"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the
creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship
with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life
from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance
claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human
being."
-CDF, instruction, Donum vitae, intro. 5. From the Catechism, entry 2258.
In
the Catholic Church, this is Respect Life Sunday, the beginning of
Respect Life Month. As my pastor said in his homily, it is tragic that
we even have to have a specific day set aside to respect something as
fundamental and sacred as life. But even the sacredness and inalienable
worth of all human life can be taken for granted. Many people assume its
truth, but unless one believes life is sacred, there is no
materialistic or compulsory reason to respect the value of life,
especially for its own sake apart from any benefit an individual gives
to you.
Respect for all life and their inalienable dignity is the
root of Christian charity, compassion and the tolerance of one's
enemies. Only with this belief are we able to pray for our enemies, as
Christ taught us to do. Without this belief, life is simply a jumble of
chemical floating in air. Nothing more.
The neurological,
evolutionary or sociological worth one can give to human life is
dependent on the actions of that life. If someone treats us wrongly, or
if one is unborn or in another vulnerable situation where they depend on
the charity of society, the value of life can quickly dissipate. When
the convenience or prosperity of others is threatened, life is easily
swept aside and killed. Valuing life based purely on the idea that "I
value my life, so I value others who may help my life", or for any other
pragmatic reason quickly goes away if someone wrongs you.
Today,
and this month, I ask us to reflect on the Nativity, Incarnation and
Crucifixion of Christ. By God Himself choosing to be born as a baby,
giving His life to the complete dependence of human beings, He gave
infinite value to babies, humanity, life, and the relationship between
vulnerable people and those who are responsible for their care - which
includes all humanity. By being Incarnate, Christ raised humanity above
all else in Creation as the pinnacle of His work and the very image of
Himself. He showed us our destiny in fulfilled by God, the Beatific
Vision. And by the sacrifice of His Crucifixion, Christ showed us the
true purpose of our lives: to give of ourselves.
Nothing is
sacrificed that is not valuable. Priests and monastics sacrifice
possessions not out of hate, but to give the highest thanks for God's
gifts, and they sacrifice sex and marriage not out of disgust or rebuke,
but because the Sacrament of Marriage is one of the greatest gifts of
God, and by sacrificing it they raise it up. They orient it towards its
origin, the Giver of all Worth: God. Accordingly, by sacrificing His
life, Christ raised the value and dignity of human life, from conception
to death, above all. Through the life of Christ, we are called to
value, respect and care for all life, especially the most vulnerable -
the unborn, babies, the elderly, the sick, etc. - through self-giving
and self-sacrifice.
I pray not only for those afflicted with the
evils perpetrated these days against human life, but even more so for
those who commit such atrocities. What pain and confusion must be in
their heart to inspire these grave sins, the complete depreciation of
human life and God's greatest gift to us - our very lives. I pray for
the fathers, mothers and doctors who choose to commit abortion, that
they may realize their grave errors and regain a true appreciation for
life and a willing to give of themselves in order to protect that life. I
pray for the families and doctors who elect to commit euthanasia, that
they may recognize how terribly they are abusing the responsibility
given to them to guard the lives of the elderly and patients under their
care, and that they may understand that even suffering cannot alienate
us from the dignity and value of our lives.
I pray for those who
want to give up their own lives, whether for euthanasia, assisted or
unassisted suicide, terrorists, or those who are giving their lives to
vain and misguided pursuits such as crime, violence, greed or hatred,
that they may soften their hearts, gain compassion for others and for
themselves, and see that nothing can ever separate us from the love of
God. I pray that all of the above may see the love of the Church for
them, and that those in the Church and in positions of authority may
love and respect all human life, recognizing it as a gift of God, to
cleanse their hearts of cynicism, hatred, indifference and confusion
which inspire this disrespect for life.
I ask for the
intercession of the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of all Life, to guide,
protect and heal those who are afflicted by any violence or who commit
violence themselves. I also ask for the intercession of Saint Michael
the Archangel, that he may defend all people against the temptations,
the confusion, the lusts, greed, hate, indifference and apathy which
Satan and his demonic minions afflicted on humanity. God bless.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Defining Tolerance
While the blending of races, cultures, genders, age groups and
nationalities, among other distinctions, has always existed, the
distinctions between them were more often pointed out than in modern
times. In ancient Greece, for example, the difference between a free
Greek male, an inferior Greek woman, a worthless slave and a barbaric
foreigner were very clear in their minds, for both the enforcers of that
mentality and the victims. But the activism of modern times has
inspired many to ignore those distinctions to the point that the social
scene of today's developed nations can consist of a Catholic Scottish
woman, a Lutheran white man from Missouri, a Rastafarian teenager from
Jamaica, and an atheist man from China, without any of them giving much
thought to their differences beyond mere curiosity or even admiration.
The ability of modern people to co-exist in such a way as this derives from the idea of tolerance. This is an oft-used word, often counted as the cornerstone of human rights, feminism, gay rights, religious coexistence, etc., but the reasons and specific uses of tolerance can become contradictory. Tolerance is usually considered to be mutual respect for the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and to be what they naturally are without judgment, ridicule or discrimination. An African-American atheist woman should, according to this definition, be respected for her atheism, her race, and her gender without anyone treating her in any negative way based on these factors. While this is certainly a good thing, there are three questions that, when unanswered (as they usually are) can cause many problems: 1. Why do people deserve this respect? 2. Should wrong things also be tolerated? 3. What exactly does tolerating someone involve on a practical level? I believe for true tolerance to exist, and to fix many of the errors that have arisen due to confusion with these questions, they must be answered.
1. Why do people deserve respect?
On the surface, this seems to be an easy-to-answer question, usually with human rights, dignity, freedom, and equality given as answers. But these things themselves are taken as presumed truths without any real justification. What we believe about the human person is very important to determining how we treat others. If I believe people's worth depends on how well they treat me, then I will be more likely to not tolerate those who offend or abuse me. And if I believe those who are different than me deserve punishment, I would find it immoral to tolerate them. Respect for others can rest on only one attribute: dignity, which is the quality of deserving respect.
But what grants dignity, and what are its qualifications? Human dignity cannot be seen simply by a biological examination of a homosapien. There is no part of our physiology that grants us dignity. Human dignity must be recognized by other human faculties, such as reason, faith, or feeling. Many derive their belief in human dignity from the simple intuition of their own worth. They fear abuse, and so believe abuse is wrong. Fearing retribution, they say it is wrong to disrespect others. But this is obviously very simplistic. Some part of the human person must be identified as the justification, if not the source, of our dignity, whether it be our consciousness, our individuality, our capacity for love or compassion, or our capacity for religiosity. Everyone who examines this idea beyond the simplistic intuition described above must make this decision, pinpointing the reason human beings deserve respect.
Beyond this, one must then identify the ultimate source of human dignity. If a specific human attribute make us deserving of dignity, something else must grant us that dignity. Often times, it is not taken this far. If consciousness makes us deserving of dignity, it is immediately assumed that we have dignity because we deserve it. But the physical human animal cannot give itself dignity. Even if we are capable of it, this power must derive from a larger source, unless human dignity is purely an illusion of self-worth or species preservation, in which case our dignity is not truly real. If we can give ourselves dignity, the human person must have a spiritual authority to elevate our mortal selves beyond the material of our bodies to something deserving of respect. If another spiritual force or entity is identified as the giver of our dignity, this must be explained - very few religions throughout history have believed in any supernatural entity which cared anything for humans, much less enough to grant us any real dignity.
For Catholicism, human dignity derives from the love of God. Within the context of His love and His creativity, we are given the dignity of a creature. But through Revelation, God has shown us even more. Humanity is not merely a creature of God - we are children of God, with an eternal soul made in His image. This raises human worth exponentially, for even the mirror reflection of God has more worth than any material creature. However, it is the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ which gave humanity ultimate and inalienable dignity. Now, our existence as body and soul, all our actions in life (spiritual or physical), and even our death has been raised to a divine level, sanctified by Christ.
2. Should wrongs also be respected?
This is perhaps an even more intriguing question than the first, and one just as often misunderstood and thus misapplied in relation to tolerance. As in many things, people tend to use tolerance in extremes - either complete acceptance of all wrongdoing, or violent hatred of acts believed to be wrong. Neither are in accordance with tolerance, which is neither accepting nor hateful by its definition. It must be understood that tolerance does not necessitate agreement on the part of the tolerating person. For example, one must not necessarily believe the gay lifestyle to be moral for one to be able to tolerate gay people. However, it is common amongst gay activists in modern times to be of the opinion that any disagreement with the gay lifestyle, even made in a polite and tolerating manner, is slanderous, defamatory and a violation of the human rights of gay people. Accordingly, religious people, whether in a spirit of charity or hate, can believe that to tolerate the gay lifestyle means accepting it as morally permissible, to create injustice in doing so, and to harm gay people by approving of their sins. Neither positions are true tolerance.
Again, this particular issue goes back to the question of the source of human dignity - why should people be respected? However, this question takes it a step further - is human dignity inalienable? Can a specific condition, choice or belief of an individual remove or lessen the respect they deserve, and does human life deserve respect throughout its life or only at certain times and to certain extents? I believe this is a question that fundamentally divides many groups in modern times, and has in different ways throughout history. If human dignity is based on a specific quality of the human person, such as consciousness, breathing, moral choices, etc., our dignity becomes alienable. For example, if human dignity is based on consciousness, then the unborn fetus (especially at certain trimester developmental states), the vegetative or extremely mentally retarded patient, or other with limited or no consciousness can have their dignity taken away from them. Thus is one justification for abortion and euthanasia. These qualifications often involve further stipulations, such as the idea that the potential for or past existence of consciousness gives people the same dignity as the normal conscious person. But in all these cases, there are situations where human dignity can go away.
This idea is often more subtle than such an intellectual level as this. When we treat others differently when they abuse us, we do not give them the same respect we would someone who treats us well. Thus, the dignity of abusive people is removed or lessened by their actions. This is very common, often unnoticed on an intellectual level, but it is very important to the practice of tolerance. Answering this question, whether and how human dignity can be removed or lessened, depends on the beliefs of the individual.
The idea that people who do wrong things should not be tolerated for their own good, but rather should be punished, derives from a misunderstanding of tolerance, as well as the error of taking justice into one's own hands and believing that a wrong response to wrongdoing is justified by the other person's sin. If someone is doing something wrong, if I ridicule them or gossip about them, I may do so out of a desire to point out their errors and correct them. However, the gravest sins can often lie beneath the purest excuses. If someone can be treated with disrespect, then their dignity is alienable, regardless of the justifications given. No sin someone can do can justify treating them without dignity. On the other hand, tolerance does not remove or replace justice. Even though I may not ridicule, hate or judge someone for their choices, if their actions are deemed wrong or criminal, they will face consequences. This does not remove freedom or dignity - in fact, it respects it. By never punishing anyone for their wrong choices, we are not respecting their freedom, but rather treating them as helpless and unaware, as if their choices were not made intentionally or freely. Justice affirms freedom; it does not disrespect it or human dignity.
Accordingly, that which people do not choose - such as race, gender, age, etc. - are even more dependent on respect than an individual's choices. It is very easy and all-too-natural to prefer one's own likeness. Many do this, even unconsciously. If I am a straight, white, southern American, Christian male, then I have a tendency to like those who share those traits. This can also be applied to a gay, English, atheist woman, or anyone else. While people do choose the gay lifestyle, homosexuality is not chosen; nor are race, age, etc. To treat people as if they are inferior (or even superior) based on these traits is an infringement on human dignity and contradicts tolerance. By giving moral guilt to people for things they did not choose contradicts freedom, equality and justice, accordingly violating human dignity. It is gravely disrespectful and is both immoral and criminal. But, this is based on the idea that human dignity is constant and inalienable. Variations on this belief are the main cause of intolerance, especially for conditions a person does not choose, such as race, gender, etc.
3. What does tolerating someone involve on a practical, daily level?
This is perhaps the most difficult question of the three, for me at least, as my mind tends more towards the intellectual and philosophical than the practical. But I firmly believe that the practical derives from and depends on one's beliefs. As I said above, tolerance is neither acceptance nor a violation of justice. I believe the idea of tolerance is the greatest achievement of modern democratic culture, but in modern times its application has become skewed, perhaps from the growth in liberal political ideology in modern times, particularly visible in Europe. If human dignity depends on the conditions of a political or economic ideology, when those conditions are not met, that dignity quickly disappears.
As I said above, tolerance is not agreement - it is respect. When we encounter those who make choices we disagree with, tolerating it can be difficult. We naturally feel that we should correct them persistently, punish them in some way, or at least marginalize them. While it can be respectful to correct someone, once is sufficient - doing so continuously disrespects their freedom and attempts to force ourselves on them. To tolerate these people, we must treat them just as well as we would anyone else, with respect, compassion, attention and honor. We must not ridicule their wrong choices, only giving our straightforward belief about it when asked, with calm and without pride. Even in our mind, we must not deride others whom we may disagree with. As Catholics, we believe human dignity is God-given and inalienable, as is freedom and equality. Thus, our mind should also be pure and respectful.
However, it must be understood that not everyone to whom we give respect and tolerance will respond accordingly. Nor will they stop their actions, or keep it private. Often, they will do the opposite. By nature, people desire to love and be loved, as is our God-given purpose. When people are wraithed by sin, the loneliness, sadness, and anger (towards themselves, others and God) is very deep and potent. We are all sinners, and as participants, we should all be able to understand this state. All of us have a great dirty treasure in our hearts, sins for which we cannot shun our affection, despite the pain it gives us. People, especially after learning that we disagree with their actions, will often try to justify themselves, whether rationally or vehemently. They will also ignore our corrections, and even take offense at them, calling us judgmental or intolerant. Which, as I have explained, is untrue, but unless they are acting rationally, there is no use trying to explain this to them. It is also common for them to push it in our faces, specifically telling us what they are doing or taking part in, out of a desire for approval, attention, for us to join in their sin, or even for our disapproval, acting as a masochistic self-punishment for them and thus merely compounding their imprisonment in sin. It is best to smile, nod, and continue acting kindly and respectfully, regardless of what they do.
Tolerance, like all human actions, can be easily corrupted. We must be mindful to keep it true, pure and to practice it consistently. We must also examine what we truly believe about human dignity, whether our beliefs are founded on preference, reason or sentiment, and we must also continually assure that our practice of tolerance is moderate, without extremism, rooted in genuine respect for the dignity of other human beings as well as ourselves. Otherwise, tolerance can disappear in this world easily and quietly as the spark of a candle.
God bless.
The ability of modern people to co-exist in such a way as this derives from the idea of tolerance. This is an oft-used word, often counted as the cornerstone of human rights, feminism, gay rights, religious coexistence, etc., but the reasons and specific uses of tolerance can become contradictory. Tolerance is usually considered to be mutual respect for the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and to be what they naturally are without judgment, ridicule or discrimination. An African-American atheist woman should, according to this definition, be respected for her atheism, her race, and her gender without anyone treating her in any negative way based on these factors. While this is certainly a good thing, there are three questions that, when unanswered (as they usually are) can cause many problems: 1. Why do people deserve this respect? 2. Should wrong things also be tolerated? 3. What exactly does tolerating someone involve on a practical level? I believe for true tolerance to exist, and to fix many of the errors that have arisen due to confusion with these questions, they must be answered.
1. Why do people deserve respect?
On the surface, this seems to be an easy-to-answer question, usually with human rights, dignity, freedom, and equality given as answers. But these things themselves are taken as presumed truths without any real justification. What we believe about the human person is very important to determining how we treat others. If I believe people's worth depends on how well they treat me, then I will be more likely to not tolerate those who offend or abuse me. And if I believe those who are different than me deserve punishment, I would find it immoral to tolerate them. Respect for others can rest on only one attribute: dignity, which is the quality of deserving respect.
But what grants dignity, and what are its qualifications? Human dignity cannot be seen simply by a biological examination of a homosapien. There is no part of our physiology that grants us dignity. Human dignity must be recognized by other human faculties, such as reason, faith, or feeling. Many derive their belief in human dignity from the simple intuition of their own worth. They fear abuse, and so believe abuse is wrong. Fearing retribution, they say it is wrong to disrespect others. But this is obviously very simplistic. Some part of the human person must be identified as the justification, if not the source, of our dignity, whether it be our consciousness, our individuality, our capacity for love or compassion, or our capacity for religiosity. Everyone who examines this idea beyond the simplistic intuition described above must make this decision, pinpointing the reason human beings deserve respect.
Beyond this, one must then identify the ultimate source of human dignity. If a specific human attribute make us deserving of dignity, something else must grant us that dignity. Often times, it is not taken this far. If consciousness makes us deserving of dignity, it is immediately assumed that we have dignity because we deserve it. But the physical human animal cannot give itself dignity. Even if we are capable of it, this power must derive from a larger source, unless human dignity is purely an illusion of self-worth or species preservation, in which case our dignity is not truly real. If we can give ourselves dignity, the human person must have a spiritual authority to elevate our mortal selves beyond the material of our bodies to something deserving of respect. If another spiritual force or entity is identified as the giver of our dignity, this must be explained - very few religions throughout history have believed in any supernatural entity which cared anything for humans, much less enough to grant us any real dignity.
For Catholicism, human dignity derives from the love of God. Within the context of His love and His creativity, we are given the dignity of a creature. But through Revelation, God has shown us even more. Humanity is not merely a creature of God - we are children of God, with an eternal soul made in His image. This raises human worth exponentially, for even the mirror reflection of God has more worth than any material creature. However, it is the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ which gave humanity ultimate and inalienable dignity. Now, our existence as body and soul, all our actions in life (spiritual or physical), and even our death has been raised to a divine level, sanctified by Christ.
2. Should wrongs also be respected?
This is perhaps an even more intriguing question than the first, and one just as often misunderstood and thus misapplied in relation to tolerance. As in many things, people tend to use tolerance in extremes - either complete acceptance of all wrongdoing, or violent hatred of acts believed to be wrong. Neither are in accordance with tolerance, which is neither accepting nor hateful by its definition. It must be understood that tolerance does not necessitate agreement on the part of the tolerating person. For example, one must not necessarily believe the gay lifestyle to be moral for one to be able to tolerate gay people. However, it is common amongst gay activists in modern times to be of the opinion that any disagreement with the gay lifestyle, even made in a polite and tolerating manner, is slanderous, defamatory and a violation of the human rights of gay people. Accordingly, religious people, whether in a spirit of charity or hate, can believe that to tolerate the gay lifestyle means accepting it as morally permissible, to create injustice in doing so, and to harm gay people by approving of their sins. Neither positions are true tolerance.
Again, this particular issue goes back to the question of the source of human dignity - why should people be respected? However, this question takes it a step further - is human dignity inalienable? Can a specific condition, choice or belief of an individual remove or lessen the respect they deserve, and does human life deserve respect throughout its life or only at certain times and to certain extents? I believe this is a question that fundamentally divides many groups in modern times, and has in different ways throughout history. If human dignity is based on a specific quality of the human person, such as consciousness, breathing, moral choices, etc., our dignity becomes alienable. For example, if human dignity is based on consciousness, then the unborn fetus (especially at certain trimester developmental states), the vegetative or extremely mentally retarded patient, or other with limited or no consciousness can have their dignity taken away from them. Thus is one justification for abortion and euthanasia. These qualifications often involve further stipulations, such as the idea that the potential for or past existence of consciousness gives people the same dignity as the normal conscious person. But in all these cases, there are situations where human dignity can go away.
This idea is often more subtle than such an intellectual level as this. When we treat others differently when they abuse us, we do not give them the same respect we would someone who treats us well. Thus, the dignity of abusive people is removed or lessened by their actions. This is very common, often unnoticed on an intellectual level, but it is very important to the practice of tolerance. Answering this question, whether and how human dignity can be removed or lessened, depends on the beliefs of the individual.
The idea that people who do wrong things should not be tolerated for their own good, but rather should be punished, derives from a misunderstanding of tolerance, as well as the error of taking justice into one's own hands and believing that a wrong response to wrongdoing is justified by the other person's sin. If someone is doing something wrong, if I ridicule them or gossip about them, I may do so out of a desire to point out their errors and correct them. However, the gravest sins can often lie beneath the purest excuses. If someone can be treated with disrespect, then their dignity is alienable, regardless of the justifications given. No sin someone can do can justify treating them without dignity. On the other hand, tolerance does not remove or replace justice. Even though I may not ridicule, hate or judge someone for their choices, if their actions are deemed wrong or criminal, they will face consequences. This does not remove freedom or dignity - in fact, it respects it. By never punishing anyone for their wrong choices, we are not respecting their freedom, but rather treating them as helpless and unaware, as if their choices were not made intentionally or freely. Justice affirms freedom; it does not disrespect it or human dignity.
Accordingly, that which people do not choose - such as race, gender, age, etc. - are even more dependent on respect than an individual's choices. It is very easy and all-too-natural to prefer one's own likeness. Many do this, even unconsciously. If I am a straight, white, southern American, Christian male, then I have a tendency to like those who share those traits. This can also be applied to a gay, English, atheist woman, or anyone else. While people do choose the gay lifestyle, homosexuality is not chosen; nor are race, age, etc. To treat people as if they are inferior (or even superior) based on these traits is an infringement on human dignity and contradicts tolerance. By giving moral guilt to people for things they did not choose contradicts freedom, equality and justice, accordingly violating human dignity. It is gravely disrespectful and is both immoral and criminal. But, this is based on the idea that human dignity is constant and inalienable. Variations on this belief are the main cause of intolerance, especially for conditions a person does not choose, such as race, gender, etc.
3. What does tolerating someone involve on a practical, daily level?
This is perhaps the most difficult question of the three, for me at least, as my mind tends more towards the intellectual and philosophical than the practical. But I firmly believe that the practical derives from and depends on one's beliefs. As I said above, tolerance is neither acceptance nor a violation of justice. I believe the idea of tolerance is the greatest achievement of modern democratic culture, but in modern times its application has become skewed, perhaps from the growth in liberal political ideology in modern times, particularly visible in Europe. If human dignity depends on the conditions of a political or economic ideology, when those conditions are not met, that dignity quickly disappears.
As I said above, tolerance is not agreement - it is respect. When we encounter those who make choices we disagree with, tolerating it can be difficult. We naturally feel that we should correct them persistently, punish them in some way, or at least marginalize them. While it can be respectful to correct someone, once is sufficient - doing so continuously disrespects their freedom and attempts to force ourselves on them. To tolerate these people, we must treat them just as well as we would anyone else, with respect, compassion, attention and honor. We must not ridicule their wrong choices, only giving our straightforward belief about it when asked, with calm and without pride. Even in our mind, we must not deride others whom we may disagree with. As Catholics, we believe human dignity is God-given and inalienable, as is freedom and equality. Thus, our mind should also be pure and respectful.
However, it must be understood that not everyone to whom we give respect and tolerance will respond accordingly. Nor will they stop their actions, or keep it private. Often, they will do the opposite. By nature, people desire to love and be loved, as is our God-given purpose. When people are wraithed by sin, the loneliness, sadness, and anger (towards themselves, others and God) is very deep and potent. We are all sinners, and as participants, we should all be able to understand this state. All of us have a great dirty treasure in our hearts, sins for which we cannot shun our affection, despite the pain it gives us. People, especially after learning that we disagree with their actions, will often try to justify themselves, whether rationally or vehemently. They will also ignore our corrections, and even take offense at them, calling us judgmental or intolerant. Which, as I have explained, is untrue, but unless they are acting rationally, there is no use trying to explain this to them. It is also common for them to push it in our faces, specifically telling us what they are doing or taking part in, out of a desire for approval, attention, for us to join in their sin, or even for our disapproval, acting as a masochistic self-punishment for them and thus merely compounding their imprisonment in sin. It is best to smile, nod, and continue acting kindly and respectfully, regardless of what they do.
Tolerance, like all human actions, can be easily corrupted. We must be mindful to keep it true, pure and to practice it consistently. We must also examine what we truly believe about human dignity, whether our beliefs are founded on preference, reason or sentiment, and we must also continually assure that our practice of tolerance is moderate, without extremism, rooted in genuine respect for the dignity of other human beings as well as ourselves. Otherwise, tolerance can disappear in this world easily and quietly as the spark of a candle.
God bless.
The Great Struggle
The Second Vatican Council, which took place between late 1962 and 1968,
was perhaps the most revolutionary event in Church history, at least
since the age of the Church Fathers. It represented a culmination of
ideas and conflicts that had existed in the Church since the
Renaissance, intended to address the issues raised during this period up
into the 1960s. In a sense, it was a completion of this attempt that
had begun with the First Vatican Council in the late 1860s. (1,2) During
that time, from 1500-1960, there had been innumerable oppositions to
the Church and Her teachings, including the Reformation, the advent of
scientific materialism and atheism, the rise of various ideological
economic systems such as socialism, capitalism, Communism and fascism,
and the "modernist" trend which arose in the early 20th century that
attempted to dispel the constant nature of Catholic Tradition, many
long-held view of biblical exegesis, and many other teachings of the
Church. (3) The conflict that existed during this period of time
continues to this day, dividing not only those in the Church but in all
the West and those parts of the world affected by Western culture. With
the contemporary tension with Islam, it has rose to the forefront of
people's attention.
I believe there is no better way to understand the present than to study the past, nor is there any better way to predict the future than by understanding its preceding influences. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive historical study. Rather, it is intended to be a study of the ideas, movements, philosophies and events that have come to shape the state of religion and belief in the modern world.
The aforementioned conflict within the post-medieval West is centered on two worldviews in direct opposition to one another: what I will call Progressive (referring to the way they view themselves; outsiders might call them "liberal" or more pejorative terms), and what I will call Conservative, though these are not meant to be concrete usages. It consists of a specific type of spirit, common to all those who participate in it despite any differences of culture, religion or time period they may have: the spirit of change. Progressives believe (or feel) that preexisting social, religious, economic, or any other structures need to be changed, often with the attitude that any change would be for the better. This spirit is often distinctly negative or pessimistic, viewing current and past aspects of society as essentially flawed or even corrupt, unworthy of improvement, only replacement. (see endnote 5)
There have been many different expressions of the Progressive worldview over the past five centuries, to varying degrees. At the end of the Middle Ages, particularly at the time of the Plague, Europe began to doubt the traditions they had held since the fall of Rome and even before, especially their Catholicism, their monarchies, their feudal systems, and their essential belief that tradition, heritage and other constants in life (particularly those based on the past) are the basis of identity and strength. I have espoused elsewhere that the mass panic, desperation and tragedy of the Black Plague was the primary catalyst of this doubt. (4)
In the Renaissance (14th to 17th centuries), the spirit of change blossomed. At first, it was very small, taking the form of a rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman practices, particularly in art and government. While this had occurred to some degree in the past, many Renaissance leaders, primarily out of a sense of nostalgia (5), did not merely want to build upon the past - they wanted to completely discard and replace it. Thus, this was a major step in the Progressive movement. However, the greatest steps occurred a bit later in the Renaissance, with the Protestant Reformation (or Revolution would be more appropriate), the rise of modern science, and the beginning of mercantile. Each of these were decisive deviations from medieval models of religion, science and economics. With the dispersion of power these three brought, lending more power to secular authorities, a governmental change soon developed: absolute monarchies. (6,7) Royalty in the Middle Ages was distinct in many ways from those of the Renaissance. Medieval monarchs were not the absolute standard for their own actions - they were expected to be holy, according to Catholic teaching, to be exemplars to their people of a true and virtuous leader. If they were not, they could be deposed and replaced. Absolute monarchy abolished this, however, granting Renaissance monarchs ultimate power and authority over their subjects.
This absolute monarchy was paralleled by another governmental change in the Renaissance: secular, republican governmental institutions. While many monarchs gained more power, many governments also began to institute various councils, parliaments, constitutions and similar political and legal constructs that either did not exist or were less influential in government before. In the Middle Ages, the word "state" was never applied to a country - all nations were kingdoms, founded on the religious and cultural heritage and identity of the peoples within it. But in the Renaissance, nations became more secular, defining themselves more by their political, economic, and military actions and their differences with other nations.
Religion was one of the most influential changes in the Renaissance - not only in name, but in worldview and inspiration. Previously, for the greater part of history throughout the world, religion was based on three specific ideas: tradition, sacrifice, and imagination. The vast majority of pre-Renaissance religions viewed humanity as unworthy and impure, requiring vicarious sacrifice to make us holy before the Divine. Their understanding of the nature of the divine and earthly realms was transmitted via tradition, based upon historical revelations, mystical experiences and teachings of wisdom safeguarded by the priests and authorities in the religion. The constant, uniform nature of this tradition and the holy authority of the religious leaders was the foundation of tradition. The basis of daily liturgy and religious ceremony was imagination, using imagery, symbolism, language, music and rituals to see the invisible spiritual realities of existence and to interact with them. (8)
Catholicism in the Middle Ages exemplified these tenets. Combining constant Tradition, the authority of the clergy and papacy, the sacrificial quality of the Mass and Christian suffering, and the use of sacramental imagination, the medieval Church was very traditional. In the Renaissance, these fundamental qualities of religion came into doubt, in various ways and to varying degrees. Some Protestants viewed the use of imagery, symbolism and ordered rituals as idolatry or superstition; some viewed the sacrificial quality of the Mass as erroneous, unbiblical or superstitious, especially the teaching of transubstantiation; some dismissed or derided the authority of the clergy and papacy as contrary to the Bible, citing the corruption of some priests, popes and religious as examples of the inability of corrupt humans to properly use such authority; and some dismissed the idea of Tradition. They replaced these with many ideas, including a centralization of the Bible as the sole authority, various new understandings of the Eucharist (ranging from consubstantiation, which definitively removed its sacrificial character, to communion as a mere community tradition), replacing the Pope with secular authorities (Anglican) or individual religious figures (Luther, Calvin) and their teachings, and transforming the clergy into a religious function without sacramental power. The uniformity and order of the Church was largely replaced by disparate religious movements and positions within Protestantism. (9)
I list all these changes to emphasize the fact that the Progressive movement was the central innovation of the Renaissance and has increased in influence and scope ever since. It continued until Christianity was splintered into thousands of disparate religious groups, government became a loose and ephemeral collection of representatives, law became sway to the political and cultural preferences of the times, and the arts were reduced to originality for its own sake, forsaking all meaning or reason unto the absurd and debased, all driven by the belief that all change is progress for the good.
This Progressive worldview has been historically countered by the Conservative worldview. I have already described its state prior to the Renaissance, if that state could truly be called Conservative since the impact of deviating socio-economic and religious movements was quickly dealt with with little residual effect (though this could be doubted). Conservatism largely began in the Renaissance in opposition to the Progressive movement. At first, many traditionalists who still held on to the medieval worldview embraced many aspects of the Renaissance, such as the rejuvenation of the positive aspects of Antiquity, such as their art and science, and the ideas of Catholic humanism. (10) But Protestantism brought into focus the conflict of worldviews that had insidiously begun at the end of the Middle Ages and the challenge traditionalists faced for the future.
Due to its essential attributes, Conservatism changed very little in worldview over time. The most significant change they expressed between 1500 and 1960 was the transformation of some Progressive groups into Conservative forms, such as some Protestant denominations and some forms of capitalism. The Conservative movement is centered on the belief that change for its own sake is not true progress, that the past should be built upon and not discarded. This leads naturally to an embrace of many ancient socio-economic and religious structures, such as monarchies, agrarian economies, and medieval Catholicism, though this is more true of Conservative Catholics than for all Conservatives.
Over time, as Western society continually changed, for better or worse, under the ruling spirit of Progress, Conservatives took on a highly defensive stance, rooting themselves ever deeper in their long-held traditions and beliefs, whatever form those took. By the beginning of the 20th century, Progress had become the dominant position of the West, especially in Europe, as new and ever more powerful technological, scientific, political, economic and spiritual innovations were readily embraced, including machines, atomic physics, eugenics, democratic republics, socialism, communism, fascism and atheism, all promising an ideological utopia of the future. They believed that by deviating more and more from ancient traditions and instituting various socio-economic ideologies, the causes of evil would be demolished and all people would live happy, successful and moral lives. (11) This was the dominant mindset of the time.
Conservatives saw this "progress" as leading inevitably towards an apocalyptic collapse of a society that built ever higher towers without any foundation. (12) As these changes continued, Conservatives embraced their traditions ever more heartily, distrusting any semblance of "modernism" and the Progressive worldview. The two World Wars were to Conservatives a horrifying affirmation of their worst fears as to the ultimate result of Progressive change. In their wake, Progressives were greatly undermined, and not for over a decade would they regain a strong foothold in society.
The first half of the 20th century brought another challenge to Conservatives, however, particularly for Catholics - a challenge from within. At this time, many Catholic academic scholars and theologians, including some Church officials, were beginning to doubt that Tradition was truly perfect or constant, that the central dogmas of the Bible were historically true (such as the Fall and the supernatural events of the life of Christ), and several moral teachings of the Church, effectively succumbing to the Progressive influence which had long dominated academic circles. (13) Catholics outside these circles grew in fear, believing the Progressive threat had taken a hold within the Church by persuading many of its own members to treason against traditional Catholic values and beliefs.
This conflict came to a head in the 1960s, at the Second Vatican Council. This Council was called to address the issues raised by the Progressives - not to automatically dismiss them, or to immediately accept them, but rather to use them as opportunities to reaffirm, clarify and open up aspects of Catholicism that, over the centuries-long battle with the Progressives, had become too stale, defensive and routine. Since the Reformation, Catholicism had become more Roman than Catholic. More concern was placed on the appearance of things than the reasons or meaning behind them. The cultural expressions of the Church were held higher than the actual truths and spirituality of Catholicism. Many things that were emphasized by Protestants and modernists, such as the Bible and science, were largely ignored by Catholics as a defensive measure against the Progressives' assault. I do not intend to say that the Progressive movement was not attacking traditional Catholicism. Truly, I believe that was one of the central intents of that movement, and remains a uniting feature of Progressives even today, though it has now taken on a more indifferent or dismissive tone. Nor do I mean to demean the state of the Church between the Reformation and Vatican II, or to apply my assertions about it to all Catholics of that period. But Vatican II wanted to heal the damage done by that struggle, returning Catholic universality to the Church.
Endnotes (I do not claim to agree with all of the statements made in my cited sources)
1. Bokenkotter, Thomas (2005). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Image. pp. 337. ISBN 0385516134.
2. Hahnenberg, Edward (2007). A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II. City: Saint Anthony Messenger Press. pp. 44. ISBN 0867165529.
3. For general information on Catholic modernism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29
4. My article, "The Birth of Modernity Part 1", p. 3 of my gallery here. I cannot find my other sources on this view of the Plague, though there are many books about it. For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death
5. Huizanga, Johan, The Waning of the Middle Ages (1919, trans. 1924)
6. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/absolutism.html
7. http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/louisxiv.html
8. See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Spirit of the Liturgy", for much more information on these ideas.
9. For more information on Protestantism, see: http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/mtsmodular/reading-rooms/history/16th-century and Belloc, Hilaire (1928). How the Reformation Happened. Tan Books & Publishing. ISBN 0-89555-465-8. (a Catholic perspective; reprinted 2009)
10. For more on humanism: http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/h/humanism.html
11. See the works of Francis Bacon, Karl Marx, Hitler, and various other social, moral and political philosophers from the mid-19th century through to the early 20th century.
12. See the philosophical works of Hilaire Beloc, G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and others from the early 20th century.
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29
Part Two
Although many different philosophies, worldviews and ideologies have been prominent at various times through history, often conflicting with an opposite set of ideas, the forces of history are both higher and more open than this. There are two forces that determine the course of history: spiritual realities, and human freedom. St. Augustine understood this and went to great lengths to explain it. (1) Ideas and movements are merely the expression of these two forces. Ideas are never inherently evil - they express the sinful heart of those who invent and hold such ideas. Thus, the Progressive and Conservative models I used in the first part of this essay are only models. In modern times, there are far too many attempts to apply some conspiracy of ideologies onto history when in truth, history is much more developmental and rational, at once mundane and spiritual.
There are virtues and faults to both the Progressive and Conservative models. As Catholics, our sight goes beyond the perspectives of cultural figures, even saints. We look ever towards God's truth, wherever and by whomever it is communicated. As St. Paul said, "Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5) (2) As St. Justin Martyr said, "All truth is mine." The spiritual forces of good and evil transcend human ideas and thus influence the development of history far more than any human idea could. One could say, for example, that the 20th century had such a great deal of atrocities as it did because of the promulgation of violent political and economic ideologies, or because of the power and influence held by certain despotic tyrants, or because of extreme advancements in military technology we could not control, etc., when in truth these were mere expressions of the sin in this world and the sin human beings are capable of choosing, as we have been since our earliest days. It is thus a fallacy to assign the strict and decisive label of good or evil to any particular set of ideas, even something like fascism. Unless an idea is merely a statement of one's evil intentions, all ideas contain both good and evil. We can learn something from everything.
The Renaissance was not an abrupt break with the Middle Ages, without any connection or shared worldview, nor did the end of Rome signal the "Dark Ages" as many past scholars fallaciously label the early Middle Ages. History develops, as individual human lives develop - it does not run in sudden, drastic changes unrelated to past conditions. The Progressive and Conservative movements were not large conspiratorial ideologies which were spawned by some evil at the heart of the Renaissance. No - both developed out of the Middle Ages and were merely ideas expressed by the people of that time, in response to their experiences and based on their own inner thoughts and feelings, their choices and the choices of others.
There is both good and bad in both of these movements. This was the primary mindset of Vatican II. The Council was the attempt to put into practice St. Paul's aforementioned teaching. They desired to test both movements, to sift out the impurities and incorporate the good remainder into the larger truth of Catholicism. I believe they accomplished this with resounding success which has yet to be fully appreciated, like Trent which preceded it. But were people exempt from interpreting and using Vatican II for their own ends? Of course not. Since the Council, there have been a mixture of good and bad interpretations and applications of its principles. The bad still linger and the Church has tried very hard to amend them, one of these attempts (and a very successful attempt I would add) being the recent new translation of the Mass.
Many have perceived the new translation and other such works by the Church to repair errors that have appeared since Vatican II as the result of Vatican II itself. To them, Vatican II itself was an error and the Church is now trying to fix the Council itself. Using the Latin missal as the basis of the new translation thus comes as no surprise to a traditionalist of this persuasion, who would see the new translation as merely going back to the original, true, pre-Vatican II format. Of course, this is not true. The same Church that instituted the new Tridentine Mass at Trent in the 1500s is the same Church Magisterium that instituted the changes at Vatican II with no less authority and no greater degree of deviation from preexisting forms.
Trent was a response to its times, just as Vatican II was. Both Councils used the issues raised by both critics and conservatives of their respective times as grounds for improving the Church - not its fundamental, unchanging and unchangeable dogmas and institutions, but the way these are expressed, understood and promulgated in the world, these being open to change as the Church grows. The Catholic Church is not stagnant. Like its ancestor the Jewish Church, its wisdom grows over time even as its underlying truths of God are changeless. The history of Church doctrine and practice between the Ascension of Christ and the 5th century can clearly show this. Despite the claims of some Protestants, this growth is not wrong, nor is the participation of human reason and creativity in the Church wrong. We cannot corrupt the truths of God's Revelation that form the heart of the Church.
Like the Protestant Reformers, the points made by those of the Progressive movement were not entirely wrong or unfounded. They raised issues that the Church of both time periods had overlooked or misunderstood. But, like their more conservative brethren, as humans they were vulnerable to going to extremes, and so both the Reformers and Modernists ultimately abandoned the Church in favor of their own minds. This departure from the Church was a large factor in the completely negative response of conservatives and their general ignoring of the issues both groups had tried to point out. However, just as the Reformation was followed by the Counter-Reformation and Council of Trent which tried to answer and repair the issues the Protestants had raised, the Church since World War II attempted to do the same with the ideas of Modernism, Vatican II being the summit of this attempt. Furthermore, both Councils were not only attempting to address the issues of critics within the Church, but also the issues predominant in the culture of the times, whether posed to the Church directly or not.
The ideas prevalent at the time of Vatican II, ideas still very central to society today, primarily center on three issues: the spiritual and historical nature of Sacred Scripture; the connection between the supernatural and natural realms of existence; and the meaning and nature of Catholic morality and the life of a Catholic in the modern world. The sixteen documents of Vatican II dealt with these three issues exceptionally well, in keeping with constant Tradition and the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine and spirituality as transmitted over two thousand years. Dei Verbum, the constitution on Divine Revelation, effectively answered the issues raised concerning Scripture. Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the Sacred Liturgy), Lumen Gentium (on the Church), and Nostra Aetate (on Non-Christian Religions) were wonderful answers to the questions of the connection between the spiritual and natural worlds. The other documents produced by Vatican II were in-depth answers to the life of a Catholic in the world today, based on the truths of the Church as well as the new conditions and dilemmas Catholics face in the modern world, especially the role and vocation of priests, bishops and laity (3), and the general role of the Church in the modern world with perhaps the greatest document of the Council, Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World). With these documents, the Council laid the foundation for the Church of the future.
Since Vatican II, many issues have developed, progressions of many problems that existed before the Council as well as new dilemmas, both in and outside the Church. Naturally, the use of vernacular languages in the Mass rather than the uniform use of Latin as in the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass caused many problems and was perhaps the most difficult change for many devout Catholics at the time. Not only did the use of vernacular languages give the Mass a more "common" or profane feel to traditional Catholics - the specific translations made immediately after Vatican II were rushed and were also generally less intelligent, devout and faithful to the Latin than they should have been. In a world full of profanity and sin, the use of Latin in the Mass gave it a distinctly sacred, Heavenly feel, set apart from the world. However, because of this many Catholics lost sight of the fact that remains the official language of the Church, just as the Vulgate remains Her official Bible.
The use of vernacular languages in daily Mass does not remove sacredness, nor does it make us any less Roman. Truly, the Mass was not always uniformly in Latin. Greek was in fact the earliest Church language. But the Church has always understood that the specific words used in Mass, the way they are delivered, is the true merit of the Latin missal, not the fact that it is Latin. Furthermore, as with the allowance of married deacons to still become priests in the Eastern Rite, the use of vernacular is an allowance, not a mandate, nor a supplanting of the high place of Latin in the Church. Any parish who desires a Latin Mass may receive one. The Council did not change anything they were not allowed to. No fundamental, unchangeable doctrine of the Church was altered by the Council, only that which was open to growth - namely, the expressions of the Church in the world through the Liturgy, and the Church's understanding of various points of revelation, such as the factual historicity of the Bible and its inerrancy.
Since the Council, there has developed a significant new worldview that is quickly spreading from the West throughout the world. This worldview is characterized by a hunger for truth and honesty. This hunger can lead to many sources for sustenance, whether atheistic, pagan or Catholic. But, indeed, it can lead to Catholicism, as we are the only bearers of the fullness of God's Truth in the world. As we work to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the Church, the world and our own lives, we must strive to address the specific issues raised by our own ever-changing times, meeting people on their own level and seeing the good in the questions people raise, without generalizing, judging or focusing entirely on the negatives and extremities people often fall into. Further, we must try to bridge the gap between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II. We are not two different Churches. There is one Church as there is one Shepherd, one Truth and one God. We are just as Roman as they were, and we must work to affirm this fact and to reconnect us with our Roman Catholic heritage and tradition, in devotion, faith and love, ever working to be witnesses to the world and to one another in the Church.
This article is not intended to be an in-depth study of Vatican II. I freely admit to lacking the academic knowledge and skill to accomplish such a thing, nor do I see the need to do so considering the many excellent books out there about it. (4) I merely intended to survey the ideas that led into and developed out of the Council. I pray that my attempt may bring some benefit to whoever should read it, and I pray that all who are splintered out from the Faith may return to it in full communion, not letting their doubts, fear and questions separate them from the one true Church, rather using those issues to strengthen and clarify Her ever more.
God bless.
Endnotes
1. See St. Augustine, "The City of God", for his in-depth extrapolation of these ideas and his application of them to history and spirituality.
2. Quoted from http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/121111.cfm
3. See Christus Dominus (on Bishops), Perfectae Caritatis (on The Renewal of Religious Life), Optatum Totius (On the Training of Priests), Presbyterorum Ordinis (On the Ministry and Life of Priests), and Apostolicam Actuositatem (On the Apostolate of the Laity) for further information.
4. I especially like "What Happened At Vatican II?" by John W. O'Malley, copyright 2008, published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University.
I believe there is no better way to understand the present than to study the past, nor is there any better way to predict the future than by understanding its preceding influences. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive historical study. Rather, it is intended to be a study of the ideas, movements, philosophies and events that have come to shape the state of religion and belief in the modern world.
The aforementioned conflict within the post-medieval West is centered on two worldviews in direct opposition to one another: what I will call Progressive (referring to the way they view themselves; outsiders might call them "liberal" or more pejorative terms), and what I will call Conservative, though these are not meant to be concrete usages. It consists of a specific type of spirit, common to all those who participate in it despite any differences of culture, religion or time period they may have: the spirit of change. Progressives believe (or feel) that preexisting social, religious, economic, or any other structures need to be changed, often with the attitude that any change would be for the better. This spirit is often distinctly negative or pessimistic, viewing current and past aspects of society as essentially flawed or even corrupt, unworthy of improvement, only replacement. (see endnote 5)
There have been many different expressions of the Progressive worldview over the past five centuries, to varying degrees. At the end of the Middle Ages, particularly at the time of the Plague, Europe began to doubt the traditions they had held since the fall of Rome and even before, especially their Catholicism, their monarchies, their feudal systems, and their essential belief that tradition, heritage and other constants in life (particularly those based on the past) are the basis of identity and strength. I have espoused elsewhere that the mass panic, desperation and tragedy of the Black Plague was the primary catalyst of this doubt. (4)
In the Renaissance (14th to 17th centuries), the spirit of change blossomed. At first, it was very small, taking the form of a rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman practices, particularly in art and government. While this had occurred to some degree in the past, many Renaissance leaders, primarily out of a sense of nostalgia (5), did not merely want to build upon the past - they wanted to completely discard and replace it. Thus, this was a major step in the Progressive movement. However, the greatest steps occurred a bit later in the Renaissance, with the Protestant Reformation (or Revolution would be more appropriate), the rise of modern science, and the beginning of mercantile. Each of these were decisive deviations from medieval models of religion, science and economics. With the dispersion of power these three brought, lending more power to secular authorities, a governmental change soon developed: absolute monarchies. (6,7) Royalty in the Middle Ages was distinct in many ways from those of the Renaissance. Medieval monarchs were not the absolute standard for their own actions - they were expected to be holy, according to Catholic teaching, to be exemplars to their people of a true and virtuous leader. If they were not, they could be deposed and replaced. Absolute monarchy abolished this, however, granting Renaissance monarchs ultimate power and authority over their subjects.
This absolute monarchy was paralleled by another governmental change in the Renaissance: secular, republican governmental institutions. While many monarchs gained more power, many governments also began to institute various councils, parliaments, constitutions and similar political and legal constructs that either did not exist or were less influential in government before. In the Middle Ages, the word "state" was never applied to a country - all nations were kingdoms, founded on the religious and cultural heritage and identity of the peoples within it. But in the Renaissance, nations became more secular, defining themselves more by their political, economic, and military actions and their differences with other nations.
Religion was one of the most influential changes in the Renaissance - not only in name, but in worldview and inspiration. Previously, for the greater part of history throughout the world, religion was based on three specific ideas: tradition, sacrifice, and imagination. The vast majority of pre-Renaissance religions viewed humanity as unworthy and impure, requiring vicarious sacrifice to make us holy before the Divine. Their understanding of the nature of the divine and earthly realms was transmitted via tradition, based upon historical revelations, mystical experiences and teachings of wisdom safeguarded by the priests and authorities in the religion. The constant, uniform nature of this tradition and the holy authority of the religious leaders was the foundation of tradition. The basis of daily liturgy and religious ceremony was imagination, using imagery, symbolism, language, music and rituals to see the invisible spiritual realities of existence and to interact with them. (8)
Catholicism in the Middle Ages exemplified these tenets. Combining constant Tradition, the authority of the clergy and papacy, the sacrificial quality of the Mass and Christian suffering, and the use of sacramental imagination, the medieval Church was very traditional. In the Renaissance, these fundamental qualities of religion came into doubt, in various ways and to varying degrees. Some Protestants viewed the use of imagery, symbolism and ordered rituals as idolatry or superstition; some viewed the sacrificial quality of the Mass as erroneous, unbiblical or superstitious, especially the teaching of transubstantiation; some dismissed or derided the authority of the clergy and papacy as contrary to the Bible, citing the corruption of some priests, popes and religious as examples of the inability of corrupt humans to properly use such authority; and some dismissed the idea of Tradition. They replaced these with many ideas, including a centralization of the Bible as the sole authority, various new understandings of the Eucharist (ranging from consubstantiation, which definitively removed its sacrificial character, to communion as a mere community tradition), replacing the Pope with secular authorities (Anglican) or individual religious figures (Luther, Calvin) and their teachings, and transforming the clergy into a religious function without sacramental power. The uniformity and order of the Church was largely replaced by disparate religious movements and positions within Protestantism. (9)
I list all these changes to emphasize the fact that the Progressive movement was the central innovation of the Renaissance and has increased in influence and scope ever since. It continued until Christianity was splintered into thousands of disparate religious groups, government became a loose and ephemeral collection of representatives, law became sway to the political and cultural preferences of the times, and the arts were reduced to originality for its own sake, forsaking all meaning or reason unto the absurd and debased, all driven by the belief that all change is progress for the good.
This Progressive worldview has been historically countered by the Conservative worldview. I have already described its state prior to the Renaissance, if that state could truly be called Conservative since the impact of deviating socio-economic and religious movements was quickly dealt with with little residual effect (though this could be doubted). Conservatism largely began in the Renaissance in opposition to the Progressive movement. At first, many traditionalists who still held on to the medieval worldview embraced many aspects of the Renaissance, such as the rejuvenation of the positive aspects of Antiquity, such as their art and science, and the ideas of Catholic humanism. (10) But Protestantism brought into focus the conflict of worldviews that had insidiously begun at the end of the Middle Ages and the challenge traditionalists faced for the future.
Due to its essential attributes, Conservatism changed very little in worldview over time. The most significant change they expressed between 1500 and 1960 was the transformation of some Progressive groups into Conservative forms, such as some Protestant denominations and some forms of capitalism. The Conservative movement is centered on the belief that change for its own sake is not true progress, that the past should be built upon and not discarded. This leads naturally to an embrace of many ancient socio-economic and religious structures, such as monarchies, agrarian economies, and medieval Catholicism, though this is more true of Conservative Catholics than for all Conservatives.
Over time, as Western society continually changed, for better or worse, under the ruling spirit of Progress, Conservatives took on a highly defensive stance, rooting themselves ever deeper in their long-held traditions and beliefs, whatever form those took. By the beginning of the 20th century, Progress had become the dominant position of the West, especially in Europe, as new and ever more powerful technological, scientific, political, economic and spiritual innovations were readily embraced, including machines, atomic physics, eugenics, democratic republics, socialism, communism, fascism and atheism, all promising an ideological utopia of the future. They believed that by deviating more and more from ancient traditions and instituting various socio-economic ideologies, the causes of evil would be demolished and all people would live happy, successful and moral lives. (11) This was the dominant mindset of the time.
Conservatives saw this "progress" as leading inevitably towards an apocalyptic collapse of a society that built ever higher towers without any foundation. (12) As these changes continued, Conservatives embraced their traditions ever more heartily, distrusting any semblance of "modernism" and the Progressive worldview. The two World Wars were to Conservatives a horrifying affirmation of their worst fears as to the ultimate result of Progressive change. In their wake, Progressives were greatly undermined, and not for over a decade would they regain a strong foothold in society.
The first half of the 20th century brought another challenge to Conservatives, however, particularly for Catholics - a challenge from within. At this time, many Catholic academic scholars and theologians, including some Church officials, were beginning to doubt that Tradition was truly perfect or constant, that the central dogmas of the Bible were historically true (such as the Fall and the supernatural events of the life of Christ), and several moral teachings of the Church, effectively succumbing to the Progressive influence which had long dominated academic circles. (13) Catholics outside these circles grew in fear, believing the Progressive threat had taken a hold within the Church by persuading many of its own members to treason against traditional Catholic values and beliefs.
This conflict came to a head in the 1960s, at the Second Vatican Council. This Council was called to address the issues raised by the Progressives - not to automatically dismiss them, or to immediately accept them, but rather to use them as opportunities to reaffirm, clarify and open up aspects of Catholicism that, over the centuries-long battle with the Progressives, had become too stale, defensive and routine. Since the Reformation, Catholicism had become more Roman than Catholic. More concern was placed on the appearance of things than the reasons or meaning behind them. The cultural expressions of the Church were held higher than the actual truths and spirituality of Catholicism. Many things that were emphasized by Protestants and modernists, such as the Bible and science, were largely ignored by Catholics as a defensive measure against the Progressives' assault. I do not intend to say that the Progressive movement was not attacking traditional Catholicism. Truly, I believe that was one of the central intents of that movement, and remains a uniting feature of Progressives even today, though it has now taken on a more indifferent or dismissive tone. Nor do I mean to demean the state of the Church between the Reformation and Vatican II, or to apply my assertions about it to all Catholics of that period. But Vatican II wanted to heal the damage done by that struggle, returning Catholic universality to the Church.
Endnotes (I do not claim to agree with all of the statements made in my cited sources)
1. Bokenkotter, Thomas (2005). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Image. pp. 337. ISBN 0385516134.
2. Hahnenberg, Edward (2007). A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II. City: Saint Anthony Messenger Press. pp. 44. ISBN 0867165529.
3. For general information on Catholic modernism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29
4. My article, "The Birth of Modernity Part 1", p. 3 of my gallery here. I cannot find my other sources on this view of the Plague, though there are many books about it. For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death
5. Huizanga, Johan, The Waning of the Middle Ages (1919, trans. 1924)
6. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/absolutism.html
7. http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/louisxiv.html
8. See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Spirit of the Liturgy", for much more information on these ideas.
9. For more information on Protestantism, see: http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/mtsmodular/reading-rooms/history/16th-century and Belloc, Hilaire (1928). How the Reformation Happened. Tan Books & Publishing. ISBN 0-89555-465-8. (a Catholic perspective; reprinted 2009)
10. For more on humanism: http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/h/humanism.html
11. See the works of Francis Bacon, Karl Marx, Hitler, and various other social, moral and political philosophers from the mid-19th century through to the early 20th century.
12. See the philosophical works of Hilaire Beloc, G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and others from the early 20th century.
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29
Part Two
Although many different philosophies, worldviews and ideologies have been prominent at various times through history, often conflicting with an opposite set of ideas, the forces of history are both higher and more open than this. There are two forces that determine the course of history: spiritual realities, and human freedom. St. Augustine understood this and went to great lengths to explain it. (1) Ideas and movements are merely the expression of these two forces. Ideas are never inherently evil - they express the sinful heart of those who invent and hold such ideas. Thus, the Progressive and Conservative models I used in the first part of this essay are only models. In modern times, there are far too many attempts to apply some conspiracy of ideologies onto history when in truth, history is much more developmental and rational, at once mundane and spiritual.
There are virtues and faults to both the Progressive and Conservative models. As Catholics, our sight goes beyond the perspectives of cultural figures, even saints. We look ever towards God's truth, wherever and by whomever it is communicated. As St. Paul said, "Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5) (2) As St. Justin Martyr said, "All truth is mine." The spiritual forces of good and evil transcend human ideas and thus influence the development of history far more than any human idea could. One could say, for example, that the 20th century had such a great deal of atrocities as it did because of the promulgation of violent political and economic ideologies, or because of the power and influence held by certain despotic tyrants, or because of extreme advancements in military technology we could not control, etc., when in truth these were mere expressions of the sin in this world and the sin human beings are capable of choosing, as we have been since our earliest days. It is thus a fallacy to assign the strict and decisive label of good or evil to any particular set of ideas, even something like fascism. Unless an idea is merely a statement of one's evil intentions, all ideas contain both good and evil. We can learn something from everything.
The Renaissance was not an abrupt break with the Middle Ages, without any connection or shared worldview, nor did the end of Rome signal the "Dark Ages" as many past scholars fallaciously label the early Middle Ages. History develops, as individual human lives develop - it does not run in sudden, drastic changes unrelated to past conditions. The Progressive and Conservative movements were not large conspiratorial ideologies which were spawned by some evil at the heart of the Renaissance. No - both developed out of the Middle Ages and were merely ideas expressed by the people of that time, in response to their experiences and based on their own inner thoughts and feelings, their choices and the choices of others.
There is both good and bad in both of these movements. This was the primary mindset of Vatican II. The Council was the attempt to put into practice St. Paul's aforementioned teaching. They desired to test both movements, to sift out the impurities and incorporate the good remainder into the larger truth of Catholicism. I believe they accomplished this with resounding success which has yet to be fully appreciated, like Trent which preceded it. But were people exempt from interpreting and using Vatican II for their own ends? Of course not. Since the Council, there have been a mixture of good and bad interpretations and applications of its principles. The bad still linger and the Church has tried very hard to amend them, one of these attempts (and a very successful attempt I would add) being the recent new translation of the Mass.
Many have perceived the new translation and other such works by the Church to repair errors that have appeared since Vatican II as the result of Vatican II itself. To them, Vatican II itself was an error and the Church is now trying to fix the Council itself. Using the Latin missal as the basis of the new translation thus comes as no surprise to a traditionalist of this persuasion, who would see the new translation as merely going back to the original, true, pre-Vatican II format. Of course, this is not true. The same Church that instituted the new Tridentine Mass at Trent in the 1500s is the same Church Magisterium that instituted the changes at Vatican II with no less authority and no greater degree of deviation from preexisting forms.
Trent was a response to its times, just as Vatican II was. Both Councils used the issues raised by both critics and conservatives of their respective times as grounds for improving the Church - not its fundamental, unchanging and unchangeable dogmas and institutions, but the way these are expressed, understood and promulgated in the world, these being open to change as the Church grows. The Catholic Church is not stagnant. Like its ancestor the Jewish Church, its wisdom grows over time even as its underlying truths of God are changeless. The history of Church doctrine and practice between the Ascension of Christ and the 5th century can clearly show this. Despite the claims of some Protestants, this growth is not wrong, nor is the participation of human reason and creativity in the Church wrong. We cannot corrupt the truths of God's Revelation that form the heart of the Church.
Like the Protestant Reformers, the points made by those of the Progressive movement were not entirely wrong or unfounded. They raised issues that the Church of both time periods had overlooked or misunderstood. But, like their more conservative brethren, as humans they were vulnerable to going to extremes, and so both the Reformers and Modernists ultimately abandoned the Church in favor of their own minds. This departure from the Church was a large factor in the completely negative response of conservatives and their general ignoring of the issues both groups had tried to point out. However, just as the Reformation was followed by the Counter-Reformation and Council of Trent which tried to answer and repair the issues the Protestants had raised, the Church since World War II attempted to do the same with the ideas of Modernism, Vatican II being the summit of this attempt. Furthermore, both Councils were not only attempting to address the issues of critics within the Church, but also the issues predominant in the culture of the times, whether posed to the Church directly or not.
The ideas prevalent at the time of Vatican II, ideas still very central to society today, primarily center on three issues: the spiritual and historical nature of Sacred Scripture; the connection between the supernatural and natural realms of existence; and the meaning and nature of Catholic morality and the life of a Catholic in the modern world. The sixteen documents of Vatican II dealt with these three issues exceptionally well, in keeping with constant Tradition and the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine and spirituality as transmitted over two thousand years. Dei Verbum, the constitution on Divine Revelation, effectively answered the issues raised concerning Scripture. Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the Sacred Liturgy), Lumen Gentium (on the Church), and Nostra Aetate (on Non-Christian Religions) were wonderful answers to the questions of the connection between the spiritual and natural worlds. The other documents produced by Vatican II were in-depth answers to the life of a Catholic in the world today, based on the truths of the Church as well as the new conditions and dilemmas Catholics face in the modern world, especially the role and vocation of priests, bishops and laity (3), and the general role of the Church in the modern world with perhaps the greatest document of the Council, Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World). With these documents, the Council laid the foundation for the Church of the future.
Since Vatican II, many issues have developed, progressions of many problems that existed before the Council as well as new dilemmas, both in and outside the Church. Naturally, the use of vernacular languages in the Mass rather than the uniform use of Latin as in the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass caused many problems and was perhaps the most difficult change for many devout Catholics at the time. Not only did the use of vernacular languages give the Mass a more "common" or profane feel to traditional Catholics - the specific translations made immediately after Vatican II were rushed and were also generally less intelligent, devout and faithful to the Latin than they should have been. In a world full of profanity and sin, the use of Latin in the Mass gave it a distinctly sacred, Heavenly feel, set apart from the world. However, because of this many Catholics lost sight of the fact that remains the official language of the Church, just as the Vulgate remains Her official Bible.
The use of vernacular languages in daily Mass does not remove sacredness, nor does it make us any less Roman. Truly, the Mass was not always uniformly in Latin. Greek was in fact the earliest Church language. But the Church has always understood that the specific words used in Mass, the way they are delivered, is the true merit of the Latin missal, not the fact that it is Latin. Furthermore, as with the allowance of married deacons to still become priests in the Eastern Rite, the use of vernacular is an allowance, not a mandate, nor a supplanting of the high place of Latin in the Church. Any parish who desires a Latin Mass may receive one. The Council did not change anything they were not allowed to. No fundamental, unchangeable doctrine of the Church was altered by the Council, only that which was open to growth - namely, the expressions of the Church in the world through the Liturgy, and the Church's understanding of various points of revelation, such as the factual historicity of the Bible and its inerrancy.
Since the Council, there has developed a significant new worldview that is quickly spreading from the West throughout the world. This worldview is characterized by a hunger for truth and honesty. This hunger can lead to many sources for sustenance, whether atheistic, pagan or Catholic. But, indeed, it can lead to Catholicism, as we are the only bearers of the fullness of God's Truth in the world. As we work to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the Church, the world and our own lives, we must strive to address the specific issues raised by our own ever-changing times, meeting people on their own level and seeing the good in the questions people raise, without generalizing, judging or focusing entirely on the negatives and extremities people often fall into. Further, we must try to bridge the gap between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II. We are not two different Churches. There is one Church as there is one Shepherd, one Truth and one God. We are just as Roman as they were, and we must work to affirm this fact and to reconnect us with our Roman Catholic heritage and tradition, in devotion, faith and love, ever working to be witnesses to the world and to one another in the Church.
This article is not intended to be an in-depth study of Vatican II. I freely admit to lacking the academic knowledge and skill to accomplish such a thing, nor do I see the need to do so considering the many excellent books out there about it. (4) I merely intended to survey the ideas that led into and developed out of the Council. I pray that my attempt may bring some benefit to whoever should read it, and I pray that all who are splintered out from the Faith may return to it in full communion, not letting their doubts, fear and questions separate them from the one true Church, rather using those issues to strengthen and clarify Her ever more.
God bless.
Endnotes
1. See St. Augustine, "The City of God", for his in-depth extrapolation of these ideas and his application of them to history and spirituality.
2. Quoted from http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/121111.cfm
3. See Christus Dominus (on Bishops), Perfectae Caritatis (on The Renewal of Religious Life), Optatum Totius (On the Training of Priests), Presbyterorum Ordinis (On the Ministry and Life of Priests), and Apostolicam Actuositatem (On the Apostolate of the Laity) for further information.
4. I especially like "What Happened At Vatican II?" by John W. O'Malley, copyright 2008, published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University.
The Time of the New Year
I'm sure we can all recall times in our lives when it seemed as though
the present moment would never end, as if time had stopped and would
never progress. Everyday in school felt like this for me. Each class,
while only an hour long, seemed as though it lasted half a day, and at
the end of the day every student was lined up like track runners
awaiting the gunshot to race out of the school - myself included. Yet,
on the other hand, there have been times when time seemed to fly by so
fast we barely noticed its passing. Usually these are instances of
enjoyment or happiness, or instances where we were too busy focusing on
something else to notice something truly important happening right in
front of us. Like school, for instance. In it, I thought it would never
end. Yet now, as I look back at all the education I missed, all the work
I could have put into it and how well my future could have been if I
had only used my time wisely and graciously, I feel a much greater sense
of regret than I felt while in school.
New Year's Eve - what an appropriate date for the Solemnity of Mary. As one year ends and another begins, our mind naturally experiences a deep awareness of time - both in its eternal longevity and just how little of it we really have. The conflict of these senses causes many to feel sad, regretting the time the lost in the past year, while also causing hope for the future in the new year.
Whatever the historical date of Christmas, this sense of time easily calls to mind the image of the Blessed Virgin at Christmastime, celebrated in reminiscence only a few days ago. Can we imagine how well she appreciated time? Think about how many instances in her life, even the brief picture of it we see in the Gospels, were centered on time. At the time of the Annunciation, when the angel St. Gabriel entitled her Gratia Plena and proclaimed the conception of Christ in her womb, she had been preparing to marry St. Joseph her betrothed. Time was nearing for the wedding when the angel abruptly entered her life. The next nine months would prove an even greater sense of both longing and anxiety in the Mother of God - longing for the birth of her Son, the Messianic Savior, Immanuel, and anxiety for the difficulties and dangers that lay ahead.
For the next thirty-three years after His birth, Mary would have eagerly awaited - and dreaded - the beginning of His ministry. We can see this disposition in the Gospel account of the wedding of Cana, where she openly encourages Christ to begin His ministry by performing miracles, to which Christ responds: "Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come." (John 2:4 Douay-Rheims AE). She was obviously aware of this fact, yet immediately after His statement, she tells the wedding assembly, "Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." (John 2:5 DRA) Was she being disobedient or impatient? Of course not. She trusted her Son completely and was eager for the beginning of the salvific work of His ministry, which she knew would begin with His miracles.
And of course, during His Passion and His time in the tomb, her eagerness was replaced with a solemn awareness of the slow, painful pace that time can often acquire in such terrible events.
As we remember back on the year of 2011 and look forward to the new year of 2012, let us see the Solemnity of Mary as the explanation of the New Year celebration, of all the feelings of the heaviness, or the scarcity, of time.
Among the many admirable and saintly virtues of the Mother of God, one that becomes even more clear and relevant at the eclipse of the past year and the beginning of the new is Mary's submission and surrender to God. Most people these days seem to prefer to see only God's mercy, or His compassion, or His teachings or helps or revelations. For most, God becomes either a personal cheerleader or a doctor, offering detached encouragement or mere medicine for our sins. The power of God, the sovereignty of God, has been forgotten, or at best misunderstood and misappropriated.
Time is one of the greatest indicators of God's power and lordship. Despite the conflicts and confusion in the world, time rolls on, the record of the past definitively stamped and the future left open to the freedom of the present. Yet nothing in the universe can stop the passage of time. As with time, God is not vulnerable to the problems and conflicts of the world. His power is infinitely greater than anything in His Creation. Throughout history, a conflict between God and Satan or God and sin has been affixed to Him, as though Satan or sin had the capacity to war with God. I believe this idea has caused many problems for modern people, Christian or otherwise, and from this idea, we have forgotten that God is in conflict with nothing because God is above all things. He is God Almighty - nothing is outside His plan, His power. All things end the way He desires and all things begin by His holy hands. Satan is not some rival deity - he is an instrument in God's ultimate plan, allowed to exist only because he serves some purpose for God. This is true of all Creation, including humanity. All Creation is here for God, as an expression of His love and for His glory.
Many ignore this fact because it can make God seem selfish or even frivolous or uncaring, as though He made existence purely for Himself and allows humanity to suffer and die only so that He can exhibit His power by conquering death. But again, this attitude acts as though a conflict existed in God between His selfless love and His glory. No such conflict does or can exist, because God is above all conflict. Otherwise, He would not be God. Creation is an act of pure love; the glory God receives is a direct result of this, but it was not God's purpose in making existence. God's glory itself is a gift to humanity. By glorifying God, we grow closer to Him and share in His glory, and only with the freedom to not glorify Him can this growth be real and complete.
At this New Year's Day season, it is important to not forget the sovereignty of God. Our past sins, our time lost or forgotten, has no power over God. It is never too late to recognize and admit our sins, to open ourselves completely to God in honesty and surrender, allowing Him to enter our hearts and heal all the wounds we have accumulated over the past year, whether self-inflicted or caused by others. God is not bound by time, by sin, or by any other constraint. All that happens and all that exists does so only because God desires it. All things have a purpose and a meaning in God's plan, whether we can see it or not. No pain is random, no gift is mere luck, no opportunity for growth or charity or repentance just a random turn of fate. Indeed, time has no such power of God and His will.
As the new year begins, let us remember the words of the Blessed Virgin in the Magnificat:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.
And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him."
(Luke 1:46-50 DRA)
I pray, and ask all to pray with me, that in this coming year we may all recognize the holiness and piety of the Mother of God and share in her humility, her honesty, and her complete and faithful surrender to God. I also pray for those of us (most of us) who are under the yoke of pride, believing that we alone have the power to change the world or ourselves. I ask for the intercession of Mary, Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, Theotokos, Queen of Heaven and Earth. God bless.
New Year's Eve - what an appropriate date for the Solemnity of Mary. As one year ends and another begins, our mind naturally experiences a deep awareness of time - both in its eternal longevity and just how little of it we really have. The conflict of these senses causes many to feel sad, regretting the time the lost in the past year, while also causing hope for the future in the new year.
Whatever the historical date of Christmas, this sense of time easily calls to mind the image of the Blessed Virgin at Christmastime, celebrated in reminiscence only a few days ago. Can we imagine how well she appreciated time? Think about how many instances in her life, even the brief picture of it we see in the Gospels, were centered on time. At the time of the Annunciation, when the angel St. Gabriel entitled her Gratia Plena and proclaimed the conception of Christ in her womb, she had been preparing to marry St. Joseph her betrothed. Time was nearing for the wedding when the angel abruptly entered her life. The next nine months would prove an even greater sense of both longing and anxiety in the Mother of God - longing for the birth of her Son, the Messianic Savior, Immanuel, and anxiety for the difficulties and dangers that lay ahead.
For the next thirty-three years after His birth, Mary would have eagerly awaited - and dreaded - the beginning of His ministry. We can see this disposition in the Gospel account of the wedding of Cana, where she openly encourages Christ to begin His ministry by performing miracles, to which Christ responds: "Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come." (John 2:4 Douay-Rheims AE). She was obviously aware of this fact, yet immediately after His statement, she tells the wedding assembly, "Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." (John 2:5 DRA) Was she being disobedient or impatient? Of course not. She trusted her Son completely and was eager for the beginning of the salvific work of His ministry, which she knew would begin with His miracles.
And of course, during His Passion and His time in the tomb, her eagerness was replaced with a solemn awareness of the slow, painful pace that time can often acquire in such terrible events.
As we remember back on the year of 2011 and look forward to the new year of 2012, let us see the Solemnity of Mary as the explanation of the New Year celebration, of all the feelings of the heaviness, or the scarcity, of time.
Among the many admirable and saintly virtues of the Mother of God, one that becomes even more clear and relevant at the eclipse of the past year and the beginning of the new is Mary's submission and surrender to God. Most people these days seem to prefer to see only God's mercy, or His compassion, or His teachings or helps or revelations. For most, God becomes either a personal cheerleader or a doctor, offering detached encouragement or mere medicine for our sins. The power of God, the sovereignty of God, has been forgotten, or at best misunderstood and misappropriated.
Time is one of the greatest indicators of God's power and lordship. Despite the conflicts and confusion in the world, time rolls on, the record of the past definitively stamped and the future left open to the freedom of the present. Yet nothing in the universe can stop the passage of time. As with time, God is not vulnerable to the problems and conflicts of the world. His power is infinitely greater than anything in His Creation. Throughout history, a conflict between God and Satan or God and sin has been affixed to Him, as though Satan or sin had the capacity to war with God. I believe this idea has caused many problems for modern people, Christian or otherwise, and from this idea, we have forgotten that God is in conflict with nothing because God is above all things. He is God Almighty - nothing is outside His plan, His power. All things end the way He desires and all things begin by His holy hands. Satan is not some rival deity - he is an instrument in God's ultimate plan, allowed to exist only because he serves some purpose for God. This is true of all Creation, including humanity. All Creation is here for God, as an expression of His love and for His glory.
Many ignore this fact because it can make God seem selfish or even frivolous or uncaring, as though He made existence purely for Himself and allows humanity to suffer and die only so that He can exhibit His power by conquering death. But again, this attitude acts as though a conflict existed in God between His selfless love and His glory. No such conflict does or can exist, because God is above all conflict. Otherwise, He would not be God. Creation is an act of pure love; the glory God receives is a direct result of this, but it was not God's purpose in making existence. God's glory itself is a gift to humanity. By glorifying God, we grow closer to Him and share in His glory, and only with the freedom to not glorify Him can this growth be real and complete.
At this New Year's Day season, it is important to not forget the sovereignty of God. Our past sins, our time lost or forgotten, has no power over God. It is never too late to recognize and admit our sins, to open ourselves completely to God in honesty and surrender, allowing Him to enter our hearts and heal all the wounds we have accumulated over the past year, whether self-inflicted or caused by others. God is not bound by time, by sin, or by any other constraint. All that happens and all that exists does so only because God desires it. All things have a purpose and a meaning in God's plan, whether we can see it or not. No pain is random, no gift is mere luck, no opportunity for growth or charity or repentance just a random turn of fate. Indeed, time has no such power of God and His will.
As the new year begins, let us remember the words of the Blessed Virgin in the Magnificat:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.
And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him."
(Luke 1:46-50 DRA)
I pray, and ask all to pray with me, that in this coming year we may all recognize the holiness and piety of the Mother of God and share in her humility, her honesty, and her complete and faithful surrender to God. I also pray for those of us (most of us) who are under the yoke of pride, believing that we alone have the power to change the world or ourselves. I ask for the intercession of Mary, Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, Theotokos, Queen of Heaven and Earth. God bless.
A Living God
The past forty-seven years, since the end of the Second Vatican Council,
have seen some of the greatest ecumenical efforts in the Church in her
history. This effort has especially been extended to Protestants and,
more recently, the Orthodox Church, our brothers. One great sign of this
ecumenical work and the success it has produced is the recent creation
of the Anglican Ordinariate by Pope Benedict XVI, effectively an English
Rite allowing Anglicans who wish to convert to Catholicism a smooth
transition. This is one of many great accomplishments of ecumenism over
the past century and even more energized since Vatican II.
While this ecumenism has produced many signs of growth and reconciliation amongst the fractured pieces of Christianity, it has also given rise to an excessive zeal for ecumenical growth, particularly among Catholics. This zeal has confused the true purpose of ecumenism - mutual growth and constructive, open dialogue - with the singular desire to bring other Christians into the Faith. While this is a noble desire, it has led many ecumenical Catholics to adopt a willingness for compromise. They are willing to sacrifice Catholic truths for the sake of ecumenical agreement, whether for the sake of conversion, peace, or some other motive. Whatever the reason, this sense of compromise has led to many errors being proliferated in the Church which have not been as thoroughly answered and dealt with as they should be.
Certain errors have been largely allowed to continue, especially by the general lay population and many academics, without a decisive correction from the faithful. I would like to address one of the most common and prominent errors resulting from an overzealous ecumenism, in the hope that Catholics can discern this error in themselves. This error can be very subtle, and the motives for accepting it can be genuine, but neither its subtlety nor the good intentions of the individual can justify the error and make wrong become right. To be healed, they must be brought into the light - this is my hope.
In this article, I would like to discuss one error resulting from ecumenical compromise I have seen growing in frequency in modern times:
Sola Scriptura
In the Reformation, one of the most defining beliefs of the Catholic Church which distinguished it from those sects of Christianity that were separating from the Church was the centrality of the Church over the Bible. Most Protestants adopted the idea of sola scriptura, or scripture alone, the belief that the Bible is the sole authority on truth, the deposit of all revelation, and sacred on par with the sacraments, if indeed the individual denomination retained any sacraments. Many Protestants even placed the Bible above all sacraments, including baptism, the most fundamental and uniting Christian sacrament. The Eucharist was demoted and the role of the preacher and the homily were elevated, particularly by the work of Martin Luther. This was done to emphasize the importance of the Bible as well as the individual relationship between believer and Bible which was the center of Protestant spirituality, and largely remains so today.
The Church has always revered the Bible. We wrote and compiled the Bible and owned it exclusively for fifteen hundred years prior to the Reformation. But the Church existed before the Bible was written - the Jewish Church preceded the Old Testament, and the Christian Church, its successor, preceded the New Testament. I can prove each of these assertions with two questions: what Bible did Abraham read? and, what New Testament did the apostles read? The Church always understood that God's revelation is not revealed first through a book. Rather, revelation occurs in history, in reality, whether in time and space or within the human spirit. The burning bush preceded the account of it in the Bible; God's conversation with Noah preceded its recording in the Bible; the life of Jesus preceded the Gospels; etc.
The Bible is also not the second stage of revelation. This second stage is the Tradition of the Church, the transmission of the dogmas and practices of the Faith by its members, orally and sacramentally. This preceded the Bible. (2 Thess. 2:14) The Magisterium of the Church, under the Chair of Moses in the Jewish Church and under the Chair of Peter in the Christian Church, are those in the Church granted the authority by God to interpret and administer Tradition and the sacraments. The sacraments are the greatest experience of revelation possible. They are a direct entering into the presence of God, into Heaven thereby. We participate in Heaven and God participates in our lives directly in the sacraments. This is a higher experience than any other, and it is the fullest expression of the true spiritual center of the Christian life: prayer.
The Bible is the third stage of revelation. It is a written record of Tradition. Just as Tradition is the memory of revelation, which occurs in history, the Bible is written in narrative form because revelation itself is a story. It occurs in time, in sequential events. It develops, it has characters and plotlines, as do all narratives. The Bible is not written as a catechesis or as theology. It is far less straightforward and far more difficult to understand precisely because it is more real and more pure, being a record of history, not of ideas. But the Bible does not represent the origin of revelation or the fullness of revelation, as is repeated many times, particularly in the New Testament. St. John and St. Paul testify that there is much more that Christ did and taught, and much more they could teach, than just what they have written. The Bible consists of the essential narratives of revelation. It cannot grant salvation - if it could, God would have sent us a Bible rather than His Son.
This was a profound disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, the latter accusing us of ignoring or downplaying the Bible. To some extent, this may have been the case, though I have not seen it. Catholics throughout history have read and used the Bible extensively. But because we placed the Church over the Bible, Protestants believed we were not treating the Bible correctly as the center of the Faith.
This idea, sola scriptura, remains very prominent in modern Protestant beliefs, whether conservative or liberal. In pursuit of ecumenism, many Catholics have not only focused more on the Bible, but neglected the centrality and primacy of the Church, the importance of Tradition, the authority of the Magisterium, and the meaning of the sacraments. While we should respect the Bible for what it is, and while we should most certainly read it in lectio divina and spiritual contemplation on a regular basis, we cannot let our love of the scriptures become sola scriptura.
This is not meant to be a discussion of the meaning or origin of sola scriptura, or the details of its fallacious nature. I simply wanted to illustrate the fact that it is incompatible with Catholic truth, and that despite our eagerness for ecumenism, we must not let the error of sola scriptura creep into our beliefs. While many modern people seem to place little value on people's beliefs or in the specifics of beliefs, I respect God and I respect truth and I care for people too greatly to adopt this relativistic indifference towards people's errors. I have seen this error occurring, and I pray that this article can perhaps correct my brothers and sisters in the Faith who may be, even unknowingly, falling into this trap. God bless.
While this ecumenism has produced many signs of growth and reconciliation amongst the fractured pieces of Christianity, it has also given rise to an excessive zeal for ecumenical growth, particularly among Catholics. This zeal has confused the true purpose of ecumenism - mutual growth and constructive, open dialogue - with the singular desire to bring other Christians into the Faith. While this is a noble desire, it has led many ecumenical Catholics to adopt a willingness for compromise. They are willing to sacrifice Catholic truths for the sake of ecumenical agreement, whether for the sake of conversion, peace, or some other motive. Whatever the reason, this sense of compromise has led to many errors being proliferated in the Church which have not been as thoroughly answered and dealt with as they should be.
Certain errors have been largely allowed to continue, especially by the general lay population and many academics, without a decisive correction from the faithful. I would like to address one of the most common and prominent errors resulting from an overzealous ecumenism, in the hope that Catholics can discern this error in themselves. This error can be very subtle, and the motives for accepting it can be genuine, but neither its subtlety nor the good intentions of the individual can justify the error and make wrong become right. To be healed, they must be brought into the light - this is my hope.
In this article, I would like to discuss one error resulting from ecumenical compromise I have seen growing in frequency in modern times:
Sola Scriptura
In the Reformation, one of the most defining beliefs of the Catholic Church which distinguished it from those sects of Christianity that were separating from the Church was the centrality of the Church over the Bible. Most Protestants adopted the idea of sola scriptura, or scripture alone, the belief that the Bible is the sole authority on truth, the deposit of all revelation, and sacred on par with the sacraments, if indeed the individual denomination retained any sacraments. Many Protestants even placed the Bible above all sacraments, including baptism, the most fundamental and uniting Christian sacrament. The Eucharist was demoted and the role of the preacher and the homily were elevated, particularly by the work of Martin Luther. This was done to emphasize the importance of the Bible as well as the individual relationship between believer and Bible which was the center of Protestant spirituality, and largely remains so today.
The Church has always revered the Bible. We wrote and compiled the Bible and owned it exclusively for fifteen hundred years prior to the Reformation. But the Church existed before the Bible was written - the Jewish Church preceded the Old Testament, and the Christian Church, its successor, preceded the New Testament. I can prove each of these assertions with two questions: what Bible did Abraham read? and, what New Testament did the apostles read? The Church always understood that God's revelation is not revealed first through a book. Rather, revelation occurs in history, in reality, whether in time and space or within the human spirit. The burning bush preceded the account of it in the Bible; God's conversation with Noah preceded its recording in the Bible; the life of Jesus preceded the Gospels; etc.
The Bible is also not the second stage of revelation. This second stage is the Tradition of the Church, the transmission of the dogmas and practices of the Faith by its members, orally and sacramentally. This preceded the Bible. (2 Thess. 2:14) The Magisterium of the Church, under the Chair of Moses in the Jewish Church and under the Chair of Peter in the Christian Church, are those in the Church granted the authority by God to interpret and administer Tradition and the sacraments. The sacraments are the greatest experience of revelation possible. They are a direct entering into the presence of God, into Heaven thereby. We participate in Heaven and God participates in our lives directly in the sacraments. This is a higher experience than any other, and it is the fullest expression of the true spiritual center of the Christian life: prayer.
The Bible is the third stage of revelation. It is a written record of Tradition. Just as Tradition is the memory of revelation, which occurs in history, the Bible is written in narrative form because revelation itself is a story. It occurs in time, in sequential events. It develops, it has characters and plotlines, as do all narratives. The Bible is not written as a catechesis or as theology. It is far less straightforward and far more difficult to understand precisely because it is more real and more pure, being a record of history, not of ideas. But the Bible does not represent the origin of revelation or the fullness of revelation, as is repeated many times, particularly in the New Testament. St. John and St. Paul testify that there is much more that Christ did and taught, and much more they could teach, than just what they have written. The Bible consists of the essential narratives of revelation. It cannot grant salvation - if it could, God would have sent us a Bible rather than His Son.
This was a profound disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, the latter accusing us of ignoring or downplaying the Bible. To some extent, this may have been the case, though I have not seen it. Catholics throughout history have read and used the Bible extensively. But because we placed the Church over the Bible, Protestants believed we were not treating the Bible correctly as the center of the Faith.
This idea, sola scriptura, remains very prominent in modern Protestant beliefs, whether conservative or liberal. In pursuit of ecumenism, many Catholics have not only focused more on the Bible, but neglected the centrality and primacy of the Church, the importance of Tradition, the authority of the Magisterium, and the meaning of the sacraments. While we should respect the Bible for what it is, and while we should most certainly read it in lectio divina and spiritual contemplation on a regular basis, we cannot let our love of the scriptures become sola scriptura.
This is not meant to be a discussion of the meaning or origin of sola scriptura, or the details of its fallacious nature. I simply wanted to illustrate the fact that it is incompatible with Catholic truth, and that despite our eagerness for ecumenism, we must not let the error of sola scriptura creep into our beliefs. While many modern people seem to place little value on people's beliefs or in the specifics of beliefs, I respect God and I respect truth and I care for people too greatly to adopt this relativistic indifference towards people's errors. I have seen this error occurring, and I pray that this article can perhaps correct my brothers and sisters in the Faith who may be, even unknowingly, falling into this trap. God bless.
Spiritual Warfare
If a stranger to Christianity were to listen to the way today's
Christians present our teachings on morality, salvation and the
afterlife, they could very easily come to the conclusion that our
religion is nothing but one big spiritual business, a Company of God so
to speak. Consider some common phrases you have heard Christians use
when they speak about salvation, as well as some of the questions raised
against Christian morality. It is treated like a business manifest.
Good deeds are tallied in one column, bad deeds in another. God has a
specific quota in mind that we must meet, and if our good deeds do not
sufficiently meet the quota, or if our bad deeds surpass our good, we
are "fired" to Hell (no pun intended), or perhaps "demoted" to
Purgatory. The saints are those who not only meet the quota but surpass
it, thereby earning a "promotion" to Heaven.
This all-too-common presentation of Christian morality has been one of the central focuses of criticisms by opponents of Christianity for many decades. While this version has not been very popular amongst academic or clergy Christians, it has been adopted, even if unintentionally, but a majority of lay Christians, particularly in the West. An exploration into the causes and origins of this worldview would certainly be worthwhile, but it is not the intention of this article.
Rather, I wish to compare and contrast this modern idea of Christian morality with a much more ancient and far more valid conception: spiritual warfare. While some Christians may be aware of this idea, their knowledge or understanding of it is probably shallow at best, used more as an analogy than as a real, literal description of the intricacies of Christian spirituality. To view it as nothing more than analogy and symbolism misses its fundamental truth, a truth that is essential and even central to the Christian life. Our understanding of spiritual warfare not only influences our own spiritual lives, but our attitudes towards other religions, other groups within Christianity, and the deepest truths of Catholicism. It also shapes our understanding of the purpose and meaning of Christ's sacrifice, as well as the Sacred Liturgy we celebrate.
Many Catholics in today's world find it hard to imagine things like angels and demons, miracles, and even the Resurrection. Ideas such as these are often ignored or responded to with confusion or denial. When these fundamentals are forgotten, it is not difficult to see how the idea of a constant, invisible war being waged in Heaven and Earth, within each of us and all around us, between angels and demons, and even more so, between Satan and humanity, could have been lost in modern times. It can seem absurd or pointless. Yet, it is absolutely essential to the Faith. A reading of the New Testament makes this abundantly clear as we witness the interactions between Christ and angels, demons, possessed people and Satan himself. We are also told that Christ same into the world to "defeat the works of the Devil" (1 John 3:8), and that our war is not with "flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12 Douay-Rheims 1899) And in Acts, we see the apostles carry on the work of Christ, casting out demons and being aided by angels.
But is spiritual warfare merely a heavenly struggle between angels and demons for greater influence over our souls? No, this would be a very simplistic way of seeing it. Angels and demons are only two parts of a much larger war. Truly, the greatest means of understanding spiritual warfare is the Sacred Liturgy. While we participate in the earthly Mass, the Heaven Liturgy is taking place, souls washed clean in the blood of the Lamb, armies being led by the Dragon combating the holy armies of God led by the Lamb and those clothed in white. Every time we attend Mass, we enter into this battle. Each instance of repentance is a victory for Christ; each act of confession of faith, of charity and prayer, of praise and worship is a bolster for God's Army. (For more on these ideas, see the Book of Revelation and especially Dr. Scott Hahn's magnificent book, The Lamb's Supper.)
This liturgical war is an example of the great distinction between an economic, business conception of Christian morality, and the idea of spiritual warfare. The greatest differences lie in the pragmatism of the former version, in which knowledge of only the very end of one's destiny is desired. A pragmatic morality is seen as more realistic and "boiled down", but in fact, this is a rebellion against the neglect that Catholics have shown towards explaining and living spiritual warfare over the past several decades. With spiritual warfare transformed into mere analogy or forgotten altogether, Christians replaced it with a pragmatic economy of salvation. But if we are to correct the many errors being proliferated amongst Christians in today's world, we must return to a truer, deeper understanding of spiritual warfare and we must start applying it to the way we believe and the way we live our faith.
Spiritual warfare is the most real, "down-to-earth" aspect of Christian spirituality. It is experienced everyday, all day. Our spirit, our will, is constantly experiencing new spiritual events - negatives like temptation and confusion, as well as positives like opportunities for spiritual growth in wisdom or charity. There is never a time when our spirit is dormant. Even our dreams can be sources of temptation or growth for us once we awake. The Adversary is a roving lion, and like a predator with its prey, he never lets us rest. His intelligence far surpasses ours, as does his reach and his following. He coordinates with his demonic legions, tempting each person individually. He offers excuses, confusions, emotional pressures; he tempts one person to act in a way that will tempt someone else. He and his Reign are never asleep. Neither are, however, the armies of Christ - His angels and saints, following the Lamb. These are always there to aid and protect us. But because God honors our freedom, neither demonic nor heavenly host will force themselves on us. No one can force us to choose anything against our will - they can only try to influence or protect our will and so promote its freedom.
It is perhaps the greatest folly of modern times, though it should surprise no Christian, that the majority of Western people today reject the idea of Satan, demons, angels, and spiritual warfare, especially in their traditional forms. I say that it should not surprise Christians - those who still believe in these things, that is - because we live in a fallen world. The Prince of this present darkness is cunning, and what eases his work more than disbelief? If I choose to ignore the assassin in my house, will it not be much easier for him to murder me? And even though the Faithful shine bright lights in front of people, only by choosing to turn and see what lurks behind them will someone truly identify the presence of the Enemy and his Reign. We cannot and should not try to force this choice on anyone; by doing so, we only push them further into the arms of Satan.
As should be clear, this traditional conception of spiritual warfare is greatly contrasted by the modern economics of Christian morality. But I think it is also erroneous to see spiritual warfare as a detached, impersonal relationship between soldier and General. God does not sit at the back of the lines while His troops die at the front. No - Christ came and stood at the very front, taking all the blows while His men abandoned Him, betrayed Him, and thereby fell to the Enemy. By standing in the shadow of Christ, we can accept the protection He offers us, for even when we fall to the wounds and enticements of the Enemy, Christ frees us. No adversary is greater than the Lord of Hosts.
Spiritual warfare is not only apart of daily spirituality and morality, it is an explanation for all history and a great tool of prediction. History is not ruled by economics or politics or science. The advancement or prosperity of a civilization does not determine its quality or its actions. No - the moral character of its people and its leaders determines this. And spiritual warfare is even greater than the individual beliefs and choices of people. The influences, weaknesses, aspirations and habits of the inner life are constants of human nature. By addressing these and recognizing their influence in our lives, we can truly grasp human nature and what we can do to overcome our vices and attain true virtue, victories in the Great War.
Yet, the questions of economic morality remain. Practicality cannot be ignored by Christian teaching. How, indeed, is one saved? What standard is used for salvation and damnation? What is required? The fact that people continue mentioning these concepts, whether positively or critically, attests to their enduring meaning and importance, and any mention is greater than forgetfulness.
Spiritual warfare can answer these questions and, indeed, it is the only valid means of answering them in a Christian context. Salvation is not a tally or point system, but it is also not an instantaneous occurrence as many modern Christians believe. (Romans 10:9) Salvation is a matter of the will, of the heart. It is a matter of choice. The graces of God, given through the Holy Sacraments and in the various sacramentals of the Church, and through other spiritual sources, are given by Him as a gift to aid us. God's grace is not meant to overwhelm us, to force us into salvation. Rather, grace liberates our will from the influences of sin - confusion, temptation, passions, habits.
While salvation is a matter of the will, itself aided and transformed by God's grace, our salvation itself is Christ the Lamb. Throughout the history of religion, man has recognized his own weakness and corruptibility. Contrition is an inherent quality of religion. Alongside this recognition is the practice of vicarious sacrifice, placing an offering before God that is both good in itself and a personal sacrifice to us. Christ is the summation of this historical thread in religion. His practice of the Eucharist is the greatest expression of His vicarious sacrifice, fulfilling the meals of thanksgiving as well as the priestly sacrifices of Judaism. As God, He made this sacrifice universal and perfect. As man, He was not an inferior offering, like a crop or animal, receiving the punishment we deserve for our sins vicariously. And as the Eucharist, He can be received with equality perfection and potency by all men for all time.
A life of spiritual warfare involves orienting the will towards God, coming to desire His will above all things and to choose to do His will whenever we can. Because of the sin of this world and our flesh, our will is influenced, its freedom marred. The grace of God works to free our will, liberating it and thereby giving it greater strength to choose God completely. And with our will free and strong, we may then choose to accept Christ as our Savior - not through words alone, but through the sacrifice of the Mass.
By partaking of the Eucharist, we are entering into the universal liturgy of Heaven and Earth. We renew our covenant of baptism through which we were freed by grace from original sin; we experience the fulfillment of the sustenance of food and drink through the true Giver of Eternal Life, the Lamb; our sins are cleansed and we join in the moral war where Satan struggles to drag us to Hell with him while the Host of Heaven works to return us to the salvation of Christ. The truth, meaning and benefit of the Eucharist are endless. It is the summation and summit of spiritual warfare.
I pray that we may grow in understanding and faith in the reality of spiritual warfare, to practice it with knowledge and strength in the grace of God, and to see the liturgy, particularly the Eucharist, as the highest expression of spiritual warfare and the means by which we can come into the fullest relationship with God our Lord and Savior. Amen.
This all-too-common presentation of Christian morality has been one of the central focuses of criticisms by opponents of Christianity for many decades. While this version has not been very popular amongst academic or clergy Christians, it has been adopted, even if unintentionally, but a majority of lay Christians, particularly in the West. An exploration into the causes and origins of this worldview would certainly be worthwhile, but it is not the intention of this article.
Rather, I wish to compare and contrast this modern idea of Christian morality with a much more ancient and far more valid conception: spiritual warfare. While some Christians may be aware of this idea, their knowledge or understanding of it is probably shallow at best, used more as an analogy than as a real, literal description of the intricacies of Christian spirituality. To view it as nothing more than analogy and symbolism misses its fundamental truth, a truth that is essential and even central to the Christian life. Our understanding of spiritual warfare not only influences our own spiritual lives, but our attitudes towards other religions, other groups within Christianity, and the deepest truths of Catholicism. It also shapes our understanding of the purpose and meaning of Christ's sacrifice, as well as the Sacred Liturgy we celebrate.
Many Catholics in today's world find it hard to imagine things like angels and demons, miracles, and even the Resurrection. Ideas such as these are often ignored or responded to with confusion or denial. When these fundamentals are forgotten, it is not difficult to see how the idea of a constant, invisible war being waged in Heaven and Earth, within each of us and all around us, between angels and demons, and even more so, between Satan and humanity, could have been lost in modern times. It can seem absurd or pointless. Yet, it is absolutely essential to the Faith. A reading of the New Testament makes this abundantly clear as we witness the interactions between Christ and angels, demons, possessed people and Satan himself. We are also told that Christ same into the world to "defeat the works of the Devil" (1 John 3:8), and that our war is not with "flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12 Douay-Rheims 1899) And in Acts, we see the apostles carry on the work of Christ, casting out demons and being aided by angels.
But is spiritual warfare merely a heavenly struggle between angels and demons for greater influence over our souls? No, this would be a very simplistic way of seeing it. Angels and demons are only two parts of a much larger war. Truly, the greatest means of understanding spiritual warfare is the Sacred Liturgy. While we participate in the earthly Mass, the Heaven Liturgy is taking place, souls washed clean in the blood of the Lamb, armies being led by the Dragon combating the holy armies of God led by the Lamb and those clothed in white. Every time we attend Mass, we enter into this battle. Each instance of repentance is a victory for Christ; each act of confession of faith, of charity and prayer, of praise and worship is a bolster for God's Army. (For more on these ideas, see the Book of Revelation and especially Dr. Scott Hahn's magnificent book, The Lamb's Supper.)
This liturgical war is an example of the great distinction between an economic, business conception of Christian morality, and the idea of spiritual warfare. The greatest differences lie in the pragmatism of the former version, in which knowledge of only the very end of one's destiny is desired. A pragmatic morality is seen as more realistic and "boiled down", but in fact, this is a rebellion against the neglect that Catholics have shown towards explaining and living spiritual warfare over the past several decades. With spiritual warfare transformed into mere analogy or forgotten altogether, Christians replaced it with a pragmatic economy of salvation. But if we are to correct the many errors being proliferated amongst Christians in today's world, we must return to a truer, deeper understanding of spiritual warfare and we must start applying it to the way we believe and the way we live our faith.
Spiritual warfare is the most real, "down-to-earth" aspect of Christian spirituality. It is experienced everyday, all day. Our spirit, our will, is constantly experiencing new spiritual events - negatives like temptation and confusion, as well as positives like opportunities for spiritual growth in wisdom or charity. There is never a time when our spirit is dormant. Even our dreams can be sources of temptation or growth for us once we awake. The Adversary is a roving lion, and like a predator with its prey, he never lets us rest. His intelligence far surpasses ours, as does his reach and his following. He coordinates with his demonic legions, tempting each person individually. He offers excuses, confusions, emotional pressures; he tempts one person to act in a way that will tempt someone else. He and his Reign are never asleep. Neither are, however, the armies of Christ - His angels and saints, following the Lamb. These are always there to aid and protect us. But because God honors our freedom, neither demonic nor heavenly host will force themselves on us. No one can force us to choose anything against our will - they can only try to influence or protect our will and so promote its freedom.
It is perhaps the greatest folly of modern times, though it should surprise no Christian, that the majority of Western people today reject the idea of Satan, demons, angels, and spiritual warfare, especially in their traditional forms. I say that it should not surprise Christians - those who still believe in these things, that is - because we live in a fallen world. The Prince of this present darkness is cunning, and what eases his work more than disbelief? If I choose to ignore the assassin in my house, will it not be much easier for him to murder me? And even though the Faithful shine bright lights in front of people, only by choosing to turn and see what lurks behind them will someone truly identify the presence of the Enemy and his Reign. We cannot and should not try to force this choice on anyone; by doing so, we only push them further into the arms of Satan.
As should be clear, this traditional conception of spiritual warfare is greatly contrasted by the modern economics of Christian morality. But I think it is also erroneous to see spiritual warfare as a detached, impersonal relationship between soldier and General. God does not sit at the back of the lines while His troops die at the front. No - Christ came and stood at the very front, taking all the blows while His men abandoned Him, betrayed Him, and thereby fell to the Enemy. By standing in the shadow of Christ, we can accept the protection He offers us, for even when we fall to the wounds and enticements of the Enemy, Christ frees us. No adversary is greater than the Lord of Hosts.
Spiritual warfare is not only apart of daily spirituality and morality, it is an explanation for all history and a great tool of prediction. History is not ruled by economics or politics or science. The advancement or prosperity of a civilization does not determine its quality or its actions. No - the moral character of its people and its leaders determines this. And spiritual warfare is even greater than the individual beliefs and choices of people. The influences, weaknesses, aspirations and habits of the inner life are constants of human nature. By addressing these and recognizing their influence in our lives, we can truly grasp human nature and what we can do to overcome our vices and attain true virtue, victories in the Great War.
Yet, the questions of economic morality remain. Practicality cannot be ignored by Christian teaching. How, indeed, is one saved? What standard is used for salvation and damnation? What is required? The fact that people continue mentioning these concepts, whether positively or critically, attests to their enduring meaning and importance, and any mention is greater than forgetfulness.
Spiritual warfare can answer these questions and, indeed, it is the only valid means of answering them in a Christian context. Salvation is not a tally or point system, but it is also not an instantaneous occurrence as many modern Christians believe. (Romans 10:9) Salvation is a matter of the will, of the heart. It is a matter of choice. The graces of God, given through the Holy Sacraments and in the various sacramentals of the Church, and through other spiritual sources, are given by Him as a gift to aid us. God's grace is not meant to overwhelm us, to force us into salvation. Rather, grace liberates our will from the influences of sin - confusion, temptation, passions, habits.
While salvation is a matter of the will, itself aided and transformed by God's grace, our salvation itself is Christ the Lamb. Throughout the history of religion, man has recognized his own weakness and corruptibility. Contrition is an inherent quality of religion. Alongside this recognition is the practice of vicarious sacrifice, placing an offering before God that is both good in itself and a personal sacrifice to us. Christ is the summation of this historical thread in religion. His practice of the Eucharist is the greatest expression of His vicarious sacrifice, fulfilling the meals of thanksgiving as well as the priestly sacrifices of Judaism. As God, He made this sacrifice universal and perfect. As man, He was not an inferior offering, like a crop or animal, receiving the punishment we deserve for our sins vicariously. And as the Eucharist, He can be received with equality perfection and potency by all men for all time.
A life of spiritual warfare involves orienting the will towards God, coming to desire His will above all things and to choose to do His will whenever we can. Because of the sin of this world and our flesh, our will is influenced, its freedom marred. The grace of God works to free our will, liberating it and thereby giving it greater strength to choose God completely. And with our will free and strong, we may then choose to accept Christ as our Savior - not through words alone, but through the sacrifice of the Mass.
By partaking of the Eucharist, we are entering into the universal liturgy of Heaven and Earth. We renew our covenant of baptism through which we were freed by grace from original sin; we experience the fulfillment of the sustenance of food and drink through the true Giver of Eternal Life, the Lamb; our sins are cleansed and we join in the moral war where Satan struggles to drag us to Hell with him while the Host of Heaven works to return us to the salvation of Christ. The truth, meaning and benefit of the Eucharist are endless. It is the summation and summit of spiritual warfare.
I pray that we may grow in understanding and faith in the reality of spiritual warfare, to practice it with knowledge and strength in the grace of God, and to see the liturgy, particularly the Eucharist, as the highest expression of spiritual warfare and the means by which we can come into the fullest relationship with God our Lord and Savior. Amen.
The Elusive Virtue of Patience
"[I]f I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all
knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should
distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not
perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is
not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things,
hopeth all things, endureth all things."
(1 Corinthians 13:2-7 Douay-Rheims)
Love (or charity) is patient. Patience is from love, is based in love. Without love, patience becomes indifference, apathy, mere sentiment. And without patience, love is lacking, and thus is not true, perfect, complete love, the love God wants to grow in our hearts. To see this, we need only look at the patience of God, just as extraordinarily abundant as every other expression of love He makes throughout Scripture. Every time someone would sin, every time an individual or nation would fall into idolatry or violence or debauchery, He would await their return, as did the father of the Prodigal Son in the familiar parable of Christ.
This is perhaps most clearly evidenced by the life of the author of the above-quoted verse, St. Paul. Not only was God patient with St. Paul on a human level, as with any other person, He gave Paul opportunity after opportunity to realize the truth of Christ, to repent of his persecutions towards Christians, and to come into full communion with His Church. Only at the very end, when the Church Herself was threatened by Paul, did God finally rebuke him directly and bring him to the destiny God had planned for him.
When we think of love, how often do we connect it to patience? And when we do, what is our vision of true patience? For many, patience is stoic, enduring pain and sin without emotion until it subsides. For others, patience takes the form of condescension as we try to endure those people we consider inferior to ourselves - morally, intellectually or in any other way - without succumbing to sin.
But as with all acts of Christian piety, we must ask: is this the model and example of patience that Christ provided? As the constant and perfect standard for holiness, we must always ask how He lived and behaved. Patience was an integral part of the life and ministry of Christ, particularly in His Passion. Did He retreat from the world in His life, or did He endure pain or the sins of others without compassion or concern? Quite the opposite - He engaged life head-on, without veil or hindrance. His patience was com-passionate, suffering-with. He recognized both the infinite value and beauty of the human person, made in His own image, as well as the universality of sin and its power of us, morally and physically. He knew that our minds, our bodies, our spirits and our relationships are marred immeasurably by sin in all its forms, and He experienced this personally throughout His life. And in His Passion, He experienced the totality of human suffering and sin all at once, the light meeting the dark without compromise or avoidance.
When we're born, when we first enter the world after our life in the womb, we come into the world without expecting sin. We cannot conceive of bad things or difficulties, of need or pain. Our innocent bodies cry out for sustenance, confounded by our hunger and thirst, wondering why we must feel such things. And as children, the sin we experience, in ourselves and in the world, is a shock to us.
Only as we grow up do we become "accustomed" to sin. Embittered by years of pain and disappointment, the good always marred and seemingly overpowered by the bad, we come to expect sin. At times, we can even come to the point that we enjoy sin. We feel that life is too hard, too short to fight against sin our entire lives, to avoid the pleasures and escapes it can give, even if only temporary. And when we sin, when we give into the evil of the world, we believe we can avoid disappointment, experiencing sin preemptively. Get them before they get you.
This is a life without love, and without patience. This acceptance and expectation of sin, and forgetfulness or dissatisfaction with the good, is a corruption and distortion of patience. But the virtue of patience is not a surrender to the power of sin. Rather, patience surrenders to God. It recognizes sin without accepting it as eternal and all-powerful, attributing this divinity only to God. Patience sees that God's love is infinite but mysterious, His plan hidden but perfect, and in this recognition it surrenders all anxiety, all anger, all grudges and all desperation to God.
With this surrender, we see that it is not our place or in our power to cleanse the world of sin. Furthermore, we see that God allows sin for a purpose, within His larger plan. We no longer have to be afraid of sin, as though it were an equal, rival force competing with God for rule of Creation. No - sin, like all else, is under the dominion of the Blessed Trinity. All things work to the glory of God and, through His love and glorification, to the ultimate perfecting of Creation.
With the certain hope of Christ, assured to us in the Blessed Sacrament, we no longer have to be under the power of sin, whether in ourselves or the world. For even when we do sin, as we all do, and even when we do endure the pain of original sin in the world or the sins of others, we need not feel helpless or hopeless. Now, we know that God is Lord even of sin, using it to make us even greater than we were. We come to see that sin is merely an opportunity for love, for mercy, for truth - and for patience.
So, with this understanding, what then does it mean to be patient? How we can grow in patience in our daily lives? As with all spiritual practices, there are two vital, central means of growing in the virtue of patience: the sacraments, and prayer.
In the sacraments, we enter into the spirituality of love. In baptism, we experience the culmination of God's covenantal patience spanning the entire history of humanity. In confirmation, we are rewarded for the patience we are called to exhibit between this and our baptism, just as the apostles were rewarded with the Holy Spirit for their patience after the Ascension of Christ. In matrimony and holy orders, we are called to a lifetime of vocational patience, sacrificing ourselves in every way for the good of God and others. In reconciliation, we are called to perhaps the most difficult form of patience - patience towards ourselves. With this sacrament, we must develop the patience God shows to us in our sinfulness and imperfection, waiting with love and understanding as we walk, stumble, and rise again with His grace over the course of our lives, growing steadily in holiness and moving ever closer to Him. And finally, in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, we witness and participate in the summary of all the sacraments and in the highest example of patience ever seen - the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ, when He suffered all our sins with infinite patience founded in boundless love for His children.
Through a consistent, disciplined and deeply spiritual prayer life, and through the mysticism of the Holy Sacraments, I pray that we may be able to grow ever more in patience, in love, and in our journey towards the Beatific Vision God desires for us, a life of true, complete love. God bless.
(1 Corinthians 13:2-7 Douay-Rheims)
Love (or charity) is patient. Patience is from love, is based in love. Without love, patience becomes indifference, apathy, mere sentiment. And without patience, love is lacking, and thus is not true, perfect, complete love, the love God wants to grow in our hearts. To see this, we need only look at the patience of God, just as extraordinarily abundant as every other expression of love He makes throughout Scripture. Every time someone would sin, every time an individual or nation would fall into idolatry or violence or debauchery, He would await their return, as did the father of the Prodigal Son in the familiar parable of Christ.
This is perhaps most clearly evidenced by the life of the author of the above-quoted verse, St. Paul. Not only was God patient with St. Paul on a human level, as with any other person, He gave Paul opportunity after opportunity to realize the truth of Christ, to repent of his persecutions towards Christians, and to come into full communion with His Church. Only at the very end, when the Church Herself was threatened by Paul, did God finally rebuke him directly and bring him to the destiny God had planned for him.
When we think of love, how often do we connect it to patience? And when we do, what is our vision of true patience? For many, patience is stoic, enduring pain and sin without emotion until it subsides. For others, patience takes the form of condescension as we try to endure those people we consider inferior to ourselves - morally, intellectually or in any other way - without succumbing to sin.
But as with all acts of Christian piety, we must ask: is this the model and example of patience that Christ provided? As the constant and perfect standard for holiness, we must always ask how He lived and behaved. Patience was an integral part of the life and ministry of Christ, particularly in His Passion. Did He retreat from the world in His life, or did He endure pain or the sins of others without compassion or concern? Quite the opposite - He engaged life head-on, without veil or hindrance. His patience was com-passionate, suffering-with. He recognized both the infinite value and beauty of the human person, made in His own image, as well as the universality of sin and its power of us, morally and physically. He knew that our minds, our bodies, our spirits and our relationships are marred immeasurably by sin in all its forms, and He experienced this personally throughout His life. And in His Passion, He experienced the totality of human suffering and sin all at once, the light meeting the dark without compromise or avoidance.
When we're born, when we first enter the world after our life in the womb, we come into the world without expecting sin. We cannot conceive of bad things or difficulties, of need or pain. Our innocent bodies cry out for sustenance, confounded by our hunger and thirst, wondering why we must feel such things. And as children, the sin we experience, in ourselves and in the world, is a shock to us.
Only as we grow up do we become "accustomed" to sin. Embittered by years of pain and disappointment, the good always marred and seemingly overpowered by the bad, we come to expect sin. At times, we can even come to the point that we enjoy sin. We feel that life is too hard, too short to fight against sin our entire lives, to avoid the pleasures and escapes it can give, even if only temporary. And when we sin, when we give into the evil of the world, we believe we can avoid disappointment, experiencing sin preemptively. Get them before they get you.
This is a life without love, and without patience. This acceptance and expectation of sin, and forgetfulness or dissatisfaction with the good, is a corruption and distortion of patience. But the virtue of patience is not a surrender to the power of sin. Rather, patience surrenders to God. It recognizes sin without accepting it as eternal and all-powerful, attributing this divinity only to God. Patience sees that God's love is infinite but mysterious, His plan hidden but perfect, and in this recognition it surrenders all anxiety, all anger, all grudges and all desperation to God.
With this surrender, we see that it is not our place or in our power to cleanse the world of sin. Furthermore, we see that God allows sin for a purpose, within His larger plan. We no longer have to be afraid of sin, as though it were an equal, rival force competing with God for rule of Creation. No - sin, like all else, is under the dominion of the Blessed Trinity. All things work to the glory of God and, through His love and glorification, to the ultimate perfecting of Creation.
With the certain hope of Christ, assured to us in the Blessed Sacrament, we no longer have to be under the power of sin, whether in ourselves or the world. For even when we do sin, as we all do, and even when we do endure the pain of original sin in the world or the sins of others, we need not feel helpless or hopeless. Now, we know that God is Lord even of sin, using it to make us even greater than we were. We come to see that sin is merely an opportunity for love, for mercy, for truth - and for patience.
So, with this understanding, what then does it mean to be patient? How we can grow in patience in our daily lives? As with all spiritual practices, there are two vital, central means of growing in the virtue of patience: the sacraments, and prayer.
In the sacraments, we enter into the spirituality of love. In baptism, we experience the culmination of God's covenantal patience spanning the entire history of humanity. In confirmation, we are rewarded for the patience we are called to exhibit between this and our baptism, just as the apostles were rewarded with the Holy Spirit for their patience after the Ascension of Christ. In matrimony and holy orders, we are called to a lifetime of vocational patience, sacrificing ourselves in every way for the good of God and others. In reconciliation, we are called to perhaps the most difficult form of patience - patience towards ourselves. With this sacrament, we must develop the patience God shows to us in our sinfulness and imperfection, waiting with love and understanding as we walk, stumble, and rise again with His grace over the course of our lives, growing steadily in holiness and moving ever closer to Him. And finally, in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, we witness and participate in the summary of all the sacraments and in the highest example of patience ever seen - the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ, when He suffered all our sins with infinite patience founded in boundless love for His children.
Through a consistent, disciplined and deeply spiritual prayer life, and through the mysticism of the Holy Sacraments, I pray that we may be able to grow ever more in patience, in love, and in our journey towards the Beatific Vision God desires for us, a life of true, complete love. God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)