had no right to speak on it.  I asked her if she accepted the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade.  She responded that of course she did.  She thought it was one of the best decisions that the Court has ever made.  I reminded her that there were exactly 9 men on the Supreme Court at the time and asked her how she could accept the decision of 9 men.

Seeing her reeling and recalling all the times she had called me intolerant (why she still spoke to me, I have no idea), I kept going.  I said, “So I guess what you are really saying is that a man can speak on the issue of abortion as long as he agrees with you.  Come to think of it, that is the very definition of prejudice.  Do you know what that makes you?  That makes you not only sexist, but intolerant.  To say that someone’s opinion doesn’t matter because of who they are and not on the merit of what they are saying is the very definition of intolerance”  Once I used the I-word, I got nothing but stunned silence.  She knew I was right, but couldn’t admit it.

The point is this: tolerance assumes three things.  The first is that the two parties do not agree.  A person can only be tolerant when they believe someone else is wrong or mistaken.  We do not tolerate things we like or agree with.  No one says, “I tolerated a delicious ribeye last night.”  Second, our tolerance is always extended to a someone not to a something.  For the sake of the dignity of the person and the absolute good that they are, we tolerate some of their bad ideas or actions.  Finally, it assumes that in fact somebody is right.  There is no room for the new tolerance’s only begotten son, relativism.  A tolerant person and a tolerant society is one that must believe in an absolute moral truth.

Ironically true tolerance rests upon two foundational truths that our culture rejects out of hand—the dignity of the human person and moral absolutes.  It is no wonder then that when those two things were removed from the cultural landscape, tolerance went awry.

As Christians, we should not be surprised that we become victims of intolerance under the guise of tolerance.  Our Lord too was a victim of intolerance masquerading as tolerance of the Romans.  Once we realize it is simply a weapon in the hands of the evil one, we can only heed the first words of advice in the pontificate of John Paul II, “Be not afraid.”  Be not afraid to be called intolerant because it conforms us to Christ.  It can serve as a wake-up call of sorts reminding us that the time for indifference is over.  As Archbishop Chaput said in his great book, Render unto Caesar, “The time for easy Christianity is over.  In fact, it never existed.  We’re blessed to be rid of the illusion.  We need to be more zealous in our faith, not more discreet; clearer in our convictions, no muddier; and more Catholic, not less.”

 

Shining the Light into the Dark Passages

Bible, Scripture

I recently saw an advertisement in our local newspaper that told me that a local appliance shop was having the “Sale of the Century” the next day.  I huddled the family into the car and drove down early the next morning expecting it to be extremely crowded.  When I got there a half an hour early and nobody was there yet, I began to wonder how anyone could afford to miss out on the “Sale of the Century”.  Most of us won’t see the 22nd Century so there will never be a sale like this again, right?  Well we all know that is not how the advertisement is meant to be read.  It is not meant to be taken literally, but is simply a way to say that they were having a big sale.  Unfortunately, most people do not use the same approach when reading Sacred Scripture.  They do not read it in the context in which it was written.

One such case came to me recently when someone recently pointed out to me the existence of web site that “is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible.”  This web site intends to debunk God’s existence by pointing out all the atrocities that He seems to encourage in Sacred Scripture.  This seems to be a common argument against Christianity so it is worth looking at this question in depth.

To begin, one must ask where they are getting their standard of right and wrong, just and unjust when they complain about the violence of God, especially in the Old Testament.  Look at from the perspective of history, putting entire cities under the ban, human sacrifice, slavery and gross inequality between the sexes were all commonplace throughout the ancient world.  It is only when Christianity begins to take root that these things are seen as evils and in truly Christian cultures they have all but disappeared.  In other words, the authors of Evilbible.com and those of their ilk are using Christian standards by which to judge the Bible. If that is not ironic enough, it turns out that rather than debunking the Bible, they are actually proving something quite to the contrary.

In his Apostolic Exhortation on the Word of God in the Mission of the Church, Verbum Domini, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the question of the so-called “Dark Passages” of Scripture by reminding the Faithful that context is everything.  He says that

Continue reading Shining the Light into the Dark Passages →

On Zika and the Lesser of Two Evils

Contraception, Natural Law, Pope Francis

For most Catholics, Pope Francis and plane-ride interview has become a time ripe for confusion.  His return home to the Vatican from his pastoral visit in Mexico was no different.  A reporter from Spain asked the Holy Father the following question:

Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

And Pope Francis replied that:

Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.

Unfortunately, these “off-the cuff” remarks were picked up by the media and led to headlines like “Pope suggests contraceptives could be used to slow spread of Zika” (CNN), “Zika Shows It’s Time For The Catholic Church To Rethink Its Stance On Birth Control” (Forbes), and “Pope Francis Condones Contraception With Zika Virus” (NPR).  An attempt by Fr. Lombardi, the Vatican Spokesman to clarify the Pope’s comments only served to further muddy the waters:

The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said…the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations. He is not saying that this possibility is accepted without discernment, indeed, he said clearly that it can be considered in cases of special urgency.

These flying papal encounters often leave the faithful with an uncomfortable feeling that the question has not been adequately addressed or even incorrectly so.  Thanks be to God that because we have the great gift of Sacred Tradition we can often fill in the ellipsis that the Holy Father tends to insert in his responses.  While I will not be so bold as to speculate what the Holy Father meant, I can confidently offer what he could not mean.

Some preliminary background is necessary for understand a full response to the question.  The question itself really is “Is it permissible to use contraception to combat the effects of the Zika virus on children in the womb?”  In truth, to frame the question in terms of “the lesser of two evils” is to frame it incorrectly.  Nowhere within the Catholic moral tradition has it ever been believed that one may choose between the lesser of two evils.  In the case of two objectively evil actions, neither may be chosen for its own sake.  It may very well be that in choosing a good, we will have to tolerate an evil that is both a “side effect” of our decision and of less moral gravity than the good itself (see here for a discussion of the Principle of Double Effect which governs this idea).

There is also the danger when you speak in terms of evils of seeing the child that is conceived with a birth defect as an evil.  As any parent with a special needs child will emphatically tell you, the child is an inconceivable good, even if the condition that plagues them is an evil.

Pope_Francis_on_papal_flight

If we reframe the question of the goods involved a clear answer emerges that is both consistent with Tradition, Natural Law and even practical sense.  The good to be attained is the avoidance of the birth defects that are (or in truth only “maybe”) associated with the Zika virus.  One of the possible means of attaining this good would be to avoid pregnancy altogether.  Certainly to avoid becoming pregnant with a child who is likely to carry a serious birth defect is among the “grave reasons” for postponing (even indefinitely) pregnancy that Pope Paul VI spoke of in Humanae Vitae.  At this point it is not clear what the chances are of both contracting Zika and having a baby with microcephaly are, but let’s assume that they are significant enough to make it grave.

Pope Francis was clear in his condemnation of abortion as a solution to the issue.  A person is an objective good to which the only adequate response is love as St. John Paul II said.  This means that to do harm to the person so as to avoid their suffering with a birth defect is always a great evil and can never be a moral solution.  St. John Paul II affirmed this by invoking the Church’s charism of Infallibility through the Ordinary Magisterium in Evangelium Vitae saying “I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (EV 62).

The Saintly Pontiff also conceded that there are “differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion” (EV 13) but this does not mean that contraception too does not constitute an objective evil that cannot be chosen as an ends or a means.  In fact we know that Fr. Lombardi’s interpretation what the Pope said is wrong.  Assuming that when he made the distinction between “contraceptives and condoms” he was considering chemical contraception, then this falls into the first category of direct abortion.

According to the PDR (and the package inserts on birth control pills), “[C]ombination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”  The third mechanism that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg (i.e the child) renders the Pill as an abortifacient.  In truth because all three mechanisms are at work, there is no way to know whether pregnancy has been avoided or an abortion has taken place.  Therefore because of their abortifacient nature, chemical contraceptives would not be an option.

What about condoms as a solution?  I have written elsewhere about why any contraceptive measure is always a grave evil, but there is a practical reason why condom usage should not be considered as a solution.  Although it often gets lumped into other “calendar methods” in efficacy studies, Natural Family Planning is at least as effective as most chemical methods and more effective than condom usage (one such study supports this can be found here).  In any regard it is disappointing to say the least that neither the Pope nor his representative mentioned this as an option.  Imagine the power of a response similar to “Yes, there might be reason to avoid pregnancy in the regions afflicted with Zika.  We must get those people trained in NFP and we will have the good of strengthening marriages as well.”

A comment also needs to be made about the exception that the Holy Father mentioned regarding the nuns who were in danger of being raped.  This is a red herring of sorts because there is no moral equivalency here at all.  Birth control as the Church has always taught is related to the conjugal act. By definition this act assumes not only the physical act but also the consent of both parties. Rape may have the same physical act, but lacks the consent. These are fundamentally different things and therefore it is morally licit to do everything that you can to avoid pregnancy after the act (or even during the act). However once pregnancy (i.e fertilization) occurs it is a different thing.

The ability of the Holy Father to act as Universal Pastor of the Church is truly enhanced by the speed at which he is able to travel.  What would be good though is if the Flying Magisterium could be avoided.  While the Pope himself only alluded to “birth control” in his comments, there was no real indication that he was making any distinction between morally licit means and those that are not.  Fr. Lombardi may or may not have accurately conveyed the Pope’s meaning but the fact of the matter is that ambiguity has plagued the papacy of Francis.  While Pope Francis is certainly not the only Papal “victim” of the media in this regard, the questions themselves tend to repeat themselves and truly call for a well thought out and nuanced response.  Let us all pray that when condoms and the next health crisis come up, the Holy Father will act as a clear prophet.

 

 

Justice Scalia and Purgatory

Last Things, Purgatory, Sin

There is a story of a young priest who was asked to preside over a funeral of a man he did not know.  He met with the widow beforehand in order to learn some things about the man.  In order to break the ice, he said “I am sure your husband is in a better place,” to which the widow replied “the hell he is!”  Whether this story is apocryphal or not, we have all had the uncomfortable experience of being around someone who is very quick to canonize a person once they have died.  In fact, this is the one thing that touched me most about Fr. Paul Scalia’s homily during his father’s, Justice Antonin Scalia, funeral mass.  He absolutely refused to canonize (some call it “eulogizing”) his father because it was uncharitable and deprived him of the prayers he still needed.  This was clearly something Fr. Scalia learned from his father because the only place in his homily where he quoted his father directly was a letter the Justice once wrote to a Presbyterian minister about why he hated eulogies.  The Justice thought that “[E]ven when the deceased was an admirable person, indeed especially when the deceased was an admirable person, praise for his virtues can cause us to forget that we are praying for and giving thanks for God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner.”  This habit of canonizing the dead really stems from a refusal to take the existence of Purgatory seriously or to downplay its significance.  Not only do we deprive the dead of our prayers, but we do not allow the reality of Purgatory to shape our lives as it should.  The truth of the matter is that even though it is often said tongue in cheek, Purgatory is not something we should strive for; even if it is the “mudroom” of Heaven.

In order to see the necessity of Purgatory, we have to make sure we are viewing the redemptive act of Christ through proper lenses.  Christ was not a penal substitute for us on the Cross.  An innocent man dying as punishment for a guilty man is no act of justice.  Instead, like the first Adam, Christ, the new Adam was man’s representative upon the Cross.  As representative He makes redemption possible, but only to the degree that we participate. This is certainly the way that St. Paul understood his own redemption when he told the Colossians that he “rejoiced in his sufferings because they complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24).  Christ’s representative sacrifice was perfect, what is lacking was his (our) participation.

While removing the eternal punishment for sin, Christ’s sacrifice leaves the temporal punishment for sin intact.  If Christ is only a penal substitute that paid the price for our sins, then the presence of suffering (and even death) in this world has no explanation.  Because sin really is our insistence to have things our own way, by suffering something that we don’t want, justice is restored in some way.  But the sin also causes imbalance in the person as well requiring that we accept the punishment freely as satisfaction for our sins to repair the personal disorder. This imbalance is felt in the sinner a way akin to rust which St. Thomas calls the “relics of sin.”   Because of these “dispositions caused by previous acts of sin…the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue.”  It is this twofold dimension of the temporal punishment for sin that must be healed before one can enter the presence of God.

Suffering seen in light of temporal punishment shows forth the mercy of God.  The Catechism calls it “a grace” (CCC 1473).  St Thomas gives three reasons why God thought this fitting.  The first is that it helps us to understand the gravity of sin so as to help us avoid it in the future.  Because of the downward pull of concupiscence and the pleasure we derive from sin, we do not always recognize its evil.  By attaching temporal punishments to our sins, God mercifully keeps us from falling into further sin.

A second reason according to St. Thomas is that through His invitation to make satisfaction through the merits of Christ and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, God the Father makes us co-operators in our salvation.  God is raising up adopted sons and daughters not merely servants or slaves.  By participating in our own redemption, God treats us as He does His only begotten Son.

Finally, St Thomas says temporal punishments are necessary because sin in essence is a pampering of self.  When temporal afflictions are patiently endured, it teaches us not to pamper ourselves so as to be better prepared to make gifts of ourselves through our participation in the self-giving love of the Trinity.

BVM-and-Purgatory

If the temporal punishment for sin ultimately accrues because it is a means by which God makes us fit for heaven then the debt can remain after death but prior to entering the presence of God.  Even if Purgatory were not divinely revealed to us in Tradition and Sacred Scripture (2 Macc 13:43-46 shows the general Jewish belief in the doctrine and Mt 5:26 and 1Cor 3:13-15 show the Christian belief), reason would almost dictate that it be so.  One cannot reconcile the holiness, mercy, and justice of God without maintaining a place of purgation after death.

Ultimately one might not believe in Purgatory in this life, but will soon believe in it in the next life.  But it is equally damaging to not take it seriously enough during our pilgrimage on Earth.  No amount of suffering in this life can compare to the sufferings of Purgatory.  That is because in this life we can rely on the merits of Christ to increase the satisfaction for our sins.  The Holy Souls in Purgatory on the other hand can only settle their debt by what is called ‘satispassion’ or by suffering enough.  Because their only means of satisfaction is their own suffering, praying for the dead and obtaining indulgences for them becomes a supreme act of charity.  To not do so, amounts to an act of omission.

That is not the only thing however that makes Purgatory so hard.  The pains of purgatory are similar to those suffered by the damned in hell.  They suffer what is called the “pain of loss” which is the pain of being deprived of God, our true Good.  What intensifies the pain is the knowledge that it is venial sin and their punishments that could have been readily expiated in this life that separates them from God.  As the purifying effects are felt, the pain actually increases because their love is purified, making the loss of the beloved felt more acutely.

While not a definitive dogma of the Church, most theologians and Church Fathers (and the Council of Florence hints at it) also describe what is called the “pain of sense.”  This comes from the idea that St. Paul (1 Cor 3:11) says that some men will be saved through fire.

Since the souls in Purgatory are separated from their body, one might rightfully ask how something material like fire could cause pain.  What St. Thomas and the other Scholastics argue by way of analogy saying that the matter of the Sacraments, for example the water of Baptism, has a spiritual effect and therefore it must be possible.

Despite the suffering of the souls in Purgatory, the souls also are joyful.  Not only are they approaching God, but they know their love is being purified.  They are only too happy to make things right with their Beloved.  While there is still hope in the souls in Purgatory, it is different from the virtue of hope as we experience it on earth.  The holy souls in Purgatory are assured of reaching their heavenly homeland while the hope of those in the Church Militant is of one who is tending in the right direction.

By his carefully worded homily, Fr. Scalia did a great act of charity for his father.  He begged all those in attendance to pray for his final purification.  Because of the stage upon which this homily was spoken he really did the whole Church a great service.  No one could hear or read his homily and not re-examine their own views on Purgatory.  For that, there may be many souls who will be eternally grateful.

On Free Will

Freedom, God's Will, Moralilty

What do we mean when we say that man has free will?  To address this question, we must first look at man in his totality, both body and spirit.  Man exercises powers of both animals and angels.  Each of these powers is naturally inclined towards a given object.  For example, hearing is naturally inclined towards sound and eyesight towards light.  If you clap beside someone’s ear or pass something before his eyes (assuming they are not diseased in any way), then he cannot help but hear the clap and see the thing.  Our spiritual powers of knowing and willing likewise are naturally inclined towards truth and goodness.  Focusing only on the will at the moment, we can say that the will is fixed towards always choosing the Good.

This is an important point to understand because it often leads to moral confusion.  It is not possible for us to act contrary to the Good.  Everything we choose is because we have perceived it to be good, even if we are objectively wrong.  As a thought experiment, think about the person who commits suicide.  Why do they do it ultimately?  Because they deem it better to be dead than alive.  So too with the teenage girl who cuts herself—the pain of the cut is better than feeling the interior angst.  We could come up with any number of other examples, but the point is that no one can choose something they know to be bad for its own sake.

Given that we are bound by necessity to choose the Good, in what ways can we say that we have free will?  We have free will with respect to individual goods.  This is because each individual good merely participates in the Supreme Good itself, namely God.  Thus it is lacking in some way and we are free to choose it or to choose another (albeit also limited good) in its place.  But this is not the only manner in which we can exercise our free will.  We can also choose the means towards those good and acts associated with them.

For example, because it is a limited good, I am free to choose to become a pianist or not.  Once I decide to pursue that goal, I am free to choose what kind of piano I will buy.  I am also free to choose how I will practice or even if I will practice at all.

Pin_puppet

This also helps us to understand the question as to how, if we cannot sin in heaven, we could still have free will.  The idea that the will is naturally inclined to the Good means when we sin, we are actually choosing only what are apparent goods and not real goods.  In Heaven because we are caught up in Goodness itself, there are no apparent goods, only real ones.  Therefore, we can no longer sin.

This naturally leads us to wonder about the relationship between our free will and God.  When I said that no one can force our will, this includes God Himself.  This immediately presents a problem in that it seems that God is then limited.  But properly understood this is not a limitation at all because He has the power to change our wills.  While this seems like a mere intellectual sleight of hand, it is an important distinction for us to understand.  God is always the divine pursuer and lover.  He will never force Himself upon us like a rapist but will woo us like a lover.

God can change our wills in two ways.  The first is to create a desire in us for some good that was not there before.  The second is by introducing what St. Thomas calls a “form.”  This could be something like an actual grace in which our minds our enlightened as to what is really a good for us here and now or by strengthening our wills to achieve the concrete good.  In either case however it is still the person who chooses, even if he has had assistance from God in knowing and desiring.

St. Thomas offers a helpful analogy (De Veritate q.22, a.8) that makes the distinction clearer.  He notes that a stone has a natural inclination (i.e. gravity) to fall to the earth.  To throw it up in the air, is to violently alter its inclination.  But God could also change the inclination by removing gravity so that the stone had a new inclination to go up.  In that way, the stone would still be acting “freely” according to its own inclination.

With a proper understanding of free will, not as the power to do whatever I want, but the power to want what is good, comes the ability to act with authentic freedom.  It helps us to see freedom not as an end itself (mere license) but as given to us for a specific purpose, moral excellence.  That is why the Second Vatican Council called freedom “an exceptional sign of the divine image within man” (Gaudium et Spes, 17).  God is totally free not just because He is God, but because He is Good.  His laws for mankind are only blueprints for sharing in His Goodness.  In this Lenten season when we atone for all of our failures of living freedom excellently, may we embrace the true freedom to live as children of God.

 

The Incomprehensibility of the Incarnation

Devils, Lent

Each year on the First Sunday of Lent, we hear the different accounts of Jesus’ temptation in the desert.  Of course the Church puts this before us each year to bring to the minds of the Faithful that it is Christ Himself Who has consecrated these 40 days of fasting and spiritual warfare.  Our Lenten practices are simply participations in His time in the desert in which He won many graces for each one of us individually.  In His battle with the Devil, He won for us victory over every form of temptation that he throws at us.  But one is always left with a nagging question after reading these Gospel accounts, namely, did Satan know Who Jesus was?

There is always a great danger, even in our own spiritual lives, to ascribe more power and knowledge to the devil than he actually has.  So it is helpful to look at angelic knowledge in general and the effect that the Fall of the angels had on Satan and his minions.  Unlike man, who by nature knows ideas by abstracting from sense knowledge, angels know through an infusion directly by God.  Even though angelic knowledge is on a higher plane than human knowledge, it is limited.  For example, angels cannot know the future because that belongs only to God.  Likewise, they cannot know the secrets of our thoughts even if they can sometimes deduce from our outward actions or a change in countenance.  For example, they may deduce we are scared because they observe our heartrate increasing or frightful images appearing in our imagination.

By nature, Lucifer was the highest of all God’s creatures because he had the greatest natural knowledge of God.  Although it was greater than all the other creatures it was still less than God’s knowledge of Himself.  This share of God’s knowledge of Himself is only available through grace in the Beatific vision, namely to see God face to face.  Lucifer never saw God in His essence though because of his fall from grace.  According to St. Thomas it was this knowledge (that he wanted (so as to be like God) and could not obtain on his own and so fell.  The important point is that Lucifer did not know God in His essence nor can he know anything in the order of grace.  While his knowledge is great, it always remains on the natural level.

Christ in the Desert

From these two facts, we can conclude two things.  First, there is no way that Satan could have known anything about the Crucifixion, Resurrection, etc. because those events belong to the order of grace.  Nor could he deduce anything from Christ’s countenance as to Who He was because He was always in perfect control of His emotions and imagination.  Satan could get no read on Him because of this.  But what Christ did reveal to Him was that He was hungry and so He was clearly a man who had physical needs just like every other man.

It is Satan’s inability to get a read on this seemingly ordinary man, Jesus of Nazareth, that ultimately causes the Temptation.  He can detect something remarkable about Him, but what it is exactly he cannot say.  Each of his three temptations that he puts before Christ are really his way of probing into his real identity.

His minions too will be perplexed by Him later on.  All the Jewish exorcists at the time invoked God’s name to expel demons.  Jesus does it using His own authority.  They try gaining authority over Him by saying His name (an authoritative act) and nothing happens.  So while they may witness His power and declare Him the “Holy One of God,” they had no way of knowing that He was in fact the Second Person of the Trinity, God made flesh.  As St. Paul says “none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8).  In essence if they had known Who He was, they would not have done something that would have led to their final defeat (1 Cor 15:24-28).

What this really comes down to is the fact that the Incarnation is completely and totally incomprehensible to Satan.  He could not even have conceived that God would condescend so deeply as to take on true human flesh and to allow Himself to experience need and to suffer deprivation.  Through the paradigm of his deadly pride, no God that could possibly be above him would stoop so low to raise the “hairless bipeds” (to borrow a phrase from Lewis’ Screwtape Letters) so high.  As St. Ambrose says Satan may have known that the Son of God would come, but “he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the flesh.”

In many ways, it is the disdain for His divinity that remains a stumbling block for many of us as well.  It seems the more we are in the grips of pride, the harder it become to believe.  It is almost as if there is a steady refusal to believe not because it is unbelievable but because it is too good to be true.  We need to honestly exam ourselves by asking, “If I were God, would I do it that way?”  Only insofar as we can put on the “logic of the Incarnation” can we begin to see the depth of Christ’s humility and love for us.  In this holy season of Lent, may we enter into combat on all forms of pride by keeping the humility of the Incarnation ever in sight.

Happy Darwin’s Day

History, Science,

To mark his 209th birthday, the American Humanist Association has honored Charles Darwin by declaring today to be International Darwin Day.  The group praises Darwin and his theory of evolution for “unclasping scientific progress from theological limitations and paving the way for a fuller understanding of our place in the universe.”   While they mention “theological limitations,” one gets the sense that it is really any “limitations” to natural science, including those that are inherently part of its essence that humanists will not accept.  Natural science is limited in that it is designed to look for material causes as explanation for certain effects.  It can neither find nor detect non-material agents.  It is a valuable and reliable field of knowledge for sure, but knowledge is not wisdom.  As the name suggests, Homo sapiens (literally “wise person) as a species seek wisdom and therefore are necessarily philosophical.  Humanists forget that physics is always at the service of metaphysics.  What ends up happening is that physics becomes metaphysics and bad science follows.  Only when natural science respects it limitations can it truly pave the way for “a fuller understanding of our place in the universe.”

If one reads Darwin’s Descent of Man then it becomes readily apparent that Darwin starts with the assumption that the mind was entirely material and that humans had an ape-like ancestor.  In other words, he took the theory of evolution as he describes it in the Origin of Species and applied it to man without any scientific justification.  In other words, he first made a metaphysical assumption and then simply asserted what that would look like scientifically.  Of course, his metaphysics was not solid as I showed in a previous post.

But science also needs religion.  In fact, it is certain Christian fundamental ideas that allowed the emergence of scientific thought to begin with.  The study of science arose because of a belief in a transcendent Creator who endowed His creation with orderly physical laws.  Any good scientist knows that what you study is not only observable, but that it follows some known order.   No reasonable scientist would study what he truly believed to be random coin flips.  Furthermore, man must be capable of recognizing this order so as to study it.  In order to discover the order of the universe of which man is a part, he must also somehow transcend it.  In other words, Humanists must recognize that to reject either of these truths, undermines any attempts that they make to gather knowledge about the world.  In fact, the pioneers of modern science, such as Galileo, Kepler, Harvey, and Newton thought science was at the service of wonder so that it would give content to the praise of the Creator.

Historically speaking, religious faith and science thrived side by side until the start of the eighteenth century.  For various reasons, some of which were valid such as wars within Christianity itself, many Enlightenment intellectuals became disillusioned with Christianity.  In response to this, they proposed a “religion of reason” that would replace the dogmas of faith.  This co-option of science by the Enlightenment was characterized by its claims that science must be “value free”.

Creation of Man Sistine

It should be noted as well that Darwin was not the first to posit a theory of evolution.  One of the questions that theology has long been trying to answer was where Adam’s body came from.  Some posited that it came about instantly while other said it came through some stages of development.  For example, St. Augustine in his commentary on Genesis (De Genesi ad Literam) thought that Adam came into the world in full maturity.  But he left it open to the idea that his body could have come about through long process similar to embryonic development (or evolution of some sort).

So what does Divine Revelation have to say about the “Origin of Species?”  First that God created the world ex nihilio.  This does not preclude Him using something like the Big Bang as the mechanism, although this particular theory has some serious flaws scientifically that need to be worked out.  When you are using a theoretical construct that cannot be measured like Dark Matter to explain 5/6 of the matter in the Universe, it is far from a complete explanation.  Regardless of whether it is true or not, one still has to explain how the point of infinite density and temperature at time zero ever got there.  In other words, scientists may be able to answer the question as to how things come about, but they will never be able to answer the question as to why there is something instead of nothing.  That is a question for metaphysics and religion.  To pretend natural science could answer that question or to pretend that is not the more important question is to delude yourself.  Metaphysical questions are always the most important questions because we crave purpose and meaning and not mere explanation.

Regarding the “Descent of Man”, Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis, offered three specific truths from Revelation that must be safeguarded.  The first is that man, because of his spiritual soul, could not be a direct product of evolution.  There is nothing contrary to Revelation to say that man’s body came through evolution, but the soul must be believed to have been directly infused into that body by God.

Second, we must hold that the first woman came directly from the first man.  At first this seems unnecessary or even superfluous, but Pius XII was reaffirming that which had been taught as part of the Ordinary Magisterium going all the way back to Pope Pelagius I in 561 (“together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man”).  The reason why this truth is of particular importance is because it affirms the essential equality (in dignity) of man and woman.  An unchecked theory of evolution always leads to justifying inequality between people because one group is always somehow inferior to the more evolved one.  It was Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin’s who applied Darwin’s arguments for Natural Selection to improved breeding of human beings.  He is the first to coin the term eugenics, to which the likes of Marx, Hitler and Margaret Sanger all devoted their time.

Finally, Pius XII said that Adam and Eve were two real people from which the entire human race has come (this is called monogenism).  The Pontiff said that “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

This is why a wholesale adoption of evolution is problematic.  Evolution without Revelation would require that in the transition from animal to man, there would necessarily be a multitude of men and not just two.  What is at stake in this is Jesus and His Mission.  If there is no Adam and no Original Sin as separation from God then there is no need for the Incarnation and Redemption.  While we may not be immediately aware of the implications of this belief, humanists certainly are.  In an article entitled, “The Meaning of Evolution,” the author says that, “[E]volution destroys utterly and finally the very reason for Jesus’ earthly life, which was supposedly made necessary, for if you destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, then you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death, and if Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, then Christianity is nothing.”

Ultimately, the battle between science and revelation has a direct bearing upon science itself.  As Pius XII said, “truth cannot contradict truth” so that   those places where modern science contradict revelation will ultimately lead to dead ends.  No amount of faith in scientific fudge factors like dark matter, dark, energy, inflation, and missing links will ultimately lead to truth.  It certainly is not at the service of reason to continue to create hypothetical constructs to fill in the gaps when Revelation has a perfectly reasonable answer—I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

 

 

Fasting in Lent

Fasting, Lent, ,

In his 18th Century encyclical letter Non ambigimus, Pope Benedict XIV sought to encourage his brother bishops and the Church Universal to zealously keep the Lenten fast.  Not only did he view it as a distinguishing mark of Catholic Christianity, but he also lamented that “the most sacred observance of the fast of Lent has been almost completely eliminated.”  Certainly the last two and a half centuries have witnessed a continued decline.  But if what Pope Benedict XIV says is true, namely that:

“[T]he observance of the Lenten fast is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it we prove ourselves not to be enemies of the cross of Christ. By it we avert the scourges of divine justice. By it we gain strength against the princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly help. Should mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it would be a detriment to God’s glory, a disgrace to the Catholic religion, and a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted that such negligence would become the source of misery to the world, of public calamity, and of private woe.”

Perhaps as we plan out our Lenten practices, we ought to examine the practice of fasting once again.

Fasting has a long history within the Church.  We know that Our Lord Himself left us by way of example this practice when He went into the desert and fasted for 40 days.  But like all things that Christ did, He left us more than an example.  During His time in the desert, He won for us as individuals all the graces attached to fasting.  As the only Begotten Son of God, He saw each of your Lenten fasts individually and won for you the specific graces you would need during that Lent.  These graces become available to you to the degree that you participate in His fast.  Thanks to the work of the Redeemer, fasting becomes not only an act of penance but a positive means of growing in sanctity and arms us for spiritual warfare.

We also know that the followers of Christ were expected to fast.  When the disciples of John (Mk 2:18-22) the Baptist ask Jesus why His followers do not fast, He tells them that it isn’t fitting for them to fast while He is with them.  This is because John the Baptist and his followers fasted both in anticipation of the coming Messiah and as an act of penance.  By offering the new wine of redemption, Our Lord was changing the meaning of fasting.  That meaning could only be understood once the Bridegroom had departed from their company.  In other words, the new fruits of fasting were only available once Jesus’ redemptive mission was completed.  Thus fasting is not only something Christians should do, but there is also a uniquely Christian way to fast.

Lenten Cross

While I have visited the question of fasting previously and mentioned some of the specific fruits attached to it, I would like to examine some of the reasons why fasting in Lent is so essential.  Lent is a time consecrated in a special way to penance and the Church has viewed fasting as the primary means by which this penance is performed.  Why fasting?  Because as Ss. Basil and Gregory the Great point out, the first sin was one of eating.  By breaking the commandment of abstaining from eating a particular thing, our first parents allowed all sin to enter the world.  Therefore it is fitting that when we fast through the merits of Christ we are able to undo the effects of that sin in our lives.  In other words, just as eating universally led to sin in mankind, abstaining from eating can untie that knot.

But wouldn’t fasting from apples be enough?  Why does it include fasting from meat?  Again it is tied to man’s sinful nature.  By way of concession, God allows man to eat the flesh of animals in His covenant with Noah (Gn 9:1-4) because he needs the animal flesh in order to be strengthened in his fallen state.  So by abstaining specifically from meat, it once again is a participation in the fruits of Christ’s redemptive act.

Looking at it from Christ’s redemptive act and from the perspective of undoing some of the effects of the Fall, we can see why it is a powerful spiritual practice.  But it has fallen into disuse for many in the Church.  In response to this, the Church has done all she could to make it possible to fulfill the necessity of fasting while not imposing burdens beyond what the average Catholic in the 21st Century can handle.  But the problem is that the average Catholic in the 21st Century can handle a whole lot less than say the average Catholic in the 13th Century.  Given the overall increase in health, shouldn’t it be the exact opposite?  What has changed is the mindset.  While I am not necessarily advocating extreme fasts over Lent, the remedy to this mindset is to actually embrace the Lenten fast.

There is a tendency to think “I can fast from other things instead” and then we set out to be innovative in our Lenten practice.  The problem with this is that there is almost always a lack of humility in doing this because, as St. Francis de Sales says, “we will find that all that comes from ourselves, from our own judgment, choice and election, is esteemed and loved far better than that which come from another.”  But by acting in obedience to Our Lord’s example, we choose a penance which is imposed from without.  This offers us an opportunity to grow in humility by voluntarily choosing someone else’s conception of penance.

This is not to say that fasting from TV, social media or the like may not be a spiritually fruitful experience.  As an aside, we should always fast from that which is good—to avoid something like yelling at your wife, is not fasting.  What is being said is that these things should never be substitutes for fasting from food.  Do them in addition to fasting, not in place of.  Because food is necessary to life, the hunger we experience in going without, is felt at the core of our being.  We give up what is necessary because we want the One Thing that is most necessary.  Those other things, while good, do not share this same essential quality.

In the past, Christians were under obligation to eat only a single meal each day during the entire Lent.  Obviously this would be too difficult for us today.  Instead we might consider following the current norms for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday for all the days of Lent.  When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal. Two smaller meals also can be eaten, although they should not be larger than the full meal combined.  We should also consider abstaining from meat in any of those meals.  Fasting and abstinence should not be done on Sunday—even during Lent, Sunday is a feast day rather than a fast day.  This connection between fasting and feasting, especially during Lent, will also help us to enjoy the Sabbath day all the more.  By fasting throughout Lent, we will realize the fruits of the Easter feast even more.  May our Lenten fasts lead to great spiritual renewal for us all!

 

It Takes Only One?

Last Things, Moralilty, Theology

In his Encyclical on Moral Theology, St. John Paul II cautioned against falling into the theological loophole that is commonly called the “fundamental option.”  The general idea of the fundamental option is that each person makes a basic choice to love God and as long as they do not consciously revoke that decision, they remain in His good graces.  In this way it becomes little more than a psychological game where as long as we say we love God, it is so.  Our actions do nothing to change our fundamental stance as long as we still “love” God in our minds.  With the adoption of this viewpoint throughout the Church, the idea of mortal sin has been lost and many people miss out on the opportunity to bathe in God’s merciful love.

Despite this, the Church still teaches that there is such thing as mortal sin and a single mortal sin can damn us to hell for all eternity.  The Catechism says “[T]o die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice” (CCC 1033). While this constitutes a truth of the faith, it is fruitful to look at why this is the case.  All too often people will view this teaching as “fire and brimstone” but it can have a bearing on our daily lives, especially those who truly want to love God.

There is a subtlety in the quote from the Catechism that is easy to miss. The choice of describing it as being in mortal sin, rather than “having committed mortal sin” or “with mortal sin on his soul,” reveals a deep anthropological truth and shows us how sin is more than just an offense against God.

Man, because he is free has the freedom for self-determination.  Man can become whatever he wants to become.  Now, this is not meant in a “you can do anything if you just believe in yourself” kind of way.  Instead it means that we are free everywhere and always to be a certain kind of person.  A man who desires to be honest, is always free to do the honest thing.  A man who desires to humble, always has the power to do the humble thing.  It is only on this level that man is authentically free and thus responsible.  Where the self-determination comes in is that by repeatedly performing acts of honesty or humility the man becomes honest or humble.  These habitual dispositions (we call them virtues) become almost second nature to us.  In other words, our actions determine the kind of person we are.  This can also work for woe.  The man who repeatedly lies out of fear becomes a liar and coward.

When we speak of heaven then we must first admit that there are only certain kinds of people that are fit to be admitted.   We shall return to the question of why it must be a certain type, but first it is necessary to make a further distinction.  While self-determination plays a key part in this, it is not the only thing (or even the most important thing).  The most important thing is whether the heaven life is alive in our souls.  Because God is “a consuming fire” we cannot enter into eternal friendship with Him without being “equals” with Him.  This is so important to understand any time we speak of Heaven or Hell.  Not everyone could stand in God’s Presence.  He gives us sanctifying grace to make us fireproof.  Without it, no matter how many good things we have done, the fire of His love would be more painful than the fires of Hell (this is why we can say that Hell is a sign of God’s mercy).

What this means is that this time of trial and testing is all about being made fit.  We must do everything in our power to keep the life of God that was freely given to us in Baptism (ordinarily) coursing through our souls.  This is where the notion of self-determination comes into play.  Our actions determine the “shape” of our souls and only certain shapes can hold the life of God in them.  Once the soul becomes warped from certain types of actions, then the life of God spills out them.

Nine Circles

At this point, one might be willing to concede all that has been said.  But how is it that a single mortal sin could so damage the human will as to make the person unfit for Heaven?  After all, we have been speaking of habits and one slip does not break a habit.  Perhaps this is best answered by way of analogy.  Suppose a man loves his country and strives to be patriotic.  He may have dedicated his life to serving out of love for his country.  This love certainly may not be perfect.  He may love her imperfectly by doing something like not obeying all the traffic laws.  While he would still be viewed as a patriot, he would not yet be a perfect patriot since the love of self that causes him to disobey the traffic laws impedes him from loving his country perfectly.  But are there certain actions in which he would cease to be a patriot?  Would a man who sold secrets to his country’s enemy still be a patriot even if he only did it once?  Everyone recognizes that a single traitorous action would undue all of his previous patriotic actions and he would no longer be considered a patriot.

So too it is with our moral lives.  We may love God imperfectly and commit venial sins, but there are certain actions which we can perform which are so contrary to the love of God that they deform our wills such that the life of God can no longer reside in us.  Just like the false patriot in our analogy, we still have the opportunity make amends for our transgression and have grace restored to us, but at a certain point that no longer becomes an option.  Benedict Arnold can no longer make amends for his act of treason, despite all of his previous acts of patriotism to the contrary.

This brings us to a second important point and that is that at the moment of death our souls become fixed.  We now enter into the realm of spirits and our manner of judging is immutable.  This is one of the ways we become “like the angels.”  Angels, because they are pure spirits, do not change their minds.  Because they can see all particulars attached to their decisions, their wills remain fixed once they have made a judgment.  So too we will do at the moment of death.  Because the soul is fixed in either good or evil by its last voluntary act, it continues to judge according to its inclination at the time of separation.  The will can only change when the judgment of the intellect gives new reasons.  This is why there is only one personal judgment at the time of death—the decision to choose for or against God has been made and cannot change.  This is also why the Fathers of the Church speak of the terrible temptations of the demons at the hour of death as they tempt us towards a mortal sin or away from repentance.  It is also why we pray regularly to St. Joseph, the Terror of Demons, for a happy death.

While we can see how reasonable this teaching is, it remains just informative unless it causes us to measure our actions more carefully.  If it is true that one mortal sin can cause us to lose Heaven then we must actively strive to grow in sanctifying grace.  The deeper the penetration of God’s life into our souls, the greater our protection against sin.  We truly become more and more like God, and it is only those who are truly like Him that can share His life in eternity.  Each day we do not grow in the love of God is a loss.

In closing, we may turn to Blessed Columba Marmion who seems to summarize our approach best:

We shall enjoy God according to the same measure of grace to which we have attained at the moment of our going out of the world. Do not let us lose sight of this truth: the degree of our eternal beatitude is, and will remain, fixed forever by the degree of charity we have attained, by the grace of Christ, when God shall call us to Himself. Each moment of our life is then infinitely precious, for it suffices to advance us a degree in the love of God, to raise us higher in the beatitude of eternal life. And let us not say that one degree more or less is a small matter. How can anything be a small matter when it concerns God, and the endless life and beatitude of which He is the source? If, according to the parable spoken by our Lord in person, we have received five talents, it was not that we might bury them, but that we might make them bear increase.  And if God measures the reward according to the efforts we have made to live by His grace and increase it in us, do not think it matters little what kind of a harvest we bring to our Father in Heaven.  Jesus Himself has told us that His heavenly Father is glorified in seeing us abound, by His grace, in fruits of holiness, which will be fruits of beatitude in Heaven. In hoc clarificatus est Pater meus ut fructum plurimum afferatis  . . . Can it be that our love for Jesus Christ is so weak that we account it a small thing to be a more or less resplendent member of His Mystical Body in the heavenly Jerusalem?

 

Happiness and Morality

Freedom, Natural Law

For many people in today’s world, the question as to whether they can live both a moral life and be happy is answered firmly in the negative.  However, if we turn to the beginning of the most famous sermon that Jesus gave, the Sermon on the Mount, and His beatitudes, He gives a different answer.  The Beatitudes are Christ’s definitive answer to the question of happiness.  All of the early Church Fathers and even up until the Middle Ages interpreted them that way.  It was not until around the Fourteenth Century that the question of happiness was set aside and the moral life became marked by obligation.  One of the tasks that John XXIII left for the Council Fathers of Vatican II to do was to make the faith more accessible to the world today.  Concretely, one of the ways to do that is to link the Church’s moral teaching back to the notion of happiness.  We see this expressed in the Catechism when it opens the section on the moral life with a discussion of the concept of happiness.  In doing this, the Church is implicitly making the connection between morality and happiness in an attempt to restore an “ethic of the good” or a “morality of happiness” (see CCC, nos.1716-1719).

In order to reconnect these concepts, we must first point out some obvious truths about humanity that may have been forgotten.  The first is that while each person is unique, we all have the same unchangeable human nature.  Times may change, circumstances may change, but there are certain things about mankind that do not.  For instance, the fact that man has a rational nature means that his actions are willed and proceed from calculation and deliberation.  In other words, man’s actions always have an intended purpose.

If then all human activity is end-oriented and we all have the same human nature then there must be a final or dominant end that governs and gives meaning to all other ends.  The Church, in agreement with many of the ancient philosophers says that this ultimate end is happiness.  St. Augustine said, “we all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated” in recognition of the universality of the desire for happiness.

When St. Augustine and his philosophical predecessors use the word happiness, they mean something different than we usually do.  To the modern mind, happiness is synonymous with contentment.  It is seen subjectively as a temporary feeling that is dependent upon chance.  That the word happy comes from the Old English word for “chance” is a perfect illustration of this.

Classically understood though, happiness is a translation of the Greek word eudaemonia.  Etymologically, it consists of the word “eu” meaning “morally good”, “daimōn” meaning “spirit” and “ia” meaning “state”.  Immediately it becomes obvious as to the connection between happiness and moral goodness.  As Peter Kreeft says, this definition of happiness is objective in that it does not rely merely on feeling, is a lasting state as a condition of the spirit or soul, and is dependent not on chance but on God’s grace and our own free choice.

moses_rosselli

This definition of happiness captures the intrinsic link between happiness and morality.  But it is not just the word happiness that has been abused.  It’s counterpart—morality—has been distorted as well.  Webster’s dictionary defines it as “a doctrine or system of moral conduct.”  Notice how this seems to refer to a set of rules that reside outside the person.  Instead morality is best understood as the relationship between a human act and the use of man’s nature in fulfilling his final end.  In other words, it intrinsically tied up with what makes us thrive as human beings or what makes us happy.

That morality and happiness are bound is also in the mind of St. Thomas as well.  He says something about sin that only make sense if we keep them together.  He says that “God is offended by us only because we act contrary to our own good.”   Many people view God as the Eternal Killjoy, demanding us to follow His rules.  But as the author of human nature He knows what is best for mankind.  Recalling Augustine’s quote about the innate attraction we all have to the Good, He has given us reason in order to discover those things that make us happy. As Father and not merely Watchmaker, He reminds us of those things that should be done and those that should be avoided through Revelation and the Church.

There is a further implication that can be drawn from the fact that man’s actions proceed from deliberation and that is that his actions are done freely.  As the Angelic Doctor taught us, a correct notion of freedom is important to understanding a morality of happiness.  This idea of freedom  or what is called “freedom for excellence”, is the means by which, exercising both his reason and will, man acts on the natural inclination for truth, for goodness, and for happiness that is part of his nature.  Freedom properly understood then is not primarily the power to do whatever I want, but the power to act according to my nature and according to my true fulfillment.

Once we have a deeper understanding of our own nature, we can see how when we view the moral life through the lens of happiness we can easily move from a rule-centered morality to a virtue-based morality.  Viewed in this fashion the rules no longer seem as arbitrary impositions from the outside, but true prescriptions for human thriving.  This is precisely why the Catechism presents the virtues before it presents the Ten Commandments in its treatment of the moral life.  In maintaining this connection, Christ’s promise that in keeping His commands our joy will be complete is fulfilled.