The Pope on Original Sin

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In today’s catechesis we reflect on the relationship between Adam and Christ, delineated by St. Paul in the well-known page of the Letter to the Romans (5:12-21), in which he instructs the Church on the essential lines of the doctrine of original sin. In fact, already in the First Letter to the Corinthians, referring to faith in the resurrection, Paul introduced the encounter between our forefather and Christ: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive … The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:22.45). With Romans 5:12-21, the encounter between Christ and Adam is more articulated and illuminating: Paul reviews the history of salvation from Adam to the Law and from the latter to Christ. Adam is not at the center of the scene with the consequences of sin on humanity, but Jesus Christ and grace that, through him, was poured in abundance on humanity. The repetition of “all the more” in regard to Christ underlines how the gift received in Him surpasses by far Adam’s sin and the consequences brought on mankind, so that Paul can add at the end: “But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20). Hence, the encounter Paul traces between Adam and Christ brings to light the inferiority of the first man vis-à-vis the prevalence of the second.

On the other hand, it is appropriate to make evident the incommensurable gift of grace in Christ that Paul attributes to Adam’s sin: It could be said that if it were not to demonstrate the centrality of grace, he would not have hesitated to discuss sin that “came into the world through one man and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). Because of this if, in the faith of the Church the awareness matured of the dogma of original sin it is because it is indissolubly connected with the other dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. The consequence of this is that we must never treat the sin of Adam and of humanity in a way that is detached from the salvific context, namely, without understanding it on the horizon of justification in Christ.

However, as men of today we must ask ourselves: What is this original sin? What does St. Paul teach, what does the Church teach? Is this doctrine still tenable today? Many think that, in the light of the history of evolution, there is no longer a place for the doctrine of a first sin, which then spread to the whole history of humanity. And, consequently, the question of the Resurrection and of the Redeemer would also lose its foundation. So, does original sin exist or not? To be able to respond we must distinguish two aspects of the doctrine on original sin. There is an empirical aspect, namely, a concrete, visible, I would say tangible reality for all, and a mysterious aspect, regarding the ontological foundation of this fact. The empirical fact is that there is a contradiction in our being. On one hand, every man knows that he must do good and he profoundly wants to do so. However, at the same time, he also feels the other impulse to do the contrary, to follow the path of egoism, violence, of doing only what pleases him even while knowing that he is acting against the good, against God and against his neighbor. In his Letter to the Romans Saint Paul expressed this contradiction in our being thus: “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do” (7:18-19). This interior contradiction of our being is not a theory. Each one of us experiences it every day. And above all we always see around us the prevalence of this second will. Suffice it to think of the daily news on injustice, violence, falsehood, lust. We see it every day: It is a fact.

As a consequence of this power of evil in our souls, a filthy river has developed in history, which poisons the geography of human history. The great French thinker Blaise Pascal spoke of a “second nature,” which is superimposed on our original good nature. This “second nature” makes evil appear as normal for man. Thus even the usual expression: “this is human” has a double meaning. “This is human” might mean: This man is good, he really acts as a man should act. However, “this is human” might also mean falsehood: Evil is normal, it is human. Evil seems to have become a second nature. This contradiction of the human being, of our history should provoke, and provokes even today, the desire for redemption. And, in fact, the desire that the world be changed and the promise that a world be created of justice, peace, goodness is present everywhere: In politics, for example, all speak of this need to change the world, to create a more just world. It is precisely this expression of the desire that there be a liberation from the contradiction we experience in ourselves.

Hence, the fact of the power of evil in the human heart and in human history is undeniable. The question is: How is this evil explained? In the history of thought, except for the Christian faith, there is a principal model of explanation, with several variations. This model says: being itself is contradictory, it bears within it good and evil. In ancient times this idea implied the opinion that two equally original principles existed: a good principle and an evil principle. This dualism was insurmountable; the two principles are on the same level, hence there will always be, from the origin of being, this contradiction. The contradiction of our being, therefore, reflects only the contrariety of two divine principles, so to speak. In the evolutionist, atheist version of the world the same vision returns in a new way. Even if, in such a concession, the vision of being is monistic, it is implied that being as such from the beginning bears in itself evil and good. Being itself is not simply good, but open to good and evil. Evil is equally original as good, and human history would develop only the model already present in the whole of the preceding evolution. That which we Christians call original sin is in reality only the mixed character of being, a mixture of good and evil, according to this theory, it belonged to the very fabric of being. Deep down, it is a despairing vision: If it is so, evil is invincible. In the end, only self-interest matters. And every progress would necessarily have to be paid for with a river of evil and whoever wishes to serve progress must accept to pay this price. Politics, deep down, is based precisely on these premises: And we see the effects. This modern thought can, in the end, only create sadness and cynicism.

And so we ask again: What does faith say, as witnessed by St. Paul? As a first point, it confirms the fact of the competition between the two natures, the fact of this evil whose shadow weighs on the whole of creation. We heard Chapter 7 of the Letter to the Romans, we can add Chapter 8. Evil simply exists. As explanation, in contrast with the dualisms and monisms that we considered briefly and found desolating, faith tells us: There are two mysteries of light and one mystery of night, which is, however, shrouded by the mysteries of light. The first mystery of light is this: Faith tells us that there are not two principles, one good and one evil, but only one principle, the creator God, and this principle is good, only good, without a shadow of evil. As well, being is not a mixture of good and evil; being as such is good and because of this it is good to be, it is good to live. This is the happy proclamation of faith: there is only one good source, the Creator. And because of this, to live is good, it is a good thing to be a man, a woman, life is good. Then a mystery of darkness, of night follows. Evil does not come from the source of being itself, it is not equally original. Evil comes from a created liberty, from an abused liberty.

How was this possible, how did it happen? This remains obscure. Evil is not logical. Only God and the good are logical, are light. Evil remains mysterious. It has been presented in great images, as does chapter 3 of Genesis, with the vision of two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man. A great image that makes us guess, but it cannot explain how much in itself is illogical. We can guess, not explain; nor can we recount it as a fact next to another, because it is a more profound reality. It remains a mystery of darkness, of night. However, a mystery of light is immediately added. Evil comes from a subordinate source. With his light, God is stronger and, because of this, evil can be overcome. Therefore, the creature, man, is curable.; but if evil comes only from a subordinate source, it remains true that man is curable. And the Book of Wisdom says: “the creatures of the world are wholesome” (1:14).

And finally, the last point, man is not only curable, he is in fact cured. God has introduced healing. He entered in person into history. To the permanent source of evil he has opposed a source of pure good. Christ crucified and risen, the new Adam, opposed the filthy river of evil with a river of light. And this river is present in history: We see the saints, the great saints but also the humble saints, the simple faithful. We see that the river of light that comes from Christ is present, is strong.

Brothers and sisters, it is the time of Advent. In the language of the Church the word Advent has two meanings: presence and expectation. Presence: The light is present, Christ is the new Adam, he is with us and in our midst. The light already shines and we must open the eyes of the heart to see the light and to enter the river of light. Above all to be grateful for the fact that God himself has entered history as new source of goodness. But Advent also means expectation. The dark night of evil is still strong. And that is why we pray in Advent with the ancient people of God: “Rorate caeli desuper.” And we pray with insistence: Come Jesus; come, give force to light and goodness; come where falsehood, ignorance of God, violence and injustice dominate; come, Lord Jesus, give force to the good of the world and help us to be bearers of your light, agents of peace, witnesses of truth. Come Lord Jesus!

Me

They abstain from sin as a sick man abstains from melons, when told by the physician that if he eats them he will die; but still he longs for them, and bargains for them, and wishes at least to smell them, and envies those who are permitted to eat them.  So, weak and feeble penitents abstain from sin for some time, but it is with regret, and they would be glad to sin if they could do so without being damned.  They speak of sin with feeling and zest, and think those happy who commit it. – St. Francis de Sales

Slaughtering blood death

It would be foolish to underestimate the power and craft of a 2,000-year-old institution with more than a billion adherents and a long legacy of empowering tyrants, slaughtering enemies and dominating Europe.

Gosh, outsiders make us Catholics sound so cool and dangerous.  It’s awesome statements like that really piqued my interest in the Catholic Church.  There is a certain je-ne-sais-quoi about an institution that can invite such words.

When your spiritual or church life is feeling a bit mundane, it is always a useful exercise, as Chesterton said, to try to see the Church as an outsider might.  Get far enough away to see it freshly.  This quote is not an example of this (they’re still too close), but it still is helpful.  We belong to a Church that people can look at, and say…well…this.

Sola Me

Our brother at 1517 has stated some things.  Let us look at them, piece by piece:

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that the Bible is the product of the church. That is, the church gives birth, as it were, to the Scriptures. There is an implicit subordination implied in this formula. This is why, when discussing doctrine with a Roman Catholic it does no good to say something like, “But purgatory is found nowhere in the Bible,” or “But the Bible says none of those things about Mary,” or even, “But the Bible tells us that there is only one mediator between God and man.” The reason this line of argument is so fruitless with a Roman Catholic is because the Bible is not their ultimate source of authority because they believe the Bible is the product of the church and not the other way around.

The claim is here made that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible is the product of the Church.  And that this therefore leads to certain implications about its subordination, both theoretically and in practical use.  Now there is some truth what is here claimed.  There is no doubt that the bible is, in a sense, the product of the Church.  It is a plain fact of history.  The Church was born on Pentecost, before any of the New Testament had ever been written.  Most of the New Testament was written by the Apostle Paul, or his co-workers, and he wasn’t converted to the Faith until after Pentecost.  Furthermore, once converted, he went away for a while to learn the Faith.  He subsequently went on missionary journeys, during which most of his writings were generated.  So, the individual writings that comprise the New Testament weren’t written until well after the Church was born.  On top of this, one can also add the fact that the first “correct” list of canonical (New Testament) books was not penned until AD 367.  The first “correct” list of Old and New Testament canonical books did not surface until about 20-30 years after that.  So the bible, as we know it, did not surface until about 370 years after the Church was born.  So, it is quite clear that there is a sense in which the bible is the product of the Church.  Her members wrote the books and “canonized” the books.

This is, of course, not to neglect the primary role of the Holy Spirit in the writing and selecting of the books.  And this hints a bit at another sense in which the bible is not, of course, the product of the Church.  The Church certainly precedes the bible in time, and certainly produced the bible, but she produced the bible as a secondary cause.  The primary cause is, of course, God.  And so, while Catholics clearly state the plain fact that the bible is a product of the Church, they don’t thereby mean that it is therefore just some loose association of human writings, to be neglected at will.  The bible is divinely inspired and neglected, should we so choose, to our peril.  So, while acknowledging that divine revelation can come to us through means outside of the bible, Catholics certainly don’t downplay its inspiration.  It’s just that the Church, “the pillar and bulwark of truth”, precedes the bible, and thus there exists a group of Christians (i.e., the earliest ones) for whom the bible could not play the role it does today among Protestants.  Sure, they had the Old Testament (though not yet canonized), but that’s not the bible.

In contrast, the Protestant Reformation rightly understood that the church is the creatura verbi: the creation of the word. God creates with the power of His word. This is seen in creation and the new creation. His word is powerful to bring substance out of nothing and life from death. His creative word brought worlds to be and His redemptive word brought to be a people for his own possession. The church is no more the creator of the Bible as is man the creator of his own salvation. This was a revolutionary assertion in the 16th century. If the church was a product of the Word then the Bible must hold sway over church councils, over popes, and over tradition. Such a formula would put at risk the power of the Roman magesterium, the teaching office of the church.

This is not so much a “contrast” as a bit of a bait and switch.  Clearly, the Church is a creation of the word.  There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about this claim.  I have said above that the Church was created at Pentecost, through the descending action of the Holy Spirit.  Slightly differently, St. John pictures the creation of the Church, the New Eve, from the wounded side of the New Adam, when the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist are foreshadowed as pouring forth from his side, as from his rib.  The Church is, in one image, the Bride to the Bridegroom, and in another image, the Body to the Head.  Clearly, all of this is, at minimum, given to us to make sure we understand that the Church is created by Christ, the Word Made Flesh.  God spoke the word and the world was created ex nihilo.  The Word was made flesh and the Church was created.  The bit about the idea of the Church being a product of the Word being a revolution is mistaken.  Catholics have ever known it.

However, we do agree with our interlocutor in one respect.  There was a revolution (i.e., a novelty) in the 16th century, and it is this (and this is where the bait and switch comes in too); namely, that the creative action of the Word is somehow confined to a series of writings.  Sure, the Church is the creation of the word, but the revolution of the Gospel is that the Word was made flesh.  The Church is the creation of the Word, but the Word is not confined to a book.  The Word is a person.  He created the Church.  It doesn’t follow that, because the Church is a creation of the Word, the bible is the ultimate source of authority.  What it does entail is that the Word is the ultimate source of authority.  To conflate the Word with the bible is unwarranted.  None of this, of course, answers the question of where to find that Word.  How does the authoritative Word convey himself?  Certainly, in the bible.  But is this the only place?  The answer of all Christians up until the 16th century was, no.  And in fact, their view has many biblical data to support it, beside the obvious and usual logical arguments.

By the time Luther came along, Church tradition had come to include a number of different doctrines and practices handed down to the church over the centuries by Popes and councils. Thus, “Holy writ” and “Holy tradition” were both looked to as authoritative sources of revelation. In command of both was the church’s magisterium which claimed ultimate authority in the interpretation of Scripture and tradition.

One could quibble about wording, here, but by and large this is true.  The doctrines and practices that were handed down, were handed down “through” popes and councils.  Not “by”, because ultimately these doctrines and practices belonged to the deposit of faith, maybe in seed form, their full import to be later developed and explicated by popes and councils.  The traditions which had been received by word of mouth or by letter (cf. 2 Thess 2:15) were certainly looked upon as authoritative, and the teaching office of the Church was certainly tasked with authentically interpreting the Faith.  But surely that’s not very controversial.

The Roman Catholic Church has long made a caricature of Sola Scriptura saying that it would lead to chaos and an “every man for himself” approach to interpreting the Bible. Sadly, while this was never the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as articulated by the Reformers it has become the practice of many Protestant Christians. I have been told, “No one is going to tell me how to interpret the Bible.” This is a dangerous perspective. While holding that God’s Word is infallible, Sola Scriptura rejects the idea that the Bible can be read and properly interpreted without any accountability. It is the wise Christian who looks to those godly scholars who have labored long in the languages and doctrines of the Bible for help to rightly interpret God’s Word. But this is a hard thing to convince a contemporary church given more to the reading of Sports Illustrated and Good Housekeeping than sound biblical commentaries.

The first thing that a Catholic should always ask when someone claims that the Church has said such and such a thing is, please give me a citation.  I imagine, though, that our interlocutor has here confused “what the Church teaches” and “what some of her members say.”  I am certainly open to correction on that point, but I would be surprised to find the Church getting into the nitty gritty of the implications of certain Protestant doctrines.  And while I (not the Church) would certainly grant the point that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not “every man for himself”, “every man for himself” certainly is the logical trajectory that such a doctrine would be expected to take if given sufficient time.  And this logic does certainly seem to have been borne out over the course of the last 5 centuries.  It seems  a bit stingy to scoff at Catholics who have historically said that Sola Scriptura would lead to chaos when, in point of fact, Sola Scriptura has led to chaos.  By which we mean, doctrinal chaos.  You need go no further than the closest Catholic parish to find a myriad of opinions on any given topic.  However, to those seeking the Catholic position on this or that, the opportunity is there to receive a strikingly clear answer.  This, however, is most emphatically not an opportunity that is afforded to Protestants, who will be counseled to consult “godly scholars who have labored long in the languages and doctrines of the Bible”.  All of whom happen to disagree with each other on this or that topic.  To retort that those who really know their stuff don’t disagree is simply to beg the question.

Two further question arise from the above quote.  1) Is this really how God has intended Christians to firmly know the truth?  That the best way is to consult these godly people, seek their opinions, and then…what?  Decide for myself which one of them is right?  How does this not logically break back down to “every man for himself”?  All we’ve really done is add one more layer of difficulty on top of an already difficult topic.  OK, maybe…sometimes… there is a consensus among the “godly”.  How is this different in practice from what the teaching office of the Catholic Church does?  In seeking to answer a thorny question, she simply mulls through what the godly and learned have said, and renders a judgment.  The only difference is that the ultimate arbiter of the question is someone who is in a position of authority in the Church, instead of…me.

2) The second question has already been partially addressed.  How is this referral of the individual to godly and learned sources different than the Catholic Church referring her children to…godly and learned sources (i.e., the teaching office of the Church)?  The only differences I can see is that we disagree on who is godly and learned, and who gets to decide who is godly and learned.  In one case, the teachers of the Church decide, and in the other, it’s…me.  Again, how does this not break back down to “every man for himself”?

The fact is, tradition can and should play an important part in the life of God’s people. It matters what the long line of faithful witnesses that have gone before us have believed and practiced. They were certainly not infallible. However, it is destructive arrogance to ignore or otherwise reject the wise counsel of our predecessors in the faith. The crucial difference is that Protestants reject the idea that tradition can be considered authoritative in the way that Scripture is authoritative. Authority is perhaps the central issue of Sola Scriptura. Certainly, there are implications with inspiration, infallibility, and sufficiency. But authority is at the heart of Sola Scriptura.

There is a hefty amount of begging the question in the above quote.  Namely, the core of the issue at hand is how to know what is true and what is false.  It is certainly true that tradition plays an important role in how we come to know the truth.  It is certainly true that it is folly to “reject the wise counsel of our predecessors in the faith”.  Moreover, it is certainly true that certain people have held erroneous traditions to be true at various times in Church history.  But given all of this, how is it that we come to determine which counsels were “wise” and which weren’t?  Is it simply by…me…determining which counsels wisely line up with the bible and which don’t?  How is that acknowledging any utility to tradition at all?  Is the purpose of tradition simply to suggest potential biblical interpretations that…I…then get to sift?  Acknowledging that they are wise means perhaps deferring to what they thought.  But do I get to be the final court of authority as to whether I need to defer to it?  And this is different from “every man for himself”…how?  And how is this different from the action of the teaching office of the Catholic Church?  Except that it’s the teaching office that does the sifting and not…me.

And this is not supposed to lead to chaos…how?

Ultimately, as our interlocutor says, it does come down to authority.  But the question is not whether the Church or the bible has the ultimate authority.  The question is whether the Church or I have ultimate authority.  And at the root, this is a question about the nature of revelation in general.  Is revelation something I receive?  Or is it something I decide?  There are some questions upon which we individuals are called to exercise private judgment, and Protestants and Catholics are in agreement about this much: this dilemna over the nature of revelation is one of them.

Uterus Rights

Yep, you read that right.

During the discussion, Laura Von Harten, who represents Beaufort and Port Royal, but is not a member of the committee, said she won’t support the rezoning [of a local Catholic Church] when it comes before the full council because official Catholic policies are an “affront to my dignity and all of womankind.”

Von Harten cited the Catholic church’s position against female clergy and “uterus rights” as her reason for opposing the rezoning request.

“I don’t want to support anything that will perpetuate that,” she said. “I just have to vote in favor of love and not hate.”

The Catholic Church’s position against uterus rights.  Coming to a Supreme Court near you.  The uteri are on deck, folks.  Once the gays have their marriage, the uteri will be next to break the glass ceiling.  Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one uterus was quite blunt about his desire for full voting rights.  “There is no reason why I should be forced to endorse the views of my owner.  Just because I am not seen doesn’t mean I should not be heard.”

Chilling.

Death to Death

As a marked contrast to the story of the poor Italian girl who has recently been condemned to die by the courts, do read this post about a similar girl.  In her fortunate case, she (the victim of abuse) was granted a stay of execution at the hands of the Massachusetts courts.  And now she is recovering.  Slowly.  But recovering.  Let this be a reminder to all those who would be quick to judge who is and is not worthy of living.

You won’t hear about this story in many places.

The Pope on Justification

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On the journey we have undertaken under the guidance of St. Paul, we now wish to reflect on a topic that is at the center of the controversies of the century of the Reformation: the issue of justification. How is a man just in the eyes of God? When Paul met the Risen One on the road to Damascus he was a fulfilled man: irreproachable in regard to justice derived from the law (cf. Philippians 3:6); he surpassed many of his contemporaries in the observance of the Mosaic prescriptions and was zealous in upholding the traditions of his forefathers (cf. Galatians 1:14).

The illumination of Damascus changed his life radically: He began to regard all his merits, achievements of a most honest religious career, as “loss” in face of the sublimity of knowledge of Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 3:8). The Letter to the Philippians gives us a moving testimony of Paul’s turning from a justice based on the law and achieved by observance of the prescribed works, to a justice based on faith in Christ: He understood all that up to now had seemed a gain to him was in fact a loss before God, and because of this decided to dedicate his whole life to Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 3:7). The treasure hidden in the field, and the precious pearl in whose possession he invests everything, were no longer the works of the law, but Jesus Christ, his Lord.

The relationship between Paul and the Risen One is so profound that it impels him to affirm that Christ was not only his life, but his living, to the point that to be able to reach him, even death was a gain (cf. Philippians 1:21). It was not because he did not appreciate life, but because he understood that for him, living no longer had another objective; therefore, he no longer had a desire other than to reach Christ, as in an athletic competition, to be with him always. The Risen One had become the beginning and end of his existence, the reason and goal of his running. Only concern for the growth in faith of those he had evangelized and solicitude for all the Churches he had founded (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:28), induced him to slow down the run toward his only Lord, to wait for his disciples, so that they would be able to run to the goal with him. If in the previous observance of the law he had nothing to reproach himself from the point of view of moral integrity, once overtaken by Christ he preferred not to judge himself (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:3-4), but limited himself to run to conquer the one who had conquered him (cf. Philippians 3:12).

It is precisely because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus that Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ. The alternative between justice through the works of the law and justice through faith in Christ thus becomes one of the dominant themes that runs through his letters: “We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (Galatians 2:15-16).

And, he reaffirms to the Christians of Rome that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24). And he adds: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (Ibid. 28). Luther translated this point as “justified by faith alone.” I will return to this at the end of the catechesis.

First, we must clarify what is the “law” from which we have been freed and what are those “works of the law” that do not justify. Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. So, the words “panta mou estin” (everything is licit for me) circulated in Corinth. It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.

Therefore, what is the meaning of the law from which we have been freed and that does not save? For St. Paul, as well as for all his contemporaries, the word law meant the Torah in its totality, namely, the five books of Moses. In the Pharisaic interpretation, the Torah implied what Paul had studied and made his own, a collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man — particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc. These behaviors often appear in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had come to be singularly important at the time of Hellenistic culture, beginning in the 3rd century B.C.

This culture, which had become the universal culture of the time, was a seemingly rational culture, an apparently tolerant polytheist culture, which constituted a strong pressure toward cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically obliged to enter into this common identity of Hellenistic culture with the consequent loss of its own identity, loss hence also of the precious inheritance of the faith of their Fathers, of faith in the one God and in God’s promises.

Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened Jewish identity but also faith in the one God and his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith; this wall would consist precisely of the Jewish observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances precisely in their defensive function of the gift of God, of the inheritance of the faith in only one God, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of Christians: That is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ’s resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the only true God became the God of all peoples.

The wall — so says the Letter to the Ephesians — between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.

That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).

Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same in next Sunday’s Gospel for the solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray to the Lord so that he will help us to believe. To really believe; belief thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God.

Remember

We live in a democracy, right?!?! The will of the people and all that, right?!?!  No more tyrannies, right?!?!

The Italian Schiavo

Also titled, the not-so-fine line between death and murder.

I know nothing about this story other than what I am reading in this one article.  So, I know I am asking a lot from a reporter to actually give me some facts.  But it seems that Italy is currently going through their own Terri Schiavo debacle.  If I am not mistaken, they had another one a while ago, though it could be the same fight still going on.  In any case, the girl’s name is Eluana Englaro.  She has apparently been in a coma for 17 years.  An excerpt from the article:

[F]or the past 10 years he has been fighting in the courts for the right to remove her feeding tubes and “let nature take its course”. On Friday, Italy’s Supreme Court finally said he could. But the Church continues to do everything in its power to thwart him.

Now we hear that the hospice in Udine which had agreed to host Eluana during her final days has had a change of heart. So in the end Mr Englaro may have to take his daughter abroad – the obvious choice is Switzerland – to die.

For the church the issue is simple: as long as there is life it must be preserved. But advances in medical science mean that today, life functions can be sustained long after consciousness has faded forever.

Four things stand out to me.

1) Removing feeding tubes is, of course, distinctly not letting “nature take its course”.  It is simply removing the nutrition and hydration that all human beings need to survive.  The intentional suspension of someone’s food and water supply has traditionally been referred to as “starving someone to death”.  Which is a bad thing.  Giving medical treatment is clearly no longer necessary for the poor girl.  But feeding someone is not medical treatment.  It is simply the basic care that it due to all human beings, healthy or not.

2) The stament that the issue is a simple one for the Church is belied by the fact that the author of the article gets it wrong.  Surely then it is not that simple.  For indeed, the Church’s position is not that, “as long as there is life, it must be preserved.”  Certainly, the Church’s position is that, as long as there is life, the person must be fed.  But:

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. (CCC 2278)

So clearly the Church recognizes that one is not always under a moral obligation to impede death.  It all depends on the expected outcome.  However, none of this applies to Eluana’s case, as far as I can tell from this article, as it is not disproportionate medical procedures that they are seeking to bring to an end.  It is rather “the ordinary care owed to a sick person [that] cannot be legitimately interrupted” (CCC 2279) that they are seeking to interrupt.

3) So the double-standard that Peter Popham implies is being used by the Vatican is not, in fact, a double-standard, but rather a coherent application of the Church’s moral principles.  It’s not that popes get to do what they want, while the lowly plebs have these weird and antiquated rules enforced on them.  It’s simply that you can’t starve someone to death.  John Paul II did not “remain in the Vatican” to be starved to death.  He remained in the Vatican to allow death to run its course.  In fact, if you’ll recall the events, Peter Popham, it was made quite public that John Paul II, in his last days, was being nourished via a feeding tube.

So, no, there is no double-standard.  Just the application of first principles to different situations.

4) When did Switzerland become this Haven of Death for Europeans?

Memo to the Fink

Yo, Finky.  Yeah, you.  John Fink.  Over here, dude.  I happened to be at a great Catholic bookstore the other night, looking for a gift for my godson.  Now, by great Catholic bookstore, I mean a bookstore owned by a great Catholic gentleman.  A very good man who loves (really really loves) to talk.  A lot.  Mostly he loves to talk about the Faith.  But also about anything.  And so it was, Finky, that within 30 seconds of entering his store (I was, of course, the only soul in there) that I had been debriefed on the dire financial situation of the store, and the vast amount of personal savings the man has invested to keep his labor of love afloat in these trying economic times.  (Yo, pay attention, Fink.  You keep looking away, but this works out well for you in the end.)  This fine Catholic gentleman also had a fair amount to say about our dear and new Glorious Leader.  Turns out he’s not a big fan (I love that Catholic bookstore owners don’t mind dropping the odd curse word here and there…you would never see that at the Mustard Seed).  Nor is he a big fan of those Catholic bimbos coming into his store with Obama buttons on.  I’m guessing he probably let them know he wasn’t a huge fan.  Get your ass back here, Fink.

See, so I’m looking for a very specific gift for my godson, one that I thought would be quite common and easy to find.  But it dawns on me pretty fast that I ain’t gonna be finding my item here.  Our Catholic gentleman is, of course, very very apologetic, and has some unconvincing reasons why the one item, though not very nice, would be perfect.  Or, if I had just called, he could have ordered one ahead.  And this is where it turns for you, Fink, because it suddenly dawns on me that there is absolutely no way I can walk out of this store without buying something, or rather anything.  Our gentleman’s giant doe eyes won’t allow it.

So first, I’m thinking, hey, a baptism card might do the trick.  So I pick out the least cheesy baptism card available, still dripping with thick Velveeta.  $2?  I can’t put $2 on my credit card in a Mom and Pop store.  Crap.  So I’m gonna have to find something else.  So, I’m first looking at the children’s books (see where this is going, Fink?), but none of those are appropriate.  And, like, every single Catholic household already has all these books from their first child’s baptism.  So, I start to realize that I’m gonna have to drop some credit on some other personal item, just so I can, in good conscience, you know…leave.  Dinner’s on the table, Fink, I gotta get home.

So, I’m perusing the books on the shelf, looking for something (anything!) to buy.  I’m not interested in moral theology.  Or a bible commentary.  Or some Marian thing.  Zing!  What’s this I see?  A book on St. Thomas More?  (Your book on Thomas More, Fink)  Interesting.  After all, I’ve heard a lot about him of late, given that he was Lord Chancellor under a homicidal maniac.  The historical parallels to our own times are uncanny, what with our newly elected infanticidal maniac.  Maybe I can pick something up on how to be a good and engaged Catholic in these dark times.  In fact, the very tag line of your book is: Model for Modern Catholics.  Presto!  Sold!

So after running the gauntlet of another 20 minute conversation on the Divine Office, Thomas Merton vs. Henri Nouwen, my children’s vocations (mind you, one is 3 years old and the other 9 months), and the obvious growing beauty in my family (as seen from outside, at Mass once per week.  You see, Fink, the gentleman attends my parish), I rush home for a rushed dinner, only to rush out with my oldest a-vocational son to another Catholic bookstore, one I don’t like.  But that’s a story for another time, Fink.

I know I’ve digressed a lot in this story, but what I really want to tell you, Fink, is that I’m a little upset.  At you.  First was the confession that, you feel so close to him that you will henceforth refer to him as Thomas.  Simply Thomas.  OK.  I wouldn’t do that, but maybe I’m just not close enough to him.  Maybe over time, I will grow to know him better, and we’ll become more conversant.  Then, you refer to him as a “guy”.  That one, I was pretty much ready to chalk up to slovenly writing.  He’s more of a man, from my perspective.  The guy is the one with the chip in his hand watching the ballgame.

But dude, where you really threw me for a loop, and where you almost completely lost me, was when you started comparing and contrasting your finest PC etiquette with Thomas a Kempis.  Thomas a Kempis, dude.  The guy who you admit wrote the second most influential Christian book (second to the bible, that is) in the history of the world.  And mind you, you are contrasting yourself from him…in a favorable light.  To Thomas a Kempis.  The man (catch that?) who wrote The Imitation of Christ.  He says “he” where you say, “he or she”.  Are you serious?  Do you think it reflects well on you that you implicitly attribute some manner of sexism to one of the greatest Catholic authors of all time?  That you apparently think that 21st century man (catch that?) is too stoopid to get that, you know, when he says “he”, it is a writing shorthand for “the person” and not “the male (chauvinist pig) person”?

Come now.  I’m only in the first chapter and you’re making my blood boil.  Why you gotta hang like that?  Fortunately for you, my wife has counseled a three-strikes-your-out policy to me.  And I’m inclined to agree.  Now, if you count carefully, I have already been crossed three times, but I’m gonna be charitable and extend a little love to you.  I’m only gonna count the last one, OK.  So that’s one strike.

You have been warned.

Obama and Science

At work, I just noticed that someone has printed out an article from Chemical & Engineering News, dated November 10, 2008, entitled Obama and Science.  We are, of course, told that Obama is the most scientific of the sciency scientist, freeing us from the obscurantism of the past 8 years etc, etc.  That’s the kind of stuff one should expect to see for the next 8 years or so.  And I’m perfectly prepared to retch every time I hear it.  So, so far, nothing too big.

But the article goes on to tell us (and I quote):

[Our Glorious Leader] has pledged to end the ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001, and to ensure that such research is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

The first point to be made is, what the $%^$?  I am glad that you intend to harvest tiny human beings for their “organs” in an ethical manner.  Otherwise, it might be a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.  So I’m definitely put at ease on that front.  But one more question comes to mind for all you Death-Eaters out there (who by some cataclysmic celestial event happen to read this):

If you do not believe that embryos are tiny human beings, what on earth could ever possibly be unethical about it?  And if it is a tiny human being, then what oversight could ever render it ethical?  Or are you merely convening massive bureaucratic oversight committees to ensure that people are keeping accurate Scientific Notebooks?

Sin makes you stupid.

To Hell With…

Our brother over at 1517 says this:

Unfortunately, [Catholics] believe that sincere believers in all religions will be welcomed into heaven. The problem is that Rome has never officially repudiated all the anathemas declared in years past against Protestants. For instance, according to official Catholic teaching I am bound for hell because I deny such doctrines as transubstantiation and papal authority. What is more, I am also hell bound because I administer the Lord’s Supper and am not an ordained priest in the Catholic Church. I could go on and on.

We’ve already discussed the issue about whether the Catholic Church has actually condemned all Protestants to everlasting hellfire.  We’ve also seen the curious tendency to not check the basic elementary facts about what the Church teaches when discussing what the Church teaches, all of this by people who are obviously very devoted to Christ and very intelligent.  And furthermore, the strange habit of refusing to listen to any answer you might give that doesn’t fit the pre-determined paradigm.  Again, very good, very likable, very intelligent people.  Very cuddly, gooey and delicious

What is more interesting to me in the quote above is the curious notion that the Catholic Church teaches that sincere Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Pagans, etc will go to heaven, while any and all Protestants are condemned to eternal weeping and gnashing of teeth.  It is all the more curious, as it is something that I have encountered elsewhere before (my friend’s church’s or pastor’s websites provide great blogging material):

We ought also to be thankful for the Pope’s teaching that other religions do not offer a way to God, though his suggestion that the mystery of Christ and the Church is some how a means by which many of these in the end will be saved, is very troubling.

But to embrace fully Pope Benedict XVI’s doctrine is to place Protestants outside the kingdom of God, and until this belief changes, the theological divide of the last 500 years will continue.

Here again, we see the curious confusion that the Church teaches that those of other religions may be saved, while Protestants are “outside the Kingdom”.  Obviously, these views are a confusion of Church teaching, which is that Protestants are Christians, separated brethren, and that, despite some of their doctrinal errors, they possess elements of sanctification and truth, and our Lord uses their communities as means of salvation.  As for people of other religions, “what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to [St. Paul's] gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”  In other words, God judges us by what we have known and what we have done with what we were given.  Sections 836 to 856 of the catechism explain all of this (and some of its implications) in excruciatingly gory detail.

Admittedly I only have a n=2.  That is to say, two data points does not a trend make.  But the common thread between the two quotes above is that both authors are steeped in the Reformed tradition of Protestantism.  This is not the case for most Protestants.  And I suppose, this is a bit of a two edged sword.  It is certainly true that the roots of Protestantism lie in the early 16th century, and that if one wants to understand the history of the movement, one must know its roots.  Furthermore, to the extent that Protestants take a look around at their surroundings, many conclude that the movement has strayed a long way from its foundations, and seek to reform it by bringing it back to its root principles.  This is all good, as far as it goes, and certainly the best way to do this is to steep oneself in the 16th century writings (or associate yourself with a denomination such as the PCA), and to call people back to what they said.

A potential unexpected (or not) side-effect of being so steeped in the 16th century writings is that the 16th century was a very different time period.  People wrote differently, thought differently.  More importantly, people were embroiled in a bitter controversy over the fate of Christendom.  So steeping yourself in such writings may lead to some Protestants drinking in with the pure Reformed doctrine some of the mindset of the 16th century.  Which is to say, some seem convinced that the heated debates of the 16th century are still on-going.

Certainly, to the extent that there is one truth and much disagreement over that truth, there remains the task of working to understand each other’s positions, and trying to convince the other side that, ultimately, “we’re right!”  All true.  But I must confess, I am glad that the Catholic Church left the 16th century (with all its bitterness and anger) behind in the 19th century.   After all, we now live in the 21st century.  To be sure, truth still matters.  But the situation has greatly changed.  The 16th century vitriol was over the fate of Catholic Europe.  Understandably, the Church was very strong in defending its truth claims against those who believed otherwise.  And just as understandbly, those who believed otherwise were very strong in their apologias.  But the situation has changed today.  The Catholic Church is no longer battling European Catholic heretics (or their pretty immediate descendants), but rather European post-Christians.  The Church, in a real sense, lost the 16th century battle, and has therefore moved on to the task at hand; namely, converting Europe (again).  And also, obviously, the world.

To a certain extent, I think those who hold on to the polemics of the 16th century are fighting an imaginary opponent.  There is no Catholic Church that is still lobbing Holy Hand Grenades over at our Protestant brethren, however much they (and some Catholics too!) may want to believe it.  We have moved on.  I know this is hard to admit, judging by the either/ors of “tell me I’m damned” or “tell me you’re a mealy-mouthed two-face” comments.  It must be a great motive force to think you are fighting a mighty enemy, that it’s life or death, heaven or hell.  That if you don’t get us, we’ll get you (probably through the Jesuits somehow).

But we’ve laid down our weapons.  The war is past. The Catholic Church lost. Done deal. Certainly, combat our “traditions of men”. But the notion that this need be done within the context of an on-going war is so yesterday. Or rather, so 1517.

Beware the Unborn Menace!

I thought this was great.  From here:

Beware the Unborn Menace! They are coming! Coming to take our precious disposable income and big-screen televisions, coming to rob our young of higher education and cool clothes. In these tough economic times, the Unborn Menace threatens to undermine the vacuous, materialistic lifestyle Americans have fought so hard to establish over the last 50 years.

This is why we must fight them on their own ground… in the womb!… so we won’t have to fight them here.

Our Fearless Leader Elect is readying his most reliable fountain pen, and is limbering-up his bony wrist, preparing to clear away by executive fiat all the narrow-minded restrictions that have so unfairly hampered progress against this most insidious of enemies. Indeed, what good will it do if, having sealed our borders against illegal immigration, we should be overrun with a wave of progeny! They are a drain on the economy, they contribute to overcrowded classrooms and account for a huge portion of health care costs. Their diapers clog the landfills.

(In fact, by exporting abortion and encouraging its use among our – er – more pigment-rich neighbors, we can significantly reduce unwanted immigration, as well! They can’t sneak across the border if we nab them early, one at a time, in a sterile clinical setting.)

Aren’t they human beings, you may ask? But now, I submit, is not the time for such moral fastidiousness. As other great leaders have recently and so wisely noted, sometimes, in order to get things done, we have to work the dark side. If you could save New York City by allowing just one abortion, wouldn’t you do it? What if twenty ninjas were threatening to punish your daughter with a baby? We can’t afford to be squeamish.

The unborn don’t play by our rules. They don’t care if you die of cancer, and would probably withhold their valuable stem cells if we asked them for permission, all nice and proper-like. What do these high-minded “pro-lifers” want us to do, send the unborn an engraved invitation to invade our homes and communities? Throw them a tea party?

Fret not. Our new Decider-In-Chief is ready to decide for all of us, so we don’t have to.*

*Face it, most of us have problems making big decisions. It’s tough… unless you are a frightened, pregnant thirteen year old… then it’s best to have as little input and advice as possible, especially from your parents. You’ll be comforted to know that in a couple of months – no matter where you are in this great country of ours – should your boyfriend (or your uncle, or a school teacher) leave you pregnant, your parents need never know. Because we’re looking out for you.

There are some lines that you just wish you had written first.  Among these I now rank: “What if twenty ninjas were threatening to punish your daughter with a baby?”

A Small Cloud of Smoke on the Horizon

From BBC News:

Mr Podesta said the incoming administration was also scrutinising many of the executive orders signed by President Bush “on stem cell research, on a number of areas”.

[...]

He said the executive orders could be repealed or amended quickly by the new administration because no Congressional action was required.

“I think we’ll see the president do that,” Mr Podesta said.

And so the killing fields are open for business.

Campaign for Human Development

Not sure if we have this in our Archdiocese.  But anyway, from First Things:

The Campaign for Human Development (CHD) is an annual collection in parishes, usually on one of the last two Sundays in November. It used to be called the Catholic Campaign for Human Development but the Catholic was dropped, which is just as well since it has nothing to do with Catholicism, except that Catholics are asked to pay for it. Some bishops no longer allow the CHD collection in their dioceses, and more should not allow it. In fact, CHD, misbegotten in concept and corrupt in practice, should, at long last, be terminated.

Ten years ago, CHD was exposed as using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to fund organizations that frequently were actively working against the Church’s mission, especially in their support of pro-abortion activities and politicians. Now it turns out that CHD has long been a major funder of ACORN, a national community agitation organization in support of leftist causes, including the abortion license. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is under criminal investigation in several states. In the last decade CHD gave ACORN well over seven million dollars, including more than a million in the past year. It is acknowledged that ACORN, with which Sen. Obama had a close connection over the years, was a major player in his presidential campaign. The bishops say they are investigating the connection between CHD and ACORN. They say they are worried that it might jeopardize the Church’s tax-exemption. No mention is made of abusing the trust of the Catholic faithful.

What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them, is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor. Part of the thinking when it was established in the ideological climate of the 1960s is that Catholic concern for the poor would not be perceived as credible if CHD funded Catholic organizations. Yes, that’s bizarre, but the history of CHD is bizarre. The bishops could really help poor people by promptly shutting down CHD and giving any remaining funds to, for instance, Catholic inner-city schools.

If there is a collection at my parish this month, I fully intend to print this out, and stick it in the collection envelope.

Unity

I’ve read and heard recently of the way that our country has been pulled together into unity by our election of Obama.  This seems strange to me, given that almost half of the country voted for The Other Guy.  What I am realizing is that the New Victors, for 8 years, have had no experience of Graceful Losers.  After all, when they lost in 2000 and 2004, there were recounts, charges of how stupid the Other Side was, how the Republicans were Nazis etc.  Now that McCain supporters have largely behaved like decent grown-ups, it gives the impression, by comparison, that we are largely happy with the outcome, that we have been unified under our new Glorious Leader.  Not so much.  It’s just that we’re, you know, grown-ups.  As opposed to the whiny little asshats that bitched and moaned the last time around.  If y’all had behaved like adults, the country might not have seemed so divided.

So.  Look in the mirror, dude.  The reason the country seems unified is because the crying little whiny baby finally got his way.  Now go suck on your lollipop.

Election Stuff

I was gonna title this “election thoughts”, but that might be overstating the case a little bit.  It doesn’t seem like there is very much to say.  As a Catholic, I certainly had major problems with both candidates.  McCain favors some forms of embryo-destructive stem cell research and seemed a little itchy on the war front.  Obama favored…well, just about everything I don’t like.  Abortion, infanticide, embryo-destructive research, cloning, civil unions, euthenasia, as well as disastrous financial policies (so far as I can see).  There was much talk among a small insignificant cadre of Catholics (i.e., the bloggers) about this somehow being a difficult moral calculus to make, about how this vote was quite difficult.  I allowed myself to be temporarily swayed by such talk, but recovered in time to make what seemed to me to be the only sane choice, given the choices.  I feel no regret at all over my choice.  It is a “credit” to Obama that he made it so easy to vote McCain.

The whole enterprise felt doomed from the get-go.  And that is certainly how it turned out.  McCain never stood much of a chance.  We steadfastly avoided all reporting during the day of the election, to be woken up at 5:00 am the next day by KYW reporting an Obama victory.  That’s too early for such news.  Don’t get me wrong.  It is wonderful that a black man is now the next president.  How far this nation has come.  But I weep that it was this black man.  We were pretty depressed for a few days, but are slowly starting to wonder if it will be as bad as everyone first thought.  Only time will tell, I suppose.

We certainly fear for the increased access to abortion that will undoubtedly come about.  All those poor children and mothers.  Teenagers need their parents’ permission to join the volleyball team, but soon, not for a gruesome surgical procedure.  How incredibly fucked up that is.  I fear for my ability to be able to support my family, with the increased taxes that will certainly come, whatever promises have been made.  I fear for religious freedom in this country, and for the right to free speech.  I fear for my freedom to raise my children as I see fit.  Mostly, I fear for my children.  Were I single, or married without kids, then I could suck it up and move on.  But how to fend off this increasingly intrusive and wicked world?  How to turn things around before my kids (or their kids) are thrown in jail for confessing Christ, or denouncing certain lifestyles?  Sure, we are not made for this world, but I have no desire for my kids to be dispatched as some sort of martyrs.

And so, while at adoration, praying against hope for some other outcome, I became convinced that I needed to immerse myself in the book of Revelation.  Not because Lord Obama is a sign of a rapidly approaching end (Come, Lord Jesus!), nor because he is to be considered “the” Antichrist, or any such thing.  Rather, the book of Revelation is a book that speaks of the trials of the early church, and Our Lord’s continued lordship in their midst.  Our Lord is working his plan, not despite, but through history.  If this was true under Nero, for whom St. Paul enjoins our intercessions, then it will emphatically be true under the upcoming government.  There is yet hope, but it is not a happy hope.  If anything, this latest turn of history only underscores how much this is not our home.

And so, now what?  I am imbued with the sense that our nation stands on the brink.  What happens next will depend largely on how we respond to the situation.  Is this the beginning of the long defeat, culminating in us being carried off to our own Babylon?  Are the United States to go the way of the once-great and long-lost Rome?  Or will this and other events be a motivational force for us to make great strides towards turning things around?

I don’t know.  As for us, we are greatly saddened, and greatly burdened by the sense that this is all partly our fault.  Reminds me of Thomas Merton’s sense that he was somehow responsible for the Second World War.  And so we are doing penance.  Seeking to make reparation for our lukewarmth towards the atrocity of abortion.  For our slowness to implore Our Lord for grace for our nation.  For our silence in the face of the not-silent.  For our passivity.  And conversely, we are energized to play a much more faithful and vocal role in the defense of the unborn.  In the defense of our Church and our freedoms.  And in the defense of Christ, knowing that he is able work mightily in our weakness and foolishness.

For my future reference

I live in US House District 6.

I live in State Senate District 19.

I live in State House District 155.

Coming by this information is…not as easy as it should be.

Wedding at Cana

The more I think about this mystery, the more I think it is the complete package, with respect to justification.  Some elements to flesh out:

Wedding: The marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride.  That is, Christ and the Church.  Born from his side, the New Eve, they are now one flesh.

Purification: The water that is turned into wine.  The water fills the containers that were used for ritual purification.  The water of ritual purification is turned into the wine of the Holy Spirit, truly cleansing us.

Obedience: We cannot turn the water to wine ourselves, yet our obedience is necessary for Jesus to do it.  The purification vessels must be filled with water before Jesus can change it to wine.  And the verse is quite clear that they obeyed to the letter of the law, filling the vessels to the brim.

Mary: Mary cannot change the water to wine.  And yet she mediates for us, bringing our needs to Jesus’ attention.  She encourages us to obey, which is necessary for our water to be turned to wine.

Jesus: Only he can change the water to wine.  He is the one who makes the impossible possible.

Grace: Evident in what Jesus does, that we couldn’t do.  We are dependent on him.  And also brought out in the lavishness of the new wine, which is much better than the old.  The wine of the Holy Spirit is given.

Old covenant to new: This comes out both in the contrast between the ritual water purification and the purification of the Holy Spirit.  The covenant of flesh versus the covenant of spirit.  And also in the first wine versus the new and better wine.

Coming to a parish near you

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is starting a major capital campaign: Heritage of Faith, Vision of Hope.  The diocese is hoping to raise $200 million.  Every parish will participate.  The program is currently piloting at 12 parishes.  One of those parishes is ours.

Apparently, each parish will have its own monetary goals, 35% of which is returned to the parish, and 65% of which goes to the diocese.  Our parish has some very worthy projects ear-marked for the money we raise (youth ministers, Catholic education credits etc).  Our parish’s goal is somewhere around $1.5 million.  The program hasn’t gone public in our parish yet, as we are still in the Schmoozing-The-Rich phase of the campaign.  Once the rich have been adequately schmoozed, the pastor then hopes to go public with a big announcement that, yeah $1.5 mil is a lot of money, but look at how much we’ve already raised…surely we can scrape together the rest.  I think it’s a brilliant plan.  Heck, last time I heard anything, we have already raised $837,000, and that’s only from 34 donors.

The funny part is how I know all of this.  Well, my best guess is that it dates from the days when we tithed, not on a weekly basis, but on a every-couple-of-months-or-so basis.  In other words, the checks we submitted were rather substantial, only because we hadn’t given anything in a long long time.  So, this has apparently landed us on some “generous contributor” list.  I took my oldest to the meeting, and man, did we ever stand out.  I was by far the youngest there, which is saying something.  I was the sloppiest one there.  And I was the only one, not only eating the snacks, but packing up snacks to take home with me.  Who let in the hobo?

But come on, you must think I’m damned

What do you mean by “all Protestants”?

You had said, “Also, the official position of Rome [...] is that anyone who affirms sola Scriptura IS anathema.”  In saying, “what you can’t say is that Catholics believe that all Protestants are damned”, I was saying that you can’t say what you had said   My “all protestants” was intended to reflect your “anyone who affirms Sola Scriptura“.  In other words, it means “all Protestants”

Is it not true that I (not every conceivable Protestant) am anathema in Rome’s eyes because I not only profess but preach justification by faith alone and sola scriptura, administer the sacraments, deny papal infallibility, marian dogma, and the sacrificial nature of the Lord’s Supper?

No, it is not true.  As I have previously said, there no longer exists the penalty of anathema.  Even if it did exist, it was an excommunication, which can only apply to Catholics.  Do Baptists really excommunicate people not in communion with them?  However that may be, Catholics don’t.  Furthermore, I have repeatedly quoted the Catechism section on those Christians who are not in communion with the Catholic Church.  In speaking of such people, it states,

“All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.

And,

[O]ne cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities…

And,

[M]any elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church

It really cannot get any clearer than that.  Protestants are not anathema (because it no longer exists), and are not excommunicated (because they never were in communion) and are not damned* (by virtue of espousing faith alone and sola scriptura).  That is what the official Catechism of the Catholic Church says.  I know it doesn’t fit into the whole “the Catholic Church hates us” paradigm, but there you have it.

I’ve read Trent. I know what it says.

That’s great.  I applaud you for reading it.  However, as you will no doubt agree, texts need to be put into the correct contexts to be understood.  Now, it’s true, as I have said before, Trent is still on the books.  The doctrines it puts forth are still to be held by all the Catholic faithful.  They are binding on Catholics.  We believe them to be true.  We wish you would too.  None of that has changed.  The Church’s teaching on faith and morals cannot change.

But, and this is key, it is not part of the Catholic faith that you are damned, however much you would like to think it is.  As I have said, the teachings haven’t changed, but the players (and canon law) have.  That is the key.  It is a sin to break away from the Catholic Church.  But here’s the thing: you and none of my Protestant friends have broken away from the Catholic Church.  You were never there.  As the Catechism says, “[O]ne cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities.”  You are not guilty of the sin that the Reformers and their immediate followers were.  They were guilty of breaking communion with the Church.  You were never in communion.  You might think that’s splitting hairs.   But, well, we don’t.

Please either say “Yes, Trent condemns you,” or “No, we’ve changed our minds since Trent.”

Come on, now.  You’re not even trying to listen to anything I have to say.  You’ve got your “truth” and you’re sticking to it, to the point of dictating to me the answers that you are willing to hear.  The answer is, Trent repudiated the beliefs of your forbears, and excommunicated them.  To the extent that you hold to their beliefs, you are missing a portion of the truth that God has for you.  But it is silly to keep insisting that the Catholic Curch excommunicate you too.  The Church doesn’t excommunicate Mormons either, or Jews, or Buddhists.   She only excommunicates Catholics.  And usually ’cause we deserve it too.  If you really want to be excommunicated, become Catholic!

Anyway, I keep saying the same thing over and over again.  Unless you have a new question, I think I’ve pretty much said all there is to say on this topic.

I am relieved that after pronouncing me “anathema” repeatedly in Trent the Church of Rome still calls me “brother”.

The reason she calls you brother is ’cause she never pronounced “you” anathema.  Ball’s in your court, dude.  You have been informed of what the Catechism says about you.  Will you, a) continue to bear false witness against other Christians by asserting things about us which are not true (i.e., that we think y’all are damned), or will you b) say, “huh, I didn’t know that, I guess I shouldn’t say those things anymore”, and move on to the real meat of Trent, which is, you know, what it teaches about justification and all that other cool stuff.

Whatever path you choose, fellow brother in Christ, please be assured of my prayers in your new job.

* As a quick edit, I will quote one more line from the catechism, to flesh another aspect of why Protestants are not damned for believing Sola Scriptura:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know [...] 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 – those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

So we’re not saying all Prots will be saved.  Heck, we don’t even say all Catholics will be saved.  The Church assumes that many Protestants, having been brought up in certain circles, have never really heard the truth claims of the Catholic Church.  All Protestants “may” be saved, but it will be in spite of their beliefs, because they were acting out of inculpable ignorance.  If not so inculpable, then the deal’s off.  And that, at root, is between the believer and God.  And so we come full circle to, that’s why the Church doesn’t damn anyone.  She can’t.  And she couldn’t.

Are Protestants Brothers in Christ

Is it Rome’s position that I am a “brother” even though I deny papal infallibility, Marian dogma, the sacrificial nature of the mass, embrace justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura, administer the Lord’s Supper, etc?

The short answer is, yes.

The long answer is,

In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body – here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism – do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” (CCC 817-819)

Questions and Answers

Some questions have recently come in, and I am happy to answer.

Would you please show me where Rome has changed its position on the doctrines of justification by faith alone and Sola Scriptura since Trent?

This is an easy one.  The Catholic Church has not changed its position on these doctrines since the Council of Trent.  Trent remains on the books, and it will remain so.  I will say that the Church has come to understand a little better what the Reformers were saying back in the day, details that may have been missed in the heat of the moment.  And so some clarifications have been made in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.  This doesn’t mean Trent has changed, and I know many Lutherans don’t like the “concessions” that were made.  So, the issues are not settled, but it’s also not nothing.

Also, will you show me where Rome has reversed its previous position in declaring me, a Protestant minister anathema for administering the sacraments and denying transubstantiation?

The short answer to this is: here.  But that only raises the further question: how can the Catholic Church accept Protestants as brothers in the Lord, when the declarations of the Council of Trent still stand?  Well, I am glad you asked!

The answer to the question turns on the question of what an anathema is.  As the link I provided in my last post on this topic explains, an anathema, in Catholic practice, was a particularly solemn form of excommunication.  By definition, excommunications can only apply to those within one’s communion.  You cannot kick out someone who was already outside.  That is why I say that Trent applied to Catholics.  The Reformers were Catholics.  Those Christians they took with them were also Catholics.  Most contemporary Protestants are not Catholics (i.e., they were not baptized Catholic), though undoubtedly some are.  I was.

Futhermore, the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law dropped the canonical penalty of anathema from the books.  It no longer exists.  The question of why it was taken off the books is beyond my pay grade.  For whatever reasons, the penalty was apparently rarely used, and so I surmise it was thought superfluous.  I say rarely used, because to be triggered, the person had to commit the offense, and then be dragged to Rome for a trial.  And that was probably hard to make happen.  “Oh sure, I’ll go to Rome with you.  What for?”

So how can it be that Trent is still on the books, if anathemas are off the books?  Of what value is Trent?  Another good question   This is where the other purpose of the anathema kicks in.  It is generally held that these types of declarations (i.e., whoever believes such and such, let him be anathema) are indications that some truth proposition has been definitively revealed.  In other words, these anathemas form at least a portion of the Catholic dogmatic bedrock.  They point out, “such and such is true”.  Thus, they are portions of the faith that must be held by all Catholics.  Denial of these truths by Catholics constitutes heresy, which carries with it an excommunication (with a healthy list of exceptions and caveats).  Again, excommunications can only apply to those within the communion of the Catholic Church, as stated in Canon Law:

Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age. (Canon 11)

Last question.

Your final paragraph seems to indicate that my heresies are acceptable (as opposed to Luther’s) since I am not Roman Catholic. Is it truly Rome’s position that heresy is not damnable so long as one is not Catholic?

It would be hard to say “heresies are acceptable”.  Heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt (cf. CCC 2089) of a truth.  That can never be a good thing.  The question you are asking, however, turns on the notion of culpability.  Given that any sin (e.g., heresy) has been objectively committed, what is the subjective culpability of the individual for its commission?  In seeking to answer this question, the Church bears in mind our Lord’s precept:

And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.  But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. (Luke 12:47-48)

And so, in setting out the principles by which culpability is measured, the Church says:

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.  If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.  Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.  This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.  If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.  One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.  (CCC 1790-1793)

So the Church acknowledges that people can have varying levels of culpability for the sins they objectively commit.  Ultimately, the culpability of an individual is between himself and God.  It would be impossible for anyone outside the situation to make that judgement.  Which is why the Catholic Church has not said that Protestants (or Catholics, for that matter) are “damned”.  Granted that evils untold are committed in this world, and granted that the Church has the duty to speak out against those evils, it is nevertheless the case that the Church knows squat about an individual’s level of culpability for these actions, and thus remains happily out of the business of condemning people to hell.  As if she could!

All of this answer to the last question pertains, again, especially to Catholics.  The Church would be loath, I think, to even apply the word “heresy” to non-Catholics.  People do apply it that way, and distinctions can be made between material and formal heresy, but at the end of the day, the Church prefers simply to call non-Catholic Christians separated brethren, or, more basically, Christians.

Hope this helps!

* CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church

Anathema

I don’t have much interest in this type of topic anymore.  I admit I have even relatively recently drunk too deeply from the well of cynicism and bitterness at some of my former co-religionists.  I have often mistaken zeal for being proven intelligent and correct for zeal for Christ, and thus assumed that perpetually seeking debates and arguments with Protestants was analogous to being a good disciple.  After taking some time away from such activities, and then haphazardly coming across a website that contains some…inaccuracies, I can see how wrong I was.  How silly I was.  I see that such arguments can indeed hinder discipleship, and foster pride and anger.  And sap one’s peace and energy.  All that as a prelude to the following:

Michael Horton interviews the Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis over the doctrine of justification and the Council of Trent. Like any honest and well informed Catholic Sungenis confirms that anyone who knowingly affirms the doctrine of justification by faith alone is anathema (damned). So much for “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.”[...]

There is no difference in Rome’s mind between being excommunicated and damned. If one is excommunicated, one is damned. Also, the official position of Rome, whether many Catholics know it or not, is that anyone who affirms sola Scriptura IS anathema. This is why Luther was excommunicated.  [Source]

The thing about this is, it’s a statement that is made by an obviously intelligent man.  He knows his stuff.  But there is a certain type of Protestant for whom the mere mention of the word “Rome” causes them to become radically untethered from reality.  Look, OK, we disagree on some important points of doctrine.  OK.  We interpret Scripture differently.  OK.  But the above statement is a Protestant statement about a Catholic fact.  Facts can be checked.  But for some reason, this type of personality, in this one instance, never seems to check his facts.  Why?  Does it not fit the circa-1517-narrative that Catholics actually think quite highly of Protestants?  In any case, let’s take the statement step by step, shall we.

Like any honest and well informed Catholic Sungenis

Not quite.

anyone who knowingly affirms the doctrine of justification by faith alone is anathema

This is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin.  1) There is no longer such a thing as the canonical penalty of “anathema”.  It went out with the old code.  2) The code applied to Catholics, quite substantially modifying the word “anyone”.  3) The word “knowingly” is a bit strange.  I presume Sungenis must have been speaking of ignorance, or invincible ignorance, but it didn’t translate well to Protestant ears.  4) Anyway, Protestants are to be accepted as “brothers”.

anathema (damned)

Actually, not damned.

in Rome’s mind

Shiver.

If one is excommunicated, one is damned.

Sometimes, I guess.  But, you know, the purpose of excommunication is medicinal.  I.e., that they may not be damned.  It’s a way of communicating to the sinner that they are in peril.

the official position of Rome, whether many Catholics know it or not

As I deny this fellas take on the “Roman” position, I must fall among the ignorati.  Only Catholics who affirm that all Protestants are damned are in line with the “official” teaching.  It’s a curious position to strike as a Protestant, to insist that we think you are damned.  I suppose taking this line partly allows the individual to feel justified in his high rhetoric about how Rome “grievously errs” on this, that and the other.  It allows him to keep believing we’re living in 1517.

anyone who affirms sola Scriptura IS anathema. This is why Luther was excommunicated.

Again, the penalty of anathema applied to Catholics.  That is why Luther was excommunicated.  Because he embraced heretical doctrines, was pretty scandalously public about it, and he was Catholic.  You are not Catholic, as you like to point out.

The sad thing is, this guy appears to be the new pastor at my old church.

Or

One could reasonably argue that it is the MySpace crowd that’s out of touch with the Church and her Lord.