As I write this, a lot has happened this past week - a whole bunch of celebrities (both infamous and famous) have passed on, including David Cassidy, Della Reese, Anne Wedgewood, Mel Tillis, and perhaps the most notorious, murderous madman Charles Manson. Naturally, in social media forums like Facebook, these things generate discussions, and some can be quite heated. Additionally, the "Harassocaust" of allegations (false and true) continue against many public officials, and the one that has garnered my attention is former Alabama judge and now US Senator Roy Moore. As this is a blog about theological and spiritual issues, much of what I will be addressing here today has to do with the various comments and discussions I have heard from those professing Christianity, and what shocks me is the blatant ignorance and hypocrisy that many comments I have heard truly reflect - it is actually somewhat dumbfounding honestly. I want to talk about Manson's death first, and then we'll revisit Judge Moore's situation.
In 1969, a self-proclaimed hippie "guru" who had gathered a following around himself of mostly young girls initiated a set of gruesome murders - they occurred on Saturday and Sunday, August 9th and 10th, 1969, exactly three months before I was even born. The first was a murder of a beautiful young actress and expectant mother by the name of Sharon Tate, and the second was the murder of a wealthy businessman and his wife, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The "mastermind" behind these events was this "guru" named Charles Manson, a demonically-driven psychopath who was caught up in his own apocalyptic utopian fantasies which he believed were embodied in a Beatles song called "Helter-Skelter," which in time also became the title of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book chronicling the trial of Manson and his young, gullible shills. Although Manson was locked up in 1971 and was in prison the rest of his life, he has never shown any remorse for his actions; on the contrary, he glorified his demonic deeds while at the same time proclaiming himself both Christ and Satan at the same time. The man fits in a class that would also encompass people such as Caligula, Rasputin, and Adolf Hitler, and his Machiavellian/utilitarian approach to using religious terminology and actions made his legacy more menacing. His death a few days ago at age 83 was something that was long-overdue honestly - Manson has been freeloading off of and laughing in the faces of hardworking taxpayers for decades when he should have been executed, thanks in no small part to the "progressive" career politicians (Pelosi, Jerry Brown, and company) who kept him alive. Despite the lives he ruined, and the agony he caused families of his victims, Manson died without ever having a change of heart, and it is with certainty I say that he busted hell wide open when he died. Yet, despite the evidence, there are some professed "Christians" who actually are trying to consign him to heavenly glory, and that is where we're going now.
Every time I get on Facebook or some other social media site, I have two general reactions to the things people - meaning those professing to be Christians - post. The first is a disgust, as the concupiscent limitations I have in my own nature would love to take those people and bash their heads into rocks or something for being so stupid. The second is a feeling of thanksgiving - most of the people doing this are ironically supposed to be professing Protestant Evangelicals, and given the state of those groups over the past couple of decades, the thankful part of me is that I am no longer associated with them; I really thank God on every morning I wake up that I have been a Catholic Christian for almost 20 years now, and honestly I would not want it any other way. Evangelicalism has changed for the most part, and not for the better - it has gotten more worldly in its values, inconsistent in its witness, and less recognizable as preserving a historical Judeo-Christian worldview. Although occasionally I am asked why I don't any longer identify as Pentecostal-Evangelical, my answer is this - when one tastes a filet mignon, why would one want to go back to eating wieners? Catholic faith has strengthened me, and it has brought me a maturity I was sorely lacking in for many years. Now, does that mean that the Catholic Church is perfect? Certainly not - Catholics have their own issues at times to sort out, but for the most part they are rather minor compared to the identity crisis that has infected American Evangelicalism. Also, I want to point out as well that this in no way implies that I have totally forgotten where I came from - I grew up in a much more solid type of Evangelical Christianity, and still value much of that. And, there are many good individual Evangelical Christians I know who I still consider Christian brothers and would never in a million years question their faith. However, as a whole, Evangelicalism is decaying spiritually, and I count myself blessed and fortunate I got out when I did. I use this as a preface to talk about some attitudes I have seen in regard to two distinct situations this week, as this decaying Evangelical legacy is what produced the fruit I have seen this week, and a poisonous fruit it is too.
On the day Charles Manson finally died and went to his eternal punishment, my great-aunt posted a small blurb about it on her Facebook status. What she said was that it was essentially "good riddance," and I agreed with her. However, some other woman posted on there that we "should not judge" and even went as far as to declare that Manson and eventually Hillary (!) would be in heaven. Of course, where this deluded woman got this craziness from is an ad nauseum interpretation of Matthew 7:1-3, and in recent years this Scripture has been twisted by many apostatizing Evangelicals to justify a lot of junk. As mentioned though, the problem with that interpretation is that it is way out of the context of the passage - the passage is not meant to sanction bad behavior and somehow "bless" it, as it is often interpreted. Rather, in the context of the passage it relates to the commandment in Exodus 34:28, which is a prohibition against character defamation, gossip, and slander. We see it also addressed in Proverbs 6:16-19, which sort of expounds upon the commandment by specifically condemning three things that are associated with "bearing false witness:"
1. Lying
2. False witness proper (meaning gossip and slander)
3. Sowing discord "among brothers"
It is also further expounded in Exodus 23:1-2, which prohibits the teaming up of a faithful person with a wicked man to slander and gossip against others maliciously, especially against another "brother." In other words, what "judge not" actually means is not judging falsely, and what the ignorant woman who basically canonize Manson on my aunt's social media post was saying about it is not applicable to Manson or any other situation where factual evidence is abundant and staring one in the face. The passage in Matthew 7 is also not a pretense for justifying bad music or behavior in churches either, as it is often used. Therefore, in the situation of Manson's death and eternal consequence, evidence shows that the man had no change of heart, conversion, or examination of conscience in regard to his actions - on the contrary, evidence suggests that he died unrepentant and is eternally lost. While that is a tragic reality, we must indeed mourn the fact that a soul was lost, but God didn't send him to his fate - Manson sent himself by refusing to accept forgiveness and salvation from Jesus Christ as propitiation for his sins. Another aspect of this would have been also a matter that would not require the intellect of a rocket scientist either - had Manson been converted or had he experienced some sort of transformation, it would have been public knowledge. Manson's recanting of his past deeds and attitudes, or a religious conversion, would have been the story of the decade had it happened. Those who would believe it would have been talking about it joyously, and those who didn't would have been skeptical, but there would have been conversations had it happened. Therefore, a little common sense must be used here - Manson did not, at least as evidence testifies, have a change of heart on anything, and he died just as arrogant, deluded, and dangerous as he has been for all those years. Therefore, the heretical universalist tendency of some professed Christians needs to be given a reality check.
The second part of this discussion centers on a living person, Judge (now Senator) Roy Moore, and it does invoke the true context of Matthew 7. A sad commentary on Evangelical Christendom, especially in America, is the tendency it has for being fickle, subject to gossip and hearsay, and also the propensity to "shoot its wounded." In the case of Judge Moore, it must be remembered a few years ago that he was the man who courageously paid for and installed a replica of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse, and he caused a big firestorm among progressive secularists. At that point, Moore was the hero of Evangelicalism, a courageous cultural warrior who made an unpopular stand for the truth. After finally resigning from his post as a judge, Moore decided earlier this year to run for the US Senate, and to be honest, the Senate needs a lot more like him. However, upon his win, some woman just all of a sudden appeared out of the woodwork and accused him of sexually harassing her almost 40 years ago, and now what has happened is that Moore is now Public Enemy #1, even among Evangelicals who formerly touted his virtues. Personally, I don't believe the allegations to be true, and Moore himself vehemently denies them (although in all fairness he needs to "beef up" his defense a little). It just seems to me that there is something very fishy about the timing and the circumstances surrounding these accusations, because if this woman really had something to stand on, the question is why she didn't come forward with it back in the 1990's when Moore was on the liberals' "hot seat" for the Ten Commandments display? What is worse though is how many supposed "Evangelical Christians" have gotten caught up in the slander against Moore - one of them is a professor at my former college where I did my undergrad work, and although this particular professor was himself a target of slander (some liberal students called him a "racist" for his perspective on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman issue, which he is not) and has also written some very insightful political insights on his periodic blog posts, I was frankly disappointed at the way he just sort of abandoned Moore, giving heed instead to hearsay and slanderous allegations (a direct violation of Matthew 7 aforementioned, incidentally), and he was not alone. When I tried to inject some reason into the discussion, one of my so-called Evangelical "brothers" started getting nasty with me, calling me "Machiavellian" and accusing me of "idolatry" for saying that we need to see substantial proof first before we draw conclusions. It honestly angered me - the ignorance and direct disobedience of these people in defiance of what Scripture explicitly says was appalling, and I gave them a mini-sermon on it. Fortunately, there were others who saw this too, and called out the same people on it. And, that being said, I want to now give a very sharp Bible lesson to point out a couple of things.
Roy Moore, with all the slander that is damaging him now, is in good company. In the Gospels, we are vividly shown the contrast in attitudes between Palm Sunday and Good Friday in regards to our Lord, and what we see is equally shocking - on Palm Sunday they are out there throwing down palm branches and calling him "King," and only 5 days later they are screaming for His blood as they goad Pilate into crucifying Him. How fickle the human race can truly be, seriously. You would think that as Christians, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the continued transforming work of supernatural grace that is supposed to be elevating, healing, and perfecting our concupiscent nature, would be doing better. Yet, I have seen it over and over again - good people have had reputations destroyed because of something the secular press said, and all of a sudden they "fall from grace" with the church crowd and are ostracized. It makes me muse that the majority of Evangelicals in the US are due for a lobotomy or something, as they are acting insane. And, that leads to the second aspect of this little study. Although I sincerely doubt the truth of the allegations against Roy Moore - as I said, too many things smell fishy about the whole thing - let's just say he did what he was accused of doing. For one thing, these allegations are 40 years old now, and in that time even if someone is guilty of something there is a good chance that repentance has taken place, and given Moore's Christian convictions, that would have been a given honestly. So, if he did do it and Jesus forgave him for it, it is under the blood and we need to do likewise - our judgment of Moore then will have consequences on us, either if he's innocent of these accusations or if he repented of them and Jesus cleansed him. And, that is the very thing that Matthew 7 is talking about - bad judgment and slander against a brother. And, in the New Testament, there is a further reality check for those who attack Judge Moore unjustly like this, and they are about to get schooled.
Let us look at I Corinthians 6. In the passage of St. Paul's Epistle to the Church in Corinth at that time, he is writing pastorally to a number of new Gentile converts to the Church who came out of some ugly backgrounds - some were formerly homosexual temple prostitutes, others were involved in criminal lifestyles, and yet all of them were now new creatures in Christ through the redemptive Blood of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Baptism. St. Paul was telling these people that certain behaviors would not be tolerated in the Kingdom, and that only Jesus Christ could save them. The context of the passage is definitely traditionally evangelistic, and expands on what John 3:16 taught - that Christ died to save all men, and anyone who believes can have that salvation. What the Apostle was telling the faithful in the Corinthian Church was that they don't need to be condescending to others who are in sin, because they need to remember where they came from - it in essence compliments Jesus's command in Matthew 7 to "not judge," and the reason is that at one point they were just as reprehensible. This passage is something that those who condemn Roy Moore really need to study, and I am going to tell you why. How would you, as a faithful Christian who maybe came out of a rough background and you have been walking with Christ for years, like it if someone threw your past back in your face? I mean, Jesus forgave you of that, and you are not that person anymore, right? And, you haven't engaged in activities you used to engage in prior to your conversion since you were baptized, right? Therefore, for someone to judge you on the basis of your past like that would be like taking your testimony, stomping on it, and throwing it in the trash. What is even worse is when a fellow believer does that to you - it would be the ultimate insult to both you and the salvation Christ gave you. And, as a believer, that is something we never should be doing anyway, right? Yet, here some of you who are even reading this now doing just that with Roy Moore - shame on you! For one thing, you are guilty of false witness if you repeat that crap - stop it now! Secondly, if you do that to him, one day it will return to bite you - judge not lest you be judged, in the correct context in this case. If you have any ounce of wisdom within yourself, I would suggest you both bite your tongue and also refrain from judgment until you know what the hell you are talking about. Unless you do that, you are in grave sin, and you'd better recognize that quickly! Hopefully this mini-study will wake you up then, as obviously your pastor has either been doing a poor job of teaching it or you have been too lazy to listen to him. Bottom line - get it together, people!
The final thought on this today is that oftentimes we tend to set ourselves up as arbiters of salvation - we tend to sanctify celebrity and yet shred those among us who are up against challenges. It is time that we get our priorities straight, and you Evangelicals in particular need to pay attention - you talk about your sola Scriptura (in reality, it is one's interpretation and bias of Scripture rather than the words of Holy Scripture itself that get elevated by people professing this) and have your high standards, yet you fail to listen to what Scripture says and you set your own bars higher than even God does. So, instead of defending bad music and stupidity in your churches with the "do not judge" clause, why don't you apply that principle properly by leaving Judge Moore alone? Have a happy Thanksgiving season, and hopefully you will thankful for some common sense in these issues at some point. God bless.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Monday, November 13, 2017
Annoying Phrases in Christianese and What They Really Mean
I wanted to do a semi-lighthearted post this week, as the comp exam experience has now been documented. In the course of my own journey of faith, I have seen it all - I was converted and baptized in a Southern Baptist church when I was 16, and in my early 20's I was involved with the Foursquare Gospel denomination as a budding lay minister. I later, via the Anglican tradition, was incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church where I currently am now as a catechist and lay leader. In the course of that experience, I have gotten to know many diverse people and also have seen all spectrums of the American religious experience - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The one thing you begin to pay attention to though, especially in American Protestant Evangelical circles, is the lingo that is used. Evangelicals generally subscribe to a high-test faith, and many of them would never directly say or do anything contrary to their faith, but when it comes to indirect expressions though I have learned that "saintly" things can mean sinful thoughts! Many of these expressions have been a sort of pet-peeve of mine over the years too - I heard them ad nauseum, and to be honest when I hear someone say this stuff a part of me wants to do the unChristian thing and slap them upside the head. As an observer of Evangelical culture in particular though, there are a number of phrases I want to focus on here that embody some of the worst expressions and cliches, and I am sure others who hear them would agree as well.
1. "I'm praying for your salvation"
This one tops the list as it is one that I hear a lot. The most recent incident of this happened last year in a disagreement with my brother-in-law, who professes to be a Baptist. There are a couple of observations about this phrase I want to make now, as they reveal what it really means when someone invokes it. For one, usually the person who is saying this really means "I hate your guts," but since "hate" is not a Christian virtue, they of course cannot really use that word. So, as it is inconceivable for them to spend eternity with anyone as offensive to them as you, they tell you they are "praying for your salvation" as a justification of their real feelings. Usually too, it is the occasion of which such a statement is evoked as well that is significant - they don't know how to counter your argument with them, so it ticks them off and they evoke this because they are really despising you for calling them on something. It means essentially too, as a positive, that you have the upper hand in the discussion with them as well. But, for the person evoking it, there are some problems it poses.
A person who arbitrarily dismisses your own Christian walk because they personally don't like you is what is called an "arbiter of salvation." They are trying to play the Holy Spirit's role, which is shaky to begin with. They fail to realize that they also by doing so are dangerously close to blasphemy, as they are placing themselves as God. Fortunately for us, they are not, and therefore because God is in control of our conversion and walk of faith, it is ultimately HE who has the say-so as to who is saved or not, and not our professed enemies.
A second problem this poses for a person who invokes this against an enemy is this - if the person is Calvinistic theologically, a dilemma happens with their whole "once saved always saved" scheme of things. When they liked you, you were "saved" in their eyes, but when they hate you, then you all of a sudden "fall from grace." That is a little Arminian-minded for a Calvinist, is it not? It simply means that people are acting on their emotions and are not really thinking things through. For the Catholic Christian, this is not really a problem - salvation is based for the Catholic on supernatural grace, and no one is in a position to determine who is "saved" or not, and that includes even clergy. Only God Himself determines that, and that is how it should be.
2. "In the natural"
This is one of those phrases you hear a lot especially among Charismatics and Pentecostals, and I could never really make sense of it except that it was one of those phrases that just sort of grated on me when I heard it. A synonymous phrase also used interchangeably with this is "in the flesh." I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that people who invoke this phrase in the course of conversation are ignorant of the heretical consequence it entails, and that is what I want to discuss.
If you read the first chapter of Genesis, everything that God created He Himself declared as good. As we move to Job 40, and the enigmatic creature God is admiring with Job called a behemoth (which I believe was an Apatosaurus) we see that God is essentially crowing over this magnificent creature - He is proud of and loves His creation! In Thomistic philosophy (and subsequentially classic Catholic theology) there are what are called transcendental properties of being, or more succintly, just transcendentals. Fr. Norris Clarke, in his book The One and the Many, defines this as "a positive attribute that can be predicated of every real being, so that it is convertible with being itself." (W. Norris Clarke, SJ. The One and the Many. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. p. 290-291). What that means is that as God is the Creator and ultimate source of all being, then He Himself is the source of these transcendentals, which include truth, beauty, and goodness. Although the Fall corrupted that somewhat, everything as being qua being is still fundamentally good in its being, although its nature may be corrupted. God created all of this good, in other words - by real extension, that even means that Satan, as far as his being as God's creation, was good, although his nature is intrinsically evil. For us, it is sacramental grace that heals, elevates, and perfects our nature to be what God intended, but it also means that there is still good to work with in most cases. So, it is not a sin to enjoy life and the beauty of nature, as God created it for us.
That being said, when a Pentecostal in particular rejects something good because it is "in the natural," they are in essence not realizing what they say. As a matter of fact, the only people that would agree with them was a heretical sect at the dawn of the Church called the Gnostics, who were so radically dualistic that they thought all matter was "evil" and only the "spirit" was good. To reject something "in the natural" as "evil" is to slap God in the face and insult His creation, in other words, and it is the height of arrogance and ingratitude. Therefore, some Pentecostal folks who like invoking this terminology would do themselves a great service if they read St. Peter's account in Acts 10 - the sheet descending with "unclean" animals, at which when Peter rejected God's invite to have some bacon for breakfast, God rebukes him and says "do NOT call unclean what I have sanctified!" In other words, we need to be careful what cliches we use.
3. The terms "Brother" and "Sister"
Evangelicals in particular love to call each other "Brother This" and "Sister That," and oftentimes it is so routine that it can easily be taken for granted. There are problems with the context of these terms though, and that is what I want to address.
A person who uses overly religious and flowery language, calling everyone "Brother" or "Sister," often has a serious issue with over-compensation. In my experience (although there are exceptions of godly people who do this too) some who over-indulge in using these titles are often insincere and are trying to "act" Christian rather than be Christian. Personally, when I hear someone using such terms, I cringe, because generally the person is full of crap honestly. In real life, with biological siblings, you don't necessarily call them "Brother" or "Sister," and at times some of the names some do call their siblings ain't that nice honestly! While we are definitely "brethren in faith," we don't have to preface addressing everyone in the church with a "brother" or "sister." We should already know that without announcing it.
Years ago, I recall in my undergraduate studies at Southeastern University in Lakeland, FL, how many of my classmates used to even call the professors "Brother" or "Sister," which honestly I never could do. One professor in particular, the late Dr. Michael Dusing, mused on this by saying to his students that he would prefer that they call him "Professor" or "Dr." because he was not a monk! His good-natured observation of that was amusing, but he had a point. While it is acceptable to call a member of a religious order "Brother" or "Sister," it is not necessary to call the average fellow believer in our churches that. Ironically, the same people who insist on saying "Brother This" or "Sister That" will often bristle at a Catholic referring to their priest as "Father," even invoking the Scripture in Matthew 23:9 to justify their indignation. For one thing, such are taking this passage out of context anyway, and if they were really reading what it actually says, they would think twice about flippantly using the "Brother" and "Sister" labels then, as they are actually the ones disobeying Scripture. That would definitely be some food for thought.
4. "You have to have heart knowledge instead of head knowledge."
This is one of those cliched statements you often hear from smaller, rock-ribbed Pentecostal and Fundamentalist churches who are intimidated by snubbery shown them by people who are more affluent or educated, and although to a degree I can sympathize with the sentiment, there is still a major problem with that statement.
The justification that many who invoke this one have is that when they hear a person who can recite Scripture or maybe speak eloquently yet not reflect what they believe the Christian lifestyle is. In other words, it is all talk and no substance to them. However, the extreme to this, although a valid concern, is that often the same people will reject all educated people as being "in the natural" and not "spiritual." Note how this one ties into some of the other cliches discussed - by rejecting God-given intelligence in favor of some "spiritual" insight, these people are rejecting individuals as God created them to be - while not everyone is called to be an Ivy-League scholar or a master theologian, some do have an inclination toward those vocations and the Church needs them. The problem though is the stigma attached - some who have pursued higher academic pursuits have by their own reasoning forgotten their faith, and when they do so, it doesn't present a good picture to the ones who are faithful churchgoers. The problem with the faithful churchgoer though is that they judge all smart people based on that stereotype fostered by a negative experience. And, that is the problem.
In II Timothy 2:15, we are exhorted by the Apostle St. Paul to "study to show ourselves approved," and that we are to know our faith in such a way as to articulate it to others. In that regard, the Church has historically seen human reason as a gift of God that is to be combined with Scripture and Tradition to embody the fulness of the faith we have been entrusted with. Therefore, instead of reason being rejected, it should be embraced and utilized to discipleship and growth of our own spirituality.
5. "Don't judge lest you be judged!"
This is a cliche which in recent years has been lifted straight out of Scripture (Matthew 7:1-3) but has often been misapplied to justify bad behavior and other ills. I want to share a personal example of this and then elaborate more on it.
Some years back, one of my sisters-in-law went through a very nasty divorce, and as a result she was pretty broken over it. A couple of my other in-laws profess Christianity, and they are Evangelical Protestants to the core, but in this situation they exhibited some of the most cruel, anti-Christian behavior that to this day still leaves me in shock as to its severity. The professing Christian sister essentially embarked on a smear campaign against her sister by broadcasting intimate details of her whole life to people the other sister didn't even know, slandering her character. All of this as a "prayer concern," but in reality it was malicious gossip and slander. The offending sister, ironically, went to one of those trendy "seeker" megachurches in the Chicago area, and when concerns about inappropriate music, etc., within that church were brought to her attention, she liked to invoke the "judge not" argument on that. Yet, she wrongly judged and condemned her own sister, and to this day the other sister is still stinging from the damage wrought by the whole thing, whereas the offending sister never sought to restitute herself. In reviewing that story, it seems as if the offending sister was more concerned with rock bands in the church than she was with the brokenness of her own sister, and while invoking Matthew 7 and the whole "judge not" thing with the "worship bands," she blatantly disobeyed the real application of that verse when it came to her own flesh and blood. Unfortunately, I have seen that many other times as well, and it is sickening really - it is one reason why Evangelical Christianity is often more like secular entertainment instead of a life-changing relationship, and that needs to really be addressed and dealt with in their community. Again, it is important to understand that the passage in Matthew 7 was not meant to rightly judge what is appropriate for Christian worship, but rather it was meant to safeguard fellow Christians against gossip and slander within the Church, and thus is tied into the commandment about "not bearing false witness." It is time more teaching be made available to correct this as well.
6. "I don't have religion, I have a relationship!"
When this is invoked, it often is in an iconoclastic context against Catholics and others who may worship more formally and in a liturgical context by more free-church Evangelicals and Pentecostals. A whole other teaching could be derived just from this, but for brevity we will focus on a few items in particular.
In general, when someone says this statement, they have a problem with "Tradition," which to them is almost a cussword. They maybe have been turned off by a comatose nominalism they perceived in a more formal or traditional church, and therefore they have branded all such worship without really understanding it with the word "religion." What they fail to realize though is that religion itself is not necessarily a bad word, and that they follow one themselves whether they admit it or not! Many of them too, in rejecting "tradition," have in essence erected a new "tradition of men" called anti-traditionalism. The tradition of anti-traditionalism goes back to the Reformation itself, and is largely embodied in the thinking of Ulrich Zwingli in particular, who due to the faulty reasoning of Sola Scriptura supposedly rejected anything he couldn't find explicitly stated in Scripture. In time, it became more a reality that people who thought like this were not truly believing sola Scriptura, but their own interpretations of what Scripture said - so, if they didn't like what Scripture said, they conveniently allegorized it. That too created some problems, and resulted in more denominations today than one could shake a proverbial stick at. So, therefore, by rejecting what they perceive as "religion" and "tradition," they set up their own as an often insufficient substitute for the real thing.
Conclusions
There are probably many, many more of these statements and flippant invocations I could document, but you get the general idea. Many people say stupid things a lot of times that they don't even understand themselves - it is often a product of either bad experience or faulty indoctrination, and many say these things ignorantly without knowing what they truly imply. The job of a catechist, apologist, or even theologian a lot of times is to articulate proper discipleship for people so that they can understand what they say better and maybe rethink some attitudes in light of true evidence. And, that is one of the main purposes of my sharing these today as well. As Christians, we need to watch what we say, as often we can sound like either idiots or we can hurt someone by saying something so flippantly that we don't even think about implications. If this brief study inspires contemplation on that level, then my objective is accomplished. God bless until next time.
1. "I'm praying for your salvation"
This one tops the list as it is one that I hear a lot. The most recent incident of this happened last year in a disagreement with my brother-in-law, who professes to be a Baptist. There are a couple of observations about this phrase I want to make now, as they reveal what it really means when someone invokes it. For one, usually the person who is saying this really means "I hate your guts," but since "hate" is not a Christian virtue, they of course cannot really use that word. So, as it is inconceivable for them to spend eternity with anyone as offensive to them as you, they tell you they are "praying for your salvation" as a justification of their real feelings. Usually too, it is the occasion of which such a statement is evoked as well that is significant - they don't know how to counter your argument with them, so it ticks them off and they evoke this because they are really despising you for calling them on something. It means essentially too, as a positive, that you have the upper hand in the discussion with them as well. But, for the person evoking it, there are some problems it poses.
A person who arbitrarily dismisses your own Christian walk because they personally don't like you is what is called an "arbiter of salvation." They are trying to play the Holy Spirit's role, which is shaky to begin with. They fail to realize that they also by doing so are dangerously close to blasphemy, as they are placing themselves as God. Fortunately for us, they are not, and therefore because God is in control of our conversion and walk of faith, it is ultimately HE who has the say-so as to who is saved or not, and not our professed enemies.
A second problem this poses for a person who invokes this against an enemy is this - if the person is Calvinistic theologically, a dilemma happens with their whole "once saved always saved" scheme of things. When they liked you, you were "saved" in their eyes, but when they hate you, then you all of a sudden "fall from grace." That is a little Arminian-minded for a Calvinist, is it not? It simply means that people are acting on their emotions and are not really thinking things through. For the Catholic Christian, this is not really a problem - salvation is based for the Catholic on supernatural grace, and no one is in a position to determine who is "saved" or not, and that includes even clergy. Only God Himself determines that, and that is how it should be.
2. "In the natural"
This is one of those phrases you hear a lot especially among Charismatics and Pentecostals, and I could never really make sense of it except that it was one of those phrases that just sort of grated on me when I heard it. A synonymous phrase also used interchangeably with this is "in the flesh." I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that people who invoke this phrase in the course of conversation are ignorant of the heretical consequence it entails, and that is what I want to discuss.
If you read the first chapter of Genesis, everything that God created He Himself declared as good. As we move to Job 40, and the enigmatic creature God is admiring with Job called a behemoth (which I believe was an Apatosaurus) we see that God is essentially crowing over this magnificent creature - He is proud of and loves His creation! In Thomistic philosophy (and subsequentially classic Catholic theology) there are what are called transcendental properties of being, or more succintly, just transcendentals. Fr. Norris Clarke, in his book The One and the Many, defines this as "a positive attribute that can be predicated of every real being, so that it is convertible with being itself." (W. Norris Clarke, SJ. The One and the Many. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. p. 290-291). What that means is that as God is the Creator and ultimate source of all being, then He Himself is the source of these transcendentals, which include truth, beauty, and goodness. Although the Fall corrupted that somewhat, everything as being qua being is still fundamentally good in its being, although its nature may be corrupted. God created all of this good, in other words - by real extension, that even means that Satan, as far as his being as God's creation, was good, although his nature is intrinsically evil. For us, it is sacramental grace that heals, elevates, and perfects our nature to be what God intended, but it also means that there is still good to work with in most cases. So, it is not a sin to enjoy life and the beauty of nature, as God created it for us.
That being said, when a Pentecostal in particular rejects something good because it is "in the natural," they are in essence not realizing what they say. As a matter of fact, the only people that would agree with them was a heretical sect at the dawn of the Church called the Gnostics, who were so radically dualistic that they thought all matter was "evil" and only the "spirit" was good. To reject something "in the natural" as "evil" is to slap God in the face and insult His creation, in other words, and it is the height of arrogance and ingratitude. Therefore, some Pentecostal folks who like invoking this terminology would do themselves a great service if they read St. Peter's account in Acts 10 - the sheet descending with "unclean" animals, at which when Peter rejected God's invite to have some bacon for breakfast, God rebukes him and says "do NOT call unclean what I have sanctified!" In other words, we need to be careful what cliches we use.
3. The terms "Brother" and "Sister"
Evangelicals in particular love to call each other "Brother This" and "Sister That," and oftentimes it is so routine that it can easily be taken for granted. There are problems with the context of these terms though, and that is what I want to address.
A person who uses overly religious and flowery language, calling everyone "Brother" or "Sister," often has a serious issue with over-compensation. In my experience (although there are exceptions of godly people who do this too) some who over-indulge in using these titles are often insincere and are trying to "act" Christian rather than be Christian. Personally, when I hear someone using such terms, I cringe, because generally the person is full of crap honestly. In real life, with biological siblings, you don't necessarily call them "Brother" or "Sister," and at times some of the names some do call their siblings ain't that nice honestly! While we are definitely "brethren in faith," we don't have to preface addressing everyone in the church with a "brother" or "sister." We should already know that without announcing it.
Years ago, I recall in my undergraduate studies at Southeastern University in Lakeland, FL, how many of my classmates used to even call the professors "Brother" or "Sister," which honestly I never could do. One professor in particular, the late Dr. Michael Dusing, mused on this by saying to his students that he would prefer that they call him "Professor" or "Dr." because he was not a monk! His good-natured observation of that was amusing, but he had a point. While it is acceptable to call a member of a religious order "Brother" or "Sister," it is not necessary to call the average fellow believer in our churches that. Ironically, the same people who insist on saying "Brother This" or "Sister That" will often bristle at a Catholic referring to their priest as "Father," even invoking the Scripture in Matthew 23:9 to justify their indignation. For one thing, such are taking this passage out of context anyway, and if they were really reading what it actually says, they would think twice about flippantly using the "Brother" and "Sister" labels then, as they are actually the ones disobeying Scripture. That would definitely be some food for thought.
4. "You have to have heart knowledge instead of head knowledge."
This is one of those cliched statements you often hear from smaller, rock-ribbed Pentecostal and Fundamentalist churches who are intimidated by snubbery shown them by people who are more affluent or educated, and although to a degree I can sympathize with the sentiment, there is still a major problem with that statement.
The justification that many who invoke this one have is that when they hear a person who can recite Scripture or maybe speak eloquently yet not reflect what they believe the Christian lifestyle is. In other words, it is all talk and no substance to them. However, the extreme to this, although a valid concern, is that often the same people will reject all educated people as being "in the natural" and not "spiritual." Note how this one ties into some of the other cliches discussed - by rejecting God-given intelligence in favor of some "spiritual" insight, these people are rejecting individuals as God created them to be - while not everyone is called to be an Ivy-League scholar or a master theologian, some do have an inclination toward those vocations and the Church needs them. The problem though is the stigma attached - some who have pursued higher academic pursuits have by their own reasoning forgotten their faith, and when they do so, it doesn't present a good picture to the ones who are faithful churchgoers. The problem with the faithful churchgoer though is that they judge all smart people based on that stereotype fostered by a negative experience. And, that is the problem.
In II Timothy 2:15, we are exhorted by the Apostle St. Paul to "study to show ourselves approved," and that we are to know our faith in such a way as to articulate it to others. In that regard, the Church has historically seen human reason as a gift of God that is to be combined with Scripture and Tradition to embody the fulness of the faith we have been entrusted with. Therefore, instead of reason being rejected, it should be embraced and utilized to discipleship and growth of our own spirituality.
5. "Don't judge lest you be judged!"
This is a cliche which in recent years has been lifted straight out of Scripture (Matthew 7:1-3) but has often been misapplied to justify bad behavior and other ills. I want to share a personal example of this and then elaborate more on it.
Some years back, one of my sisters-in-law went through a very nasty divorce, and as a result she was pretty broken over it. A couple of my other in-laws profess Christianity, and they are Evangelical Protestants to the core, but in this situation they exhibited some of the most cruel, anti-Christian behavior that to this day still leaves me in shock as to its severity. The professing Christian sister essentially embarked on a smear campaign against her sister by broadcasting intimate details of her whole life to people the other sister didn't even know, slandering her character. All of this as a "prayer concern," but in reality it was malicious gossip and slander. The offending sister, ironically, went to one of those trendy "seeker" megachurches in the Chicago area, and when concerns about inappropriate music, etc., within that church were brought to her attention, she liked to invoke the "judge not" argument on that. Yet, she wrongly judged and condemned her own sister, and to this day the other sister is still stinging from the damage wrought by the whole thing, whereas the offending sister never sought to restitute herself. In reviewing that story, it seems as if the offending sister was more concerned with rock bands in the church than she was with the brokenness of her own sister, and while invoking Matthew 7 and the whole "judge not" thing with the "worship bands," she blatantly disobeyed the real application of that verse when it came to her own flesh and blood. Unfortunately, I have seen that many other times as well, and it is sickening really - it is one reason why Evangelical Christianity is often more like secular entertainment instead of a life-changing relationship, and that needs to really be addressed and dealt with in their community. Again, it is important to understand that the passage in Matthew 7 was not meant to rightly judge what is appropriate for Christian worship, but rather it was meant to safeguard fellow Christians against gossip and slander within the Church, and thus is tied into the commandment about "not bearing false witness." It is time more teaching be made available to correct this as well.
6. "I don't have religion, I have a relationship!"
When this is invoked, it often is in an iconoclastic context against Catholics and others who may worship more formally and in a liturgical context by more free-church Evangelicals and Pentecostals. A whole other teaching could be derived just from this, but for brevity we will focus on a few items in particular.
In general, when someone says this statement, they have a problem with "Tradition," which to them is almost a cussword. They maybe have been turned off by a comatose nominalism they perceived in a more formal or traditional church, and therefore they have branded all such worship without really understanding it with the word "religion." What they fail to realize though is that religion itself is not necessarily a bad word, and that they follow one themselves whether they admit it or not! Many of them too, in rejecting "tradition," have in essence erected a new "tradition of men" called anti-traditionalism. The tradition of anti-traditionalism goes back to the Reformation itself, and is largely embodied in the thinking of Ulrich Zwingli in particular, who due to the faulty reasoning of Sola Scriptura supposedly rejected anything he couldn't find explicitly stated in Scripture. In time, it became more a reality that people who thought like this were not truly believing sola Scriptura, but their own interpretations of what Scripture said - so, if they didn't like what Scripture said, they conveniently allegorized it. That too created some problems, and resulted in more denominations today than one could shake a proverbial stick at. So, therefore, by rejecting what they perceive as "religion" and "tradition," they set up their own as an often insufficient substitute for the real thing.
Conclusions
There are probably many, many more of these statements and flippant invocations I could document, but you get the general idea. Many people say stupid things a lot of times that they don't even understand themselves - it is often a product of either bad experience or faulty indoctrination, and many say these things ignorantly without knowing what they truly imply. The job of a catechist, apologist, or even theologian a lot of times is to articulate proper discipleship for people so that they can understand what they say better and maybe rethink some attitudes in light of true evidence. And, that is one of the main purposes of my sharing these today as well. As Christians, we need to watch what we say, as often we can sound like either idiots or we can hurt someone by saying something so flippantly that we don't even think about implications. If this brief study inspires contemplation on that level, then my objective is accomplished. God bless until next time.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
My Journey to a Comp Exam - What I Have Learned Part IX
Here we are, at the final question I will potentially have to address on my upcoming comprehensive examination! This one entails a course on the Documents of Vatican II, and I compiled the outline that I will be using to construct the article myself. Again, many thanks to my classmate, Patti Christensen, for the effort of organizing the group effort for studying for this exam, and as I prepare myself to take it in just a couple of months, I covet your prayers and also ask that you keep my fellow classmates who still need to take it in your prayers as well, as this is a LOT of intense material - it essentially covers everything we have learned in four years.
Vatican II and its decisions have indeed carried a lot of weight over the years with members of the Church, and the implementation of many things from that Council have sparked discussions, debates, and controversies on various levels. Was Vatican II a bad thing for the Church, or does it have continuity with past Catholic teaching? Also, how do the documents of Vatican II express both continuity with past teaching as well as new approaches which present Catholic teaching in the light of present-day situations and an understanding of modern people? That is the first and primary part of this discussion, and we will start there.
Of all the documents that came from Vatican II, there are four very pivotal ones that are called "Constitutions," and in a lot of ways they are the authoritative texts upon which everything else that came out of the Council rests. The four documents notes are Sancrosanctum Concillium (which addresses the role of the Sacred Liturgy), Lumen Gentium (which deals specifically with the Church), Dei Verbum (which deals with Divine Revelation, and especially emphasizes the important role of sacred Scripture in the life of the Church), and Gaudium et Spes (which deals with how the Church encounters the modern world). The four documents, although foundational, do not carry equal authority, and here is why. Two of them - Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum - are what are known as "Dogmatic Constitutions," which means they have the highest level of decree. One is a "Constitution" only - Sacrosanctum Concillium - and what that means is that it has authority as far as giving the proper guidelines regarding what it addresses. The fourth - Gaudium et Spes - is what is known as a "Pastoral Constitution," meaning that it provides pastoral and moral instruction on the issue it addresses. Although fairly recent documents, they do show a continuity with development of teaching found in documents from earlier Councils. However, the four must be interpreted in light of one another. And, together, they constitute the hermeneutical key for interpreting the Church's full library of documents. There were many other documents that were generated by the Council Fathers, but these four have a pivotal authoritative role in the reading of the others.
Of the four, Dei Verbum has a certain priority based on what is called the "hierarchy of truths" - the way one views Divine Revelation (in particular Sacred Scripture) has bearing on one's understanding of the notion of the Church (Lumen Gentium), its mission (Sacrosanctum Concilium), and how the Church relates to the modern world (Gaudium et Spes). Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium should indeed be viewed as interpreting each other mutually. Gaudium et Spes also is not to be considered a more "mature" document than earlier draftings of Lumen Gentium, but rather as a "both/and" in contrast to "either/or." In other words, Lumen Gentium defines the Church in historical context, while Gaudium et Spes defines it in light of contemporary culture.
Moving forward, there are successes and shortcomings of the implementation of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council within the Church from the close of the Council in 1965 to the present. Many controversies and issues, as a matter of fact, are not due so much to the actual decisions of the Council itself, but rather are matters of interpretation and implementation. A faulty implementation based on a faulty interpretation of the documents of the Council has led to some abuses and other issues, and these are very real issues that need to be addressed by the Church as a whole. But, there are both positives and negatives that have arisen from the Council and its documentation, and those will now be dealt with more closely.
One of the major fruits of the Council was that it fostered an openness of dialogue with others. As positives, other Christians are now seen as "separated brethren" and as fellow Christians rather than as apostates as many had viewed Protestants and others in earlier generations. There has also been a more appreciative attitude in regard to the Jews, as the overt anti-Semitism of some in the past was refuted soundly and the Jews are now recognized as being important to salvation history as our "older brothers" in the faith. As far as other religions are concerned, a greater respect has been fostered, and good things with possibility for implementation have been noted in other religious traditions outside Christianity. However, there are negatives to this as well. For one, while recognizing other Christians as actually Christian, it is important that Christian unity is taught without compromise of essential Church teaching. In regard to the Jews, while a greater appreciation of the Jews and their role in salvation history is critical, it must not compromise the evangelistic mandate of the Church to pray for their conversion either - the ultimate act of love for our Jewish brethren, in other words, is to introduce them to their Messiah, whom we follow as Christians. And regarding other religions, while it is good to recognize positives within other religions, it is also important to avoid both universalism and syncretism, which means there must be a clear definition of what those positives in other religious traditions are and also caution must be exercised to not engage in practices from these other religious traditions that could cause a conflict with Magisterial Tradition. If ecumenism is seen in its proper light, it means that a healthy respect of others while still being faithful to Church doctrine will be fostered that will aid in dialogue and even evangelization of the world for Christ.
Another major fruit of the Council is the encouragement of a more active role of the laity in the life of the Church. So, the question is how that has caught on at the lay level? The first area to look at here is Bible study. Although never discouraged necessarily in the past, the Council now actively encourages laypeople to read Scripture and also spiritually-edifying material and there is also an emphasis on not merely reading Scripture, but also knowing Scripture - this entails a more thorough knowledge on the part of the laity for both Scripture and Tradition, and it also creates a vital groundwork for prioritizing proper catechesis. A witness to Jesus Christ in both word and action is also encouraged and is to be emphasized to the laity. In word, that means that lay Catholics must be more bold and assertive to discuss their faith. It also means in word that Catholics need to learn to articulate the faith effectively in such a way that they themselves understand it and that those they talk to will as well. In action, Catholics should also be encouraged to live their lives in a way that reflects their faith. This entails a stand for traditional marriage, the sanctity of life, and other traditional values being lived as well as merely professed. The laity also are encouraged to be more active and concerned in the cause for Christian unity - the Charismatic Renewal is seen as a perfect vehicle for this. Catholics should be able to fellowship with other Christians (Evangelicals, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc.) in grassroots ecumenical endeavors, as well as having solidarity in a stand on social issues with these Christians and others - such as Mormons for instance - who share convictions on traditional values and how they can be restored to society. This does not mean that we have to share beliefs with them as Catholics, but that the common stand on traditional values should be seen as something that all these communities should strive and cooperate for. This also entails social justice and works of mercy and charity. These works of mercy and charity reflect dignity of personhood, and in turn this fosters an environment for genuine social justice. Included in this is a concerned for the disadvantaged, marginalized, and persecuted. The transformation of society with the light of Christ is determined in large part by these concerns.
Another area is the impact of marriage life, religious vocations, and other special callings. Catholic teaching on traditional marriage must be seen as a sacramental union and a lifelong vocation. This necessitates a need for young people to discern a call to serve the Church.
The reality of changes in liturgy has also become a pivotal issue regarding implementation of the Council's decisions in the life of the Church. A major contention has arisen over the implementation of the Novus Ordo as succession to the pre-1962 Tridentine (or old Latin) Mass. The major concerns of the traditionalists were with a "dumbing-down" of the liturgy to accommodate contemporary culture, and that led later to schisms such as those of the Society of St. Pius X - also called sedevacantists - who are openly critical at times of even the legitimacy of the Holy See. However, fortunately, the Church has allowed for those who so choose to continue using the pre-1962 Mass form, which is called the "Extraordinary Form of the Mass," and that has led to apostolates forming within the Church and faithful to the Holy See, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. As a positive also with the Novus Ordo, there is more encouragement for lay participation in the Mass that was lacking previously. However, there is also another issue over the celebration of what are called "Specialty Masses" (Clown Masses, Polka Masses, etc.) which are designed to reach out to specific communities. The concerns raised are primarily with the reality that these "specialties" can detract from the Christocentric focus of the Mass. Concerns over the use of music have also been noted. Much like the parallel "Worship Wars" that Evangelicals have been engaged in over the past couple of decades, a lot of debate and dialogue has been generated among Catholics about music appropriate for Mass - for instance, is it proper to use contemporary styles, and to what degree? Also, is it appropriate to rework some secular songs (notably George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord") to fit into the Mass? These are legitimate concerns to be addressed, and in doing so it is important to understand Church teaching and the role of continuity of Tradition in those discussions.
In conclusion, an important question to ask is this - does the Mass encourage one to draw near to Christ, and do the elements of the Mass point one toward receiving Christ in the Eucharist? The Christocentricity of the Mass is integral to Catholic life, and in implementation of the Vatican II Council's reforms and such, this needs to take central focus. The point of the Vatican II Council and its decisions is that oftentimes it is not the readings of the documents themselves that are the problem but the way they are interpreted. Catholic faith and spirituality - and also doctrine - have a continuity over the ages, and that must be preserved even in the face of societal pressure to change. It is not the job of the world to transform the Church to conformity with secularism and modernity, but rather the mandate of the Church to evangelize and transform the culture for Christ. How that is implemented remains the root issue, and may our Church leaders always have the discernment to be in continuity with Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
Vatican II and its decisions have indeed carried a lot of weight over the years with members of the Church, and the implementation of many things from that Council have sparked discussions, debates, and controversies on various levels. Was Vatican II a bad thing for the Church, or does it have continuity with past Catholic teaching? Also, how do the documents of Vatican II express both continuity with past teaching as well as new approaches which present Catholic teaching in the light of present-day situations and an understanding of modern people? That is the first and primary part of this discussion, and we will start there.
Of all the documents that came from Vatican II, there are four very pivotal ones that are called "Constitutions," and in a lot of ways they are the authoritative texts upon which everything else that came out of the Council rests. The four documents notes are Sancrosanctum Concillium (which addresses the role of the Sacred Liturgy), Lumen Gentium (which deals specifically with the Church), Dei Verbum (which deals with Divine Revelation, and especially emphasizes the important role of sacred Scripture in the life of the Church), and Gaudium et Spes (which deals with how the Church encounters the modern world). The four documents, although foundational, do not carry equal authority, and here is why. Two of them - Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum - are what are known as "Dogmatic Constitutions," which means they have the highest level of decree. One is a "Constitution" only - Sacrosanctum Concillium - and what that means is that it has authority as far as giving the proper guidelines regarding what it addresses. The fourth - Gaudium et Spes - is what is known as a "Pastoral Constitution," meaning that it provides pastoral and moral instruction on the issue it addresses. Although fairly recent documents, they do show a continuity with development of teaching found in documents from earlier Councils. However, the four must be interpreted in light of one another. And, together, they constitute the hermeneutical key for interpreting the Church's full library of documents. There were many other documents that were generated by the Council Fathers, but these four have a pivotal authoritative role in the reading of the others.
Of the four, Dei Verbum has a certain priority based on what is called the "hierarchy of truths" - the way one views Divine Revelation (in particular Sacred Scripture) has bearing on one's understanding of the notion of the Church (Lumen Gentium), its mission (Sacrosanctum Concilium), and how the Church relates to the modern world (Gaudium et Spes). Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium should indeed be viewed as interpreting each other mutually. Gaudium et Spes also is not to be considered a more "mature" document than earlier draftings of Lumen Gentium, but rather as a "both/and" in contrast to "either/or." In other words, Lumen Gentium defines the Church in historical context, while Gaudium et Spes defines it in light of contemporary culture.
Moving forward, there are successes and shortcomings of the implementation of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council within the Church from the close of the Council in 1965 to the present. Many controversies and issues, as a matter of fact, are not due so much to the actual decisions of the Council itself, but rather are matters of interpretation and implementation. A faulty implementation based on a faulty interpretation of the documents of the Council has led to some abuses and other issues, and these are very real issues that need to be addressed by the Church as a whole. But, there are both positives and negatives that have arisen from the Council and its documentation, and those will now be dealt with more closely.
One of the major fruits of the Council was that it fostered an openness of dialogue with others. As positives, other Christians are now seen as "separated brethren" and as fellow Christians rather than as apostates as many had viewed Protestants and others in earlier generations. There has also been a more appreciative attitude in regard to the Jews, as the overt anti-Semitism of some in the past was refuted soundly and the Jews are now recognized as being important to salvation history as our "older brothers" in the faith. As far as other religions are concerned, a greater respect has been fostered, and good things with possibility for implementation have been noted in other religious traditions outside Christianity. However, there are negatives to this as well. For one, while recognizing other Christians as actually Christian, it is important that Christian unity is taught without compromise of essential Church teaching. In regard to the Jews, while a greater appreciation of the Jews and their role in salvation history is critical, it must not compromise the evangelistic mandate of the Church to pray for their conversion either - the ultimate act of love for our Jewish brethren, in other words, is to introduce them to their Messiah, whom we follow as Christians. And regarding other religions, while it is good to recognize positives within other religions, it is also important to avoid both universalism and syncretism, which means there must be a clear definition of what those positives in other religious traditions are and also caution must be exercised to not engage in practices from these other religious traditions that could cause a conflict with Magisterial Tradition. If ecumenism is seen in its proper light, it means that a healthy respect of others while still being faithful to Church doctrine will be fostered that will aid in dialogue and even evangelization of the world for Christ.
Another major fruit of the Council is the encouragement of a more active role of the laity in the life of the Church. So, the question is how that has caught on at the lay level? The first area to look at here is Bible study. Although never discouraged necessarily in the past, the Council now actively encourages laypeople to read Scripture and also spiritually-edifying material and there is also an emphasis on not merely reading Scripture, but also knowing Scripture - this entails a more thorough knowledge on the part of the laity for both Scripture and Tradition, and it also creates a vital groundwork for prioritizing proper catechesis. A witness to Jesus Christ in both word and action is also encouraged and is to be emphasized to the laity. In word, that means that lay Catholics must be more bold and assertive to discuss their faith. It also means in word that Catholics need to learn to articulate the faith effectively in such a way that they themselves understand it and that those they talk to will as well. In action, Catholics should also be encouraged to live their lives in a way that reflects their faith. This entails a stand for traditional marriage, the sanctity of life, and other traditional values being lived as well as merely professed. The laity also are encouraged to be more active and concerned in the cause for Christian unity - the Charismatic Renewal is seen as a perfect vehicle for this. Catholics should be able to fellowship with other Christians (Evangelicals, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc.) in grassroots ecumenical endeavors, as well as having solidarity in a stand on social issues with these Christians and others - such as Mormons for instance - who share convictions on traditional values and how they can be restored to society. This does not mean that we have to share beliefs with them as Catholics, but that the common stand on traditional values should be seen as something that all these communities should strive and cooperate for. This also entails social justice and works of mercy and charity. These works of mercy and charity reflect dignity of personhood, and in turn this fosters an environment for genuine social justice. Included in this is a concerned for the disadvantaged, marginalized, and persecuted. The transformation of society with the light of Christ is determined in large part by these concerns.
Another area is the impact of marriage life, religious vocations, and other special callings. Catholic teaching on traditional marriage must be seen as a sacramental union and a lifelong vocation. This necessitates a need for young people to discern a call to serve the Church.
The reality of changes in liturgy has also become a pivotal issue regarding implementation of the Council's decisions in the life of the Church. A major contention has arisen over the implementation of the Novus Ordo as succession to the pre-1962 Tridentine (or old Latin) Mass. The major concerns of the traditionalists were with a "dumbing-down" of the liturgy to accommodate contemporary culture, and that led later to schisms such as those of the Society of St. Pius X - also called sedevacantists - who are openly critical at times of even the legitimacy of the Holy See. However, fortunately, the Church has allowed for those who so choose to continue using the pre-1962 Mass form, which is called the "Extraordinary Form of the Mass," and that has led to apostolates forming within the Church and faithful to the Holy See, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. As a positive also with the Novus Ordo, there is more encouragement for lay participation in the Mass that was lacking previously. However, there is also another issue over the celebration of what are called "Specialty Masses" (Clown Masses, Polka Masses, etc.) which are designed to reach out to specific communities. The concerns raised are primarily with the reality that these "specialties" can detract from the Christocentric focus of the Mass. Concerns over the use of music have also been noted. Much like the parallel "Worship Wars" that Evangelicals have been engaged in over the past couple of decades, a lot of debate and dialogue has been generated among Catholics about music appropriate for Mass - for instance, is it proper to use contemporary styles, and to what degree? Also, is it appropriate to rework some secular songs (notably George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord") to fit into the Mass? These are legitimate concerns to be addressed, and in doing so it is important to understand Church teaching and the role of continuity of Tradition in those discussions.
In conclusion, an important question to ask is this - does the Mass encourage one to draw near to Christ, and do the elements of the Mass point one toward receiving Christ in the Eucharist? The Christocentricity of the Mass is integral to Catholic life, and in implementation of the Vatican II Council's reforms and such, this needs to take central focus. The point of the Vatican II Council and its decisions is that oftentimes it is not the readings of the documents themselves that are the problem but the way they are interpreted. Catholic faith and spirituality - and also doctrine - have a continuity over the ages, and that must be preserved even in the face of societal pressure to change. It is not the job of the world to transform the Church to conformity with secularism and modernity, but rather the mandate of the Church to evangelize and transform the culture for Christ. How that is implemented remains the root issue, and may our Church leaders always have the discernment to be in continuity with Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
Friday, November 3, 2017
My Journey to a Comp Exam - What I Have Learned Part VIII
This is the eighth installment in this series regarding my upcoming comprehensive examination in completion of my graduate program, and as is the case, this will be built around the "skeleton" of a study outline that either I or one of my classmates have created. In this case, the class is Foundations of Moral Theology, and the outline is my creation. Therefore, I will be constructing this study around my own pre-created outline. This is the next to the last in the series, and in this case the question has two parts that will be dealt with separately.
One obvious thing about the morality of the West, although often contemporary society is trying to divorce itself from, is the fact that there are distinctive contributions that Christianity makes to our understanding of the basis, meaning, and content of morality. This is particularly enunciated in the late Pope St. John Paul II's 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which has many important observations to make, and much of what we will be discussing at this point will reference that encyclical in more detail. Morality and faith are seen as being connected, and hence that is where this aspect of the study proceeds from.
As has been seen in other sections of this study, the Church understands Scripture from the standpoint of the "Fourfold Hermeneutic," and here we begin to see that two of those - moral and anagogical - are intimately connected. Pope St. John Paul II notes that "it is an essential and unavoidable question for the life of every man, for it is about the moral good which must be done, and about eternal life. The young man senses that there is a connection between moral good and the fulfillment of his own destiny." (VS 1:8). In other words, morality does have a part in where we will spend eternity, and to put it simply, even though obviously salvation is not based on works, it also is obvious that works are to be a fruit of living faith (James 2:14-26). Without them, faith quickly dies, and the person then forfeits salvation based on the fact their dying faith no longer hopes in it. Doing such works is also a sign of seeking what is good, and when one seeks the good, it will ultimately mean turning toward God, as the late Pontiff notes that "to ask about the good, in fact, ultimately means to turn toward God," (VS 1:9) which then makes this fundamentally a religious question rather than a philosophical one, although a metaphysical reality does lie at its core. It therefore means that there is a very close connection between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments - it is again noted that the Gospels themselves affirm that "if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). This is why too that one of the earliest Scriptures I recall memorizing was Psalm 119:11, which I am also having my 6th-grade catechumens I instruct learn as well - Your Word I have hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee. As the late Pontiff also points out, this is an act of man's free will and God's infinite love combined, as he notes that "the moral life presents itself as the response due to the many gratuitous initiatives taken by God out of love for man." Following the Commandments then is a proof of love of God by demonstrating a love for neighbor based on a morality that respects the personhood of one's neighbor as being created of God. The commandments therefore work together in that there can be no genuine love for God without love of one's neighbor - noting I John 4:20, the late Pontiff also notes that the way we respect and treat others reflects how we serve God, and the two are intrinsically related (VS 1:14). The ultimate fulfillment of this, as noted, is in the person of Jesus Christ, who by seeking to indwell His disciples internalizes these convictions in such a way that they become part of a person's being. Friendship with Christ informs and penetrates the entire human structure of action, and it causes us to participate in the ideal of communion with God (Livio Melina, The Epiphany of Love. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. p. 17). The destiny of action, therefore, is to be communion with God (Melina, p. 18). With Christ being the efficient cause of love in us, at the origin of human action then is Christ Himself, and all that we are, do, and believe is rooted in Him. This results in a supernatural grace being dispensed in our lives that demands a maturity in self-giving to which real human freedom is called (VS 1:17). Human freedom and God's law therefore are not in opposition, but rather appeal to each other. Therefore, to the extent which we serve God, we are therefore truly free.
Although ultimate salvation comes in Christ, and only those who believe in and accept what He offered us will inherit eternal life, at the same time there is an intrinsic part of human nature that still retains a vestige of what God created in it - the ideals of good morality and common decency are not solely the property of the Church, although in Christ they are perfected. Rather, they establish a universal standard to which all of us are meant to observe. This standard brings out the full meaning of love of neighbor, and the command "Come, follow me" is a new specific commandment form of the love of God. However, Christ embodies and completes that concept, as the supernatural grace He makes available to us now perfects and clarifies the meaning of this to rise above mere humanitarianism or a response to aleve personal guilt for failing in responsibility, and by following Christ, we are conformed to a higher standard (VS 1:21). It is the Church then who acts as the custodian and dispenser of this truth via living Tradition (VS 1:27), and within Tradition, the authentic interpretation of the Lord's law is developed, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Pope St. John Paul II also notes that there is an intrinsic relationship between freedom and truth - "The fundamental question which the moral theories mentioned above pose in a particularly forceful way is that of the relationship of man's freedom to God's law; it is ultimately the question of the relationship between freedom and truth." (VS 3:84). Freedom must submit itself to God's truth in order for God's truth to transform man's freedom into something genuine, and this is a reality which has been lost in today's culture. In order for the Church to be effective in its mission in the current cultural climate, the rediscovery of this relationship is integral. It is within the embodiment of a person, Jesus Christ, that this answer can be found; the central fact of the Passion of Christ is the answer to the problem of morality (or lack thereof). As the eminent Anglo-Catholic theologian E.L. Mascall notes in his book The Secularization of Christianity (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), the new creation (or "new man in Christ Jesus") is the life of the "man for others," and the love whereby we are brought into grounds our being in such a way that it is manifested outwardly (Mascall, p. 160). Jesus is therefore the living, personal summation of perfect freedom in total obedience to the will of God. The frank and open acceptance of the Truth is conditional to authentic freedom - Pope St. John Paul II cites John 8:32 ("You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free") as a premise for saying that true worship of the true God (embodied in Jesus Christ, God the Son) is the deepest and most profound foundation of freedom (VS 3:87). And that leads to the consequence of what happens when man fails to do so.
When truth is separated from freedom, it ultimately leads to a separation of faith from morality (VS 3:88). What that means in plain language is that a morality based on mere secularism may have the appearance of "good," but it lacks. Also, freedom detached from universal truths leads to a radical redefinition of morality, and when that happens faith is rejected, truth is subjected, and morally adverse behavior is objectified. Many may even "profess" being Christian, but the attitudes they espouse in their actions make them live their lives as though God doesn't exist - they become functional atheists, even if they themselves would deny the label. This is why Christians have a mandate to rediscover the newness of their faith - including the timeless truth that embodies it - and its power to judge prevalent cultural norms that are often at odds with the Biblical worldview. This means that faith possesses a moral content - "It gives rise to and calls for a consistent life commitment; it entails and brings to perfection the acceptance and observance of God's commandments." (VS 3:89). When a matter of moral norms prohibits intrinsic evils, there are no exceptions allotted then to anyone, as we are all equal before the demands of morality (VS 3:96). And, being God alone constitutes the unshakeable foundation and essential condition for morality, it is He that prohibits adverse behavior that demeans and violates dignity of personhood (VS 3:99). Therefore, by this very nature, systems of totalitarianism (Nazism, fascism, Communism, socialist models, and "mob rule" like the French Revolution) arise because of the denial of truth in the objective sense. Its roots indeed are found in the denial of the transcendant dignity of the human person as the visible image of an invisible God. As Hilaire Belloc notes though, the oligarchic capitalist system can also be totalitarian in that it reduces the person to a commodity to enrich others - he says in relation to this that "it was not machinery that lost us our freedom; it was the loss of a free mind" (Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State. London: T.N. Foulis, 1912. p. 38). The Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin also shares some detail in relation to this when he writes that "False teachings arise out of these preconceptions (distorted ideas of "fairness," in this case those embraced by totalitarian systems); they lead to violence and revolution. And revolution brings only blood and suffering, in order to disenchant and sober those who are blinded by their passions. So entire generations of men live in preconceptions and languish in disillusionment, and so it is that the word 'fairness' is sometimes met with a sarcastic smile and a sneer" (Ivan Ilyin, The Singing Heart, English translation. Memphis, TN: The Orthodox Christian Translation Society, 2016. p. 22). The person is created by an invisible God as a visible image, and as such is subject of rights which cannot be violated, and an important principle here is the idea of persona est sui iuris, meaning a person belongs to himself and not to another. This is why the virtue of temperance is also required regarding respect for human dignity in economic matters in particular, and why the preservation of our neighbor's rights to render what is his or her due requires the practice of the virtue of justice, and is an expression of the command to "love our neighbor as ourselves." (VS 3:100, CCC 2407). As a society becomes more secularized, the decline and obscurity of the moral sense as well as the loss of faith is inevitable (VS 3:106). This then aids in the rise of anti-Christian tendencies toward subjectivism, utilitarianism, and relativism. To illustrate that, let us look at America in 2017 - the new "morality" is the idea that a person's feelings are the prime moral compass, and absolute truth is seen as "hate speech" and that attitude results in an obliteration of common sense - in some sectors it is even illegal to refer to a man as "he" or a woman as "she," as now even an obvious, visible fact such as gender identity is now up for debate. Instead of the normal biological determination of gender, now one is what they "feel" like being, meaning that someone like Bruce Jenner can put on a dress, call himself "Cait" and is now a "woman" because he says he "feels like a natural woman." There is something called extrinsicism which lies at the root of other false tendencies such as utilitarianism and the idea of proportionalism (to be discussed in more detail shortly) which essentially entails the divorce between faith and conduct in everyday life - a person's conduct, in other words, doesn't reflect the faith they profess. We see this in many nominally Christian mainline Protestants who claim to follow the Gospel, yet they deny almost every cardinal doctrine of the faith. It has even infected Evangelical Protestants and some Catholics to a degree recently as well, via the popularity of people such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren in Evangelical circles - my own misguided brother-in-law, for instance, thinks that his definition of "grace" is his "salvation," to the point that he will even accuse others of treating doctrine as "idolatrous" - there is no way a faithful Christian can worship doctrine, for one thing, and the doctrine points us to Christ, so that is a weird conclusion my dear misguided brother-in-law has come to. This denigration of doctrine by my brother-in-law is an example of extrinsicism - you "appear" Christian outwardly, but don't take your faith seriously enough to believe what it teaches. It is becoming an epidemic in society these days, and its main problem is its attempt to divorce human freedom from its essential relationship to eternal truth (Melina, p. 69). And, that leads to something then called proportionalism, which will have a considerable space devoted to it in the following paragraphs here.
To define proportionalism, it is a system of thought that essentially states that one can determine the right course of action by weighing up the good and the necessary evil caused by the action. These "goods" and "evils" are seen as pre-moral (whatever that means!) and the proportionalist in essence separates the goodness of an action from its rightness, and the action itself is reduced to a mere technicality. This has given it a rather unique understanding of human action and its moral evaluation, in particular when it comes to intention/foresight distinction and the meaning of the term "object." "Right" or "wrong" to the proportionalist doesn't necessarily equal "good" or "bad," but rather is only possible to the proportionalist by the will of the person choosing to do the action. That being said, only those consequences which are means to ends need be considered according to the proportionalist (Christopher Kaczor, Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002. p. 62). Therefore, that which is foreseen but not intended is not necessarily a bad thing to the proportionalist, and only results in tragic collateral damage rather than direct consequence. The intention is driven by a desire, and if the effect is not intended but the desire is, then it is not "bad" to the proportionalist. Then there is the issue of GRD (goodness/rightness distinction) which is not synonymous but distinct from proportionalism but advocated by proportionalists themselves. What is known as I/F (intent/foresight) distinction is more directly associated with proportionalism - I/F is the distinction between the intent of an act differing morally from the foresight of its commission and consequence. This then begs an explanation of what the proportionalist means by the term "object." In some instances, the "object" is coupled with the "subject" and is therefore not merely an external event. The moral action of an external event therefore, to the proportionalist, cannot be determined detached from the human subject. This has a serious theological consequence, as it makes sin a relativistic thing in that although two people do the same thing, for one it is a "sin" while for another it is not. This places the object of a human act in determination by proximate intention. The proportionalist requires a motive or a remote intention to be included in the object of an act, and therefore it is treated as proximate. It therefore expans the notion of "object" for the proportionalist. To define what that all means, a proximate is something where the motive and intention are both realized. A remote is where the motive is unrealized but the intention is realized. It makes sin again a relative concept, and thus defines "sin" based on the conclusions of the proportionalist based on the lens through which the person is viewing the whole action.
In contrast to the proportionalist position, an understanding of human action and its moral evaluation is found that is more consistent with traditional views in the writings of Kaczor, Pope St. John Paul II, and St. Thomas Aquinas. How they view intent/foresight is somewhat different than the proportionalist, and to begin we look at Kaczor's evaluation of Aquinas's Prima secundae, and this is embodied in its Prologue, which begins with St. John of Damascus and his affirmation that man is made in the image of God (Kaczor, 45). Therefore, as God acts freely, so does man as the image of God. Man therefore has a degree of dominion over his personal acts - and an accompanying responsibility for the consequences of his actions - that God endows via free will. For Aquinas then, the end of all human striving is to be union with God. He identifies then two types of action proper to human behavior.
The first type of action Aquinas identifies are what is called acts of a human being. These are things such as the growth of hair, the digestion of food, and natural breathing. These are acts that are intrinsic to our function and existence and are not subject to moral analysis as they are amoral actions - they just are. Also included in those are emotions ("passions") such as anger, which are also common to all human beings and are likewise not subject to this analysis - an emotion cannot be right or wrong, although it must be understood that actions resulting from emotions can be right or wrong. So then, emotions motivate action. Although imperfect due to the effects of the Fall, these things are not morally right or wrong in themselves.
The second type of action are what are classified as human acts. These proceed from individual reason and will. St. Augustine contends that moral acts and human acts are one and the same, a conclusion that Aquinas also concurs with. Aquinas further divides these acts into two categories. The first of these are interior acts, which lead the person toward or away from God based on influences within ourselves. The second are exterior acts, which lead the person toward or away from God based on an outside influence (in this case, God or Satan). Therefore, sinful acts lead a person away from God, and may be the result of both internal and external in tandem.
Aristotle also notes that there are actions to the sake of ends, meaning simply that the motivation of the act is toward something - if it is away from God then, it is toward eternal punishment, to put into the context of Christian theology. These are also characterized by actions that are "knowing willing," meaning that there must be an outward understanding of the action, as well as a knowledge of what could exist rather than what already does. The action then proceeds through willing, intention, consent, choice, command, and use.
In regard to the moral act itself, Pope St. John Paul II notes first that there is a solid relationship between man's freedom and God's law which is centered on moral conscience. This is manifested then and realized in human acts. The morality of the acts is defined by the relationship of man's freedom with the authentic good (ultimately God Himself) (VS 2:4). An action therefore is morally good when it entails choices of freedom that are in conformity with man's true good (again, God). This then means that, as we saw earlier, that there is a connection between morality and anagogy, and only an act in conformity with good can be a pathway to life.
In conclusion, the Christian life makes man aware, through God's revelation, of the newness which characterizes morality of action. Showing ourselves good in our works reflects the beauty of the image of Christ in us. It also ensures the ordering of human acts to God's will. As to the intention of the acting subject, there are circumstances in which the action takes place to be considered as well as resulting consequences. In other words, what we do has consequences, and therefore we have to discern our actions wisely, and be dependent on God for directing our actions.
So, that is it for this week, and will be back next time with the final question and its commentary.
One obvious thing about the morality of the West, although often contemporary society is trying to divorce itself from, is the fact that there are distinctive contributions that Christianity makes to our understanding of the basis, meaning, and content of morality. This is particularly enunciated in the late Pope St. John Paul II's 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which has many important observations to make, and much of what we will be discussing at this point will reference that encyclical in more detail. Morality and faith are seen as being connected, and hence that is where this aspect of the study proceeds from.
As has been seen in other sections of this study, the Church understands Scripture from the standpoint of the "Fourfold Hermeneutic," and here we begin to see that two of those - moral and anagogical - are intimately connected. Pope St. John Paul II notes that "it is an essential and unavoidable question for the life of every man, for it is about the moral good which must be done, and about eternal life. The young man senses that there is a connection between moral good and the fulfillment of his own destiny." (VS 1:8). In other words, morality does have a part in where we will spend eternity, and to put it simply, even though obviously salvation is not based on works, it also is obvious that works are to be a fruit of living faith (James 2:14-26). Without them, faith quickly dies, and the person then forfeits salvation based on the fact their dying faith no longer hopes in it. Doing such works is also a sign of seeking what is good, and when one seeks the good, it will ultimately mean turning toward God, as the late Pontiff notes that "to ask about the good, in fact, ultimately means to turn toward God," (VS 1:9) which then makes this fundamentally a religious question rather than a philosophical one, although a metaphysical reality does lie at its core. It therefore means that there is a very close connection between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments - it is again noted that the Gospels themselves affirm that "if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). This is why too that one of the earliest Scriptures I recall memorizing was Psalm 119:11, which I am also having my 6th-grade catechumens I instruct learn as well - Your Word I have hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee. As the late Pontiff also points out, this is an act of man's free will and God's infinite love combined, as he notes that "the moral life presents itself as the response due to the many gratuitous initiatives taken by God out of love for man." Following the Commandments then is a proof of love of God by demonstrating a love for neighbor based on a morality that respects the personhood of one's neighbor as being created of God. The commandments therefore work together in that there can be no genuine love for God without love of one's neighbor - noting I John 4:20, the late Pontiff also notes that the way we respect and treat others reflects how we serve God, and the two are intrinsically related (VS 1:14). The ultimate fulfillment of this, as noted, is in the person of Jesus Christ, who by seeking to indwell His disciples internalizes these convictions in such a way that they become part of a person's being. Friendship with Christ informs and penetrates the entire human structure of action, and it causes us to participate in the ideal of communion with God (Livio Melina, The Epiphany of Love. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. p. 17). The destiny of action, therefore, is to be communion with God (Melina, p. 18). With Christ being the efficient cause of love in us, at the origin of human action then is Christ Himself, and all that we are, do, and believe is rooted in Him. This results in a supernatural grace being dispensed in our lives that demands a maturity in self-giving to which real human freedom is called (VS 1:17). Human freedom and God's law therefore are not in opposition, but rather appeal to each other. Therefore, to the extent which we serve God, we are therefore truly free.
Although ultimate salvation comes in Christ, and only those who believe in and accept what He offered us will inherit eternal life, at the same time there is an intrinsic part of human nature that still retains a vestige of what God created in it - the ideals of good morality and common decency are not solely the property of the Church, although in Christ they are perfected. Rather, they establish a universal standard to which all of us are meant to observe. This standard brings out the full meaning of love of neighbor, and the command "Come, follow me" is a new specific commandment form of the love of God. However, Christ embodies and completes that concept, as the supernatural grace He makes available to us now perfects and clarifies the meaning of this to rise above mere humanitarianism or a response to aleve personal guilt for failing in responsibility, and by following Christ, we are conformed to a higher standard (VS 1:21). It is the Church then who acts as the custodian and dispenser of this truth via living Tradition (VS 1:27), and within Tradition, the authentic interpretation of the Lord's law is developed, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Pope St. John Paul II also notes that there is an intrinsic relationship between freedom and truth - "The fundamental question which the moral theories mentioned above pose in a particularly forceful way is that of the relationship of man's freedom to God's law; it is ultimately the question of the relationship between freedom and truth." (VS 3:84). Freedom must submit itself to God's truth in order for God's truth to transform man's freedom into something genuine, and this is a reality which has been lost in today's culture. In order for the Church to be effective in its mission in the current cultural climate, the rediscovery of this relationship is integral. It is within the embodiment of a person, Jesus Christ, that this answer can be found; the central fact of the Passion of Christ is the answer to the problem of morality (or lack thereof). As the eminent Anglo-Catholic theologian E.L. Mascall notes in his book The Secularization of Christianity (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), the new creation (or "new man in Christ Jesus") is the life of the "man for others," and the love whereby we are brought into grounds our being in such a way that it is manifested outwardly (Mascall, p. 160). Jesus is therefore the living, personal summation of perfect freedom in total obedience to the will of God. The frank and open acceptance of the Truth is conditional to authentic freedom - Pope St. John Paul II cites John 8:32 ("You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free") as a premise for saying that true worship of the true God (embodied in Jesus Christ, God the Son) is the deepest and most profound foundation of freedom (VS 3:87). And that leads to the consequence of what happens when man fails to do so.
When truth is separated from freedom, it ultimately leads to a separation of faith from morality (VS 3:88). What that means in plain language is that a morality based on mere secularism may have the appearance of "good," but it lacks. Also, freedom detached from universal truths leads to a radical redefinition of morality, and when that happens faith is rejected, truth is subjected, and morally adverse behavior is objectified. Many may even "profess" being Christian, but the attitudes they espouse in their actions make them live their lives as though God doesn't exist - they become functional atheists, even if they themselves would deny the label. This is why Christians have a mandate to rediscover the newness of their faith - including the timeless truth that embodies it - and its power to judge prevalent cultural norms that are often at odds with the Biblical worldview. This means that faith possesses a moral content - "It gives rise to and calls for a consistent life commitment; it entails and brings to perfection the acceptance and observance of God's commandments." (VS 3:89). When a matter of moral norms prohibits intrinsic evils, there are no exceptions allotted then to anyone, as we are all equal before the demands of morality (VS 3:96). And, being God alone constitutes the unshakeable foundation and essential condition for morality, it is He that prohibits adverse behavior that demeans and violates dignity of personhood (VS 3:99). Therefore, by this very nature, systems of totalitarianism (Nazism, fascism, Communism, socialist models, and "mob rule" like the French Revolution) arise because of the denial of truth in the objective sense. Its roots indeed are found in the denial of the transcendant dignity of the human person as the visible image of an invisible God. As Hilaire Belloc notes though, the oligarchic capitalist system can also be totalitarian in that it reduces the person to a commodity to enrich others - he says in relation to this that "it was not machinery that lost us our freedom; it was the loss of a free mind" (Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State. London: T.N. Foulis, 1912. p. 38). The Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin also shares some detail in relation to this when he writes that "False teachings arise out of these preconceptions (distorted ideas of "fairness," in this case those embraced by totalitarian systems); they lead to violence and revolution. And revolution brings only blood and suffering, in order to disenchant and sober those who are blinded by their passions. So entire generations of men live in preconceptions and languish in disillusionment, and so it is that the word 'fairness' is sometimes met with a sarcastic smile and a sneer" (Ivan Ilyin, The Singing Heart, English translation. Memphis, TN: The Orthodox Christian Translation Society, 2016. p. 22). The person is created by an invisible God as a visible image, and as such is subject of rights which cannot be violated, and an important principle here is the idea of persona est sui iuris, meaning a person belongs to himself and not to another. This is why the virtue of temperance is also required regarding respect for human dignity in economic matters in particular, and why the preservation of our neighbor's rights to render what is his or her due requires the practice of the virtue of justice, and is an expression of the command to "love our neighbor as ourselves." (VS 3:100, CCC 2407). As a society becomes more secularized, the decline and obscurity of the moral sense as well as the loss of faith is inevitable (VS 3:106). This then aids in the rise of anti-Christian tendencies toward subjectivism, utilitarianism, and relativism. To illustrate that, let us look at America in 2017 - the new "morality" is the idea that a person's feelings are the prime moral compass, and absolute truth is seen as "hate speech" and that attitude results in an obliteration of common sense - in some sectors it is even illegal to refer to a man as "he" or a woman as "she," as now even an obvious, visible fact such as gender identity is now up for debate. Instead of the normal biological determination of gender, now one is what they "feel" like being, meaning that someone like Bruce Jenner can put on a dress, call himself "Cait" and is now a "woman" because he says he "feels like a natural woman." There is something called extrinsicism which lies at the root of other false tendencies such as utilitarianism and the idea of proportionalism (to be discussed in more detail shortly) which essentially entails the divorce between faith and conduct in everyday life - a person's conduct, in other words, doesn't reflect the faith they profess. We see this in many nominally Christian mainline Protestants who claim to follow the Gospel, yet they deny almost every cardinal doctrine of the faith. It has even infected Evangelical Protestants and some Catholics to a degree recently as well, via the popularity of people such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren in Evangelical circles - my own misguided brother-in-law, for instance, thinks that his definition of "grace" is his "salvation," to the point that he will even accuse others of treating doctrine as "idolatrous" - there is no way a faithful Christian can worship doctrine, for one thing, and the doctrine points us to Christ, so that is a weird conclusion my dear misguided brother-in-law has come to. This denigration of doctrine by my brother-in-law is an example of extrinsicism - you "appear" Christian outwardly, but don't take your faith seriously enough to believe what it teaches. It is becoming an epidemic in society these days, and its main problem is its attempt to divorce human freedom from its essential relationship to eternal truth (Melina, p. 69). And, that leads to something then called proportionalism, which will have a considerable space devoted to it in the following paragraphs here.
To define proportionalism, it is a system of thought that essentially states that one can determine the right course of action by weighing up the good and the necessary evil caused by the action. These "goods" and "evils" are seen as pre-moral (whatever that means!) and the proportionalist in essence separates the goodness of an action from its rightness, and the action itself is reduced to a mere technicality. This has given it a rather unique understanding of human action and its moral evaluation, in particular when it comes to intention/foresight distinction and the meaning of the term "object." "Right" or "wrong" to the proportionalist doesn't necessarily equal "good" or "bad," but rather is only possible to the proportionalist by the will of the person choosing to do the action. That being said, only those consequences which are means to ends need be considered according to the proportionalist (Christopher Kaczor, Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002. p. 62). Therefore, that which is foreseen but not intended is not necessarily a bad thing to the proportionalist, and only results in tragic collateral damage rather than direct consequence. The intention is driven by a desire, and if the effect is not intended but the desire is, then it is not "bad" to the proportionalist. Then there is the issue of GRD (goodness/rightness distinction) which is not synonymous but distinct from proportionalism but advocated by proportionalists themselves. What is known as I/F (intent/foresight) distinction is more directly associated with proportionalism - I/F is the distinction between the intent of an act differing morally from the foresight of its commission and consequence. This then begs an explanation of what the proportionalist means by the term "object." In some instances, the "object" is coupled with the "subject" and is therefore not merely an external event. The moral action of an external event therefore, to the proportionalist, cannot be determined detached from the human subject. This has a serious theological consequence, as it makes sin a relativistic thing in that although two people do the same thing, for one it is a "sin" while for another it is not. This places the object of a human act in determination by proximate intention. The proportionalist requires a motive or a remote intention to be included in the object of an act, and therefore it is treated as proximate. It therefore expans the notion of "object" for the proportionalist. To define what that all means, a proximate is something where the motive and intention are both realized. A remote is where the motive is unrealized but the intention is realized. It makes sin again a relative concept, and thus defines "sin" based on the conclusions of the proportionalist based on the lens through which the person is viewing the whole action.
In contrast to the proportionalist position, an understanding of human action and its moral evaluation is found that is more consistent with traditional views in the writings of Kaczor, Pope St. John Paul II, and St. Thomas Aquinas. How they view intent/foresight is somewhat different than the proportionalist, and to begin we look at Kaczor's evaluation of Aquinas's Prima secundae, and this is embodied in its Prologue, which begins with St. John of Damascus and his affirmation that man is made in the image of God (Kaczor, 45). Therefore, as God acts freely, so does man as the image of God. Man therefore has a degree of dominion over his personal acts - and an accompanying responsibility for the consequences of his actions - that God endows via free will. For Aquinas then, the end of all human striving is to be union with God. He identifies then two types of action proper to human behavior.
The first type of action Aquinas identifies are what is called acts of a human being. These are things such as the growth of hair, the digestion of food, and natural breathing. These are acts that are intrinsic to our function and existence and are not subject to moral analysis as they are amoral actions - they just are. Also included in those are emotions ("passions") such as anger, which are also common to all human beings and are likewise not subject to this analysis - an emotion cannot be right or wrong, although it must be understood that actions resulting from emotions can be right or wrong. So then, emotions motivate action. Although imperfect due to the effects of the Fall, these things are not morally right or wrong in themselves.
The second type of action are what are classified as human acts. These proceed from individual reason and will. St. Augustine contends that moral acts and human acts are one and the same, a conclusion that Aquinas also concurs with. Aquinas further divides these acts into two categories. The first of these are interior acts, which lead the person toward or away from God based on influences within ourselves. The second are exterior acts, which lead the person toward or away from God based on an outside influence (in this case, God or Satan). Therefore, sinful acts lead a person away from God, and may be the result of both internal and external in tandem.
Aristotle also notes that there are actions to the sake of ends, meaning simply that the motivation of the act is toward something - if it is away from God then, it is toward eternal punishment, to put into the context of Christian theology. These are also characterized by actions that are "knowing willing," meaning that there must be an outward understanding of the action, as well as a knowledge of what could exist rather than what already does. The action then proceeds through willing, intention, consent, choice, command, and use.
In regard to the moral act itself, Pope St. John Paul II notes first that there is a solid relationship between man's freedom and God's law which is centered on moral conscience. This is manifested then and realized in human acts. The morality of the acts is defined by the relationship of man's freedom with the authentic good (ultimately God Himself) (VS 2:4). An action therefore is morally good when it entails choices of freedom that are in conformity with man's true good (again, God). This then means that, as we saw earlier, that there is a connection between morality and anagogy, and only an act in conformity with good can be a pathway to life.
In conclusion, the Christian life makes man aware, through God's revelation, of the newness which characterizes morality of action. Showing ourselves good in our works reflects the beauty of the image of Christ in us. It also ensures the ordering of human acts to God's will. As to the intention of the acting subject, there are circumstances in which the action takes place to be considered as well as resulting consequences. In other words, what we do has consequences, and therefore we have to discern our actions wisely, and be dependent on God for directing our actions.
So, that is it for this week, and will be back next time with the final question and its commentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Now that we have examined the story of Noah in-depth, what we begin to see as we launch into Genesis 10 is that the population begins to inc... -
In January 2010, I started Sacramental Present Truths as a platform for my own reflections and teachings on Biblical and theological issues...
-
I have mentioned earlier about the Highways and Hedges project, and as part of it I want to share the history of some oft-overlooked smaller...