Not every joke is supposed to make you laugh. Some of them are meant to make you sad, as they make you regret certain life choices you’ve made, while at the same time pointing towards the inevitablity of death.

Thank God that someone out there has the eyes to see what I can’t.  And has the skill and beauty to share it with me.

In many ways, the last two years have been a slow death of a certain aspect of who I thought I was.  In most instances, I have found that deaths like this take more the form of suicides.  Dying to self is not fun, and is not lightly undertaken, and requires a lot of repeated effort and failure.  But in this case, it has mercifully been more of the nature of a murder.  Murdered by God.  Sounds like a Dan Brown novelette.  The past two years would have been the time, had I been Protestant, when I would have switched churches.  After a few years in one place, the excitement tends to wear off, I become complacent and fall back into horrid habits.  When the spiritual life needed the old kick-start, I used to turn to divorce and remarriage.  And it worked.  The excitement of new people, a new place, new worship, it all conspired to get things going again.  But notice thatit was not God that was sustaining me through the difficult times.  I just bailed and started the process again.  And the excitement would carry me for a few more years.

But that is no longer an option.  The only alternative to the Church is…nothing.  Atheism…I consider it every now and then, but there’s nothing there, both literally and figuratively.  It can’t account for itself.  And so I am here…stuck.  “Lord, to whom shall we go?”  And that brings me to the death part.  With the excitement of being a works-riddled Catholic long since extinguished, and no prospect of rekindling the excitement through mere change, things have remained…stagnant for a while.  Stagnant could imply changelessness, but think of a South Carolina swamp.  It stinks.  It’s hot.  Things start to decay.  The bugs start to bite.  All my interest in things spiritual, theological, polemical etc has vanished.  Turns out I really enjoyed these things for the sake of playing the part of the member of X church.  These have waned in perfect correlation to my excitement levels.  Turns our I liked trying to prove that I was smarter than the people I had left behind.  I liked being the Christian with the answers. 

Anyway, that’s all gone, and mercifully so.  Sure, I am left with a bit of a vacuum.  I used to love to read books about the Faith.  Now the thought is…uhm…repulsive.  I used to have a good prayer routine.  Now, not so much.  I loved Mass.  Now it’s a bit of an ordeal, though squirmy tikes might have something to do with that.  But really, what it means is that all ulterior motives are now gone.  I don’t follow Christ, if I do, because it’s exciting, or because I am smart, or because (as I used to) the girls are nice.  Or any such thing.  At this point, it’s all about Christ, or it’s not.  It’s all about following him, and not some ephemeral fantasy.  Or course, devoid of all other incentives, I am less sure than ever that I will daily make the right choice.  But now that all that crap is gone, at least what is happening is real.  As someone said, more and more, I’m secretly just me.

How’s that for your quarterly dose of self-absorption.

Just making sure I catch your search terms.  OK, now.  Read Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth.  You’ll learn a lot.  That is all.

I do not think any efforts of my own will can end once and for all this craving for limited liabilities, this fatal reservation. Only God can. I have good faith and hope He will. Of course, I don’t mean that I can therefore, as they say, “sit back.” What God does for us, He does in us. The process of doing it will appear to me to be the daily and hourly repeated exercises of my own will in renouncing this attitude, especially each morning, for it grows all over me like a new shell each night. Failures will be forgiven; it is acquiescence that is fatal, the permitted, regularised presence of an area in ourselves which we still claim for our own. We may never, this side of death, drive the invader out of our territory, but we must not be in the Resistance, not in the Vichy government. And this, so far as I can yet see, must be begun again every day. Our morning prayer should be that in the Imitation: Da hodie perfecte incipere– grant me to make an unflawed beginning today, for I have done nothing yet. ~ CS Lewis

If it grows over me like a shell every night, it grows all over me like a casket over weekends.  ‘Nuff said.

There is no other name given under heaven by which men may be saved.  There is truly no other hope.

But he illustrates this choice between the way of faith and the way of power by reference to two other scenes in the gospels.  The first is the one involving Barabbas.  Bar-Abbas means son of the Father.  And, in fact, Origen apparently has alluded to the fact that the New Testament manuscripts extant during his time referred to Barabbas as Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus Son of the Father.  This clearly reflects the fact that the early Church understood ths scene to be a choice presented to the people between two Messianic figures, two sons of the Father.  One has chosen the way of weakness, and the other has chosen the path of political insurrection.  They chose poorly.  Are our choices any better?

The second scene comes right after Our Lord’s conferring the keys of the Kingdom to St Peter.  Peter has just proclaimed the revealed truth that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the livng God.  To which Jesus responds by saying, yes, and I must be betrayed, beaten and killed.  To which Peter says, Lord, this shall never happen to you.  Two visions of how to be King.  Weakness and power.  And Jesus responds, “Get thee behind me Satan.”  Incredibly harsh, but understood in the light of the desert temptation, it is nothing more than Peter subscribing to the demonic (and popular) view of the Messiah.  Proposing another temptation to our Lord, another stumbling block.  Secretly, or not, I think we all want Jesus to be a different Messiah if not for my sake (but yes, for my sake), then for that of my kids.  A powerful and conquering Christ is empty and illusory.  His way is the way of the Cross.

I love you Jesus, my love.  Grant that I may always love you, and then do with me as you will.

The story of the Temptation of Christ has provided some of the hope.  Christ’s death and resurrection have forever defeated the devil.  I have participated in this victory through baptism.  But Christ still felt it necessary engage in 40 days of temptation, in which he also defeated the devil.  Lent is my time to participate in that victory too. 

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit was led by the Spirit for forty days in the wilderness…  And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit.

I, full of the Spirit (baptism and confirmation) am also being led by the Spirit into the wilderness for 4o days.  Far from home and its comforts.  Isolation.  Desolation.  But not without hope, for the promise for those who endure to the end is a return from the wilderness in the power of the Spirit.  May it come to pass.  May the Spouse of the Spirit, the Holy and Immaculate Mother of God, intercede for us to that effect!

But we must endure.  What?  Temptation.  Why?

Man shall not live by bread alone.  I must forsake all attachment to that which is wordly.  To what end?

That I may create more space for God.    You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.  Forsake the service, nay! slavery, to all else that I might serve and worship him only.  Joy, power, strength, peace.  The admonition regarding loving one and hating the other comes to mind.  I can’t love, serve and worship both. 

You shall not tempt the Lord you God.  I’m not sure where this fits in yet.  Obviously all presumption that God will provide for lack of prudence in this endeavor must be banished.  But that doesn’t feel like that’s it.  There must be more.  In the midst of my testing and temptation, I must not put him to the test or tempt him.  But how?  How is this something I desperately need to hear at this moment?  Where will I be tempted in this regard?  Hhmmm.

He departed from him until an opportune time.  And we all know what happened that next time.  Death was defeated by death!  So I’m not too worried about that.

For years, people have been interpreting that one statement in CCC 2297 –

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

– as implying that torture for reasons other than those listed — in particular, for interrogation of someone assumed to have information that can save lives — might not be contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

As it stands, it’s a mighty sketchy interpretation. It asserts that there’s nothing objectively or circumstantially contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity to torture a prisoner. All you need is a good enough reason. (And what do you know? The reason people today might want to torture prisoners just happens to be a good reason! These interpreters will, though, stipulate that other reasons — to save face after you were double-dog dared to torture the prisoner, say, or to get someone who loves the victim to talk — are immoral.)

I haven’t seen anyone even try to explain why it’s contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity to torture a murderer, but not contrary to those things to torture a would-be murderer. The problem here is that torture isn’t evil because it’s icky, in which case it wouldn’t be evil when not torturing would be ickier. Torture is evil, according to the Catechism, because it’s contrary to respect for the person of the victim, and the respect due the person of the victim doesn’t change based on what you want to get out of torturing him.^*

So, as I say, we have an interpretation that really doesn’t hold up on its own terms. The fact that the very next paragraph of the Catechism contradicts this interpretation should settle the matter:

In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order… In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person… It is necessary to work for their abolition.

But someone who is capable of interpreting CCC 2297 as allowing torture for good reason is capable of interpreting CCC 2298 the same way. (Or of interpreting it away altogether; it’s printed in a smaller font, you know.)

Okay, but maybe the Catechism really is ambiguous on this point. What else do we have?

We have the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, according to Pope Benedict XVI, “is a faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Per the CCCC:

477. What practices are contrary to respect for the bodily integrity of the human person?

They are: kidnapping and hostage taking, terrorism, torture, violence, and direct sterilization. Amputations and mutilations of a person are morally permissible only for strictly therapeutic medical reasons.

Okay, but maybe when it says “torture,” it means “and sometimes torture.”

We have Pope John Paul II, speaking to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1982:

And as regards torture, the Christian is confronted from the beginning with the account of the passion of Christ. The memory of Jesus exposed, struck, treated with derision in his anguished sufferings, should always make him refuse to see a similar treatment applied to one of his brothers in humanity. Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim.

Okay, but maybe that was just the Pope expressing his personal opinion that torture is categorically wrong, with some dodgy translation from the French.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church — “which, according to the request received from the Holy Father, has been drawn up in order to give a concise but complete overview of the Church’s social teaching” — quotes Pope John Paul II’s 1982 speech:

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim.” International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

Okay, but maybe they’re only talking about investigations of crimes that have already happened, not of crimes that are ongoing or yet to occur.

“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” states:

Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

Okay, but maybe this is just some USCCB cubicle dweller’s idea.

“Torture is a Moral Issue: A Catholic Study Guide” states that:

“In the Church’s eyes [t]orture violates a human person’s God-given dignity.”

Okay, but maybe this is just some USCCB cubicle dweller’s idea.

Statements by American bishops on behalf of the USCCB include the following categorical rejections of torture:

We believe that a respect for the dignity of every person, ally or enemy, must serve as the foundation of the pursuit of security, justice and peace. There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason… We share the concerns of lawmakers and citizens for the safety of U.S. soldiers and civilians abroad in these times of great uncertainty and danger. In the face of this perilous climate, our nation must not embrace a morality based on an attitude that “desperate times call for desperate measures” or “the end justifies the means.” The inherent justice of our cause and the perceived necessities involved in confronting terrorism must not lead to a weakening or disregard of U.S. and international law. — Bishop Ricard, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, October 4, 2005

A respect for the dignity of every person, ally or enemy, must serve as the foundation of security, justice and peace. There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason… In a time of terrorism and fear, our individual and collective obligations to respect dignity and human rights, even of our worst enemies, gains added importance. — Bishop Wenski, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, December 17, 2007

We are opposed to any proposed or adopted legislation or other actions that would appear to once again decriminalize torture and abusive conduct. We believe any legislation adopted by the Congress must be unambiguous in rejecting torture and cruel treatment as dangerous, unreliable and illegal. — Bishop Wenski, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, January 30, 2008

Torture undermines and debases the human dignity of both victims and perpetrators. It is never a necessary cruelty. — Cardinal George, President, USCCB, March 5, 2008

Okay, but maybe … um….

And last, we have the United States Catechism for Adults, which is the “local catechism” written by the bishops of the United States using the CCC as “a sure and authentic reference text,” and which received the recongitio of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The U.S. Catechism for Adults includes this statement:

Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong.

So: No.

Torture is always wrong.

The Catholic Church teaches that torture is always wrong.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that torture is always wrong.

Interpretations to the contrary are wrong.