Thanks, Mark, both for the kind words and the link. My Guide Site won't be up and running until later today--what's up there now is from the previous guide. I'll post another comment here once it's gone live.
By the way, if your readers have a few prayers to spare, please remember the repose of the soul of Clair Joseph Thalhammer, my wife's grandfather, who passed away on Monday. We're back home in Michigan for the memorial service tomorrow.
Great essay, Scott. I'll remember your wife's grandmother in my prayers.
Sean
I think this "anti-Christ" political finger-pointing is does nobody any good except the Culture of Death, who will take our arguments and hang us with them.
Let's be careful here, lest we end up doing the anti-christ's work for him. There's a "you have to be anti-Iraq-Victory to be a good Catholic" attitude revving up here that is an ill wind. It's going to blow nobody any good.
Thank you, Sean.
Steven, how do you define "The Culture of Death"? To me, fighting unnecessary and morally objectionable wars is clearly part of the Culture of Death. I think John Paul II, who popularized that phrase, would agree.
Referring to opposition to the war as "anti-Iraq-Victory" either misunderstands my point (and Mark's, and that of everybody I know who opposes the war) or is disingenuous. If a war is unjust, and yet we decide to prosecute it anyway, the only true victory, from a Christian standpoint, is to repent of our unjust action and end the war.
Nice piece Scott, but I'm not so sure about this: "Christianity transformed the Roman Empire and built up the medieval Europe we know as Christendom not through the preaching of Christian “values” but through the lived experience of Christians’ encounter with Christ."
just how Christian (in a sense that we might be familiar with) was medieval europe? I think lots of lip service with some very notable exceptions (see hagiography), but really how much different was the human condition then as opposed to now? In other words, the motivations (at the end of the day) tended to be (not always of course) the same crap that moves us today (and of course there exist exceptions today also)
I do, however, love the fact that you artfully point out that political alligence outweighs religious practice. My only point is that I think that has always been true (sadly) 
pax
Referring to opposition to the war as "anti-Iraq-Victory" either misunderstands my point (and Mark's, and that of everybody I know who opposes the war) or is disingenuous. If a war is unjust, and yet we decide to prosecute it anyway, the only true victory, from a Christian standpoint, is to repent of our unjust action and end the war.
From what I just read, I don't think I did at all. You seem to imply that Iraq is unjust, thus something we should just walk away from. Given the climate and the rhetoric of you and Mark, that is the only conclusion on can come to.
But let's look squarely at the conditions that legitimize military force as listed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They are as follows [CCC 2309].
-The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain.
-all other means of putting an end to it have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
-there must be serious prospects of success.
-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Now, let's see...
Iraq has attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, inflicted mass-murder to Kurdish and Shia populations after the first Gulf War, and used chemical weapons (which he did have, BTW). There's also the fact that they were a major support to terrorist groups that basicly owns the Palestinian territories.
Sounds like a grave threat to the community of nations to me, especially since that region produces the lion's share of oil, the lifeblood of the Western economy.
Much of what I listed took place during the GW-I to GW-II time period, so he didn't straighten up or fly right even with sanctions.
As for our chances of success, the only way the insurgents can win is if we lose. Period. We have to let them by conceding the field.
As for number five, I would say that retreat would be the occasion for grave evils, just as they were in Vietnam which fell to communism in the wake of the de-funding of that ally by the Democratic congress in 1975. That also brought the reign of Pol Pot to Cambodia and the resulting genocide there. I can tell you right now something similar will happen in the Middle East if we cut and run from Iraq.
And BTW, I define a Culture of Death as a contraceptive and abortive culture that murders more Americans in a day than our enemies have managed to kill in this entire conflict.
Steven, there's not a whole lot of sense rehashing the justice of the war in this combox. For my part, let me simply point out that Chronicles published an issue entitled "Target: Iraq" in February 2003 (it actually came out about January 15, over two months before the war commenced). Out of the 50,000 words or so in that issue, approximately 25,000 concerned the coming war in this particular issue.
There's not one single word concerning Iraq in that issue that needs to be altered, corrected, or retracted today. We opposed the war from the beginning, and we were right.
So did John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. And they were right.
But now for the most puzzling part of your response:
I define a Culture of Death as a contraceptive and abortive culture that murders more Americans in a day than our enemies have managed to kill in this entire conflict.
Combine this with your earlier remark:
I think this "anti-Christ" political finger-pointing is does nobody any good except the Culture of Death, who will take our arguments and hang us with them
It is clear that what you're arguing is that those of us who opposed the war on moral grounds ought to drop it because there are much bigger fish to fry.
Fine--but turn your argument on yourself. In light of the Culture of Death as you define it (a much more narrow definition than that offered by John Paul and Benedict), why should we have gone to war in Iraq, when the number of Saddam's victims pales in comparison with the number of abortions performed in America in one year?
Dale, it's certainly possible to exaggerate the Christian nature of the Middle Ages. I don't think I've done so. Moreover, if we're going to compare the Middle Ages to today, "the human condition" may not have been much different (it's been pretty much the same since we left the Garden), but the response (both individual and corporate) clearly was. There's a reason we don't build cathedrals comparable to the those of the Middle Ages today, and it's not simply because we've lost the knowledge of their construction.
Similarly, the medieval economic system (as I've discussed at great length elsewhere) wasn't an unenlightened one, as we often think today, from our vantage point of modern economics. Rather, such features of the system as guilds were actually developed in response to such quaint (but Catholic) concerns as Just Price theory. In other words, it was illuminated by a different kind of light.
Such responses to the human condition are still possible today; they're just more rare. You probably remember the following story:
One day, a cameraman was filming Mother Teresa for a documentary, while she was caring for some of the most wretched of the poor of Calcutta. As she cleaned the sores of one man, wiping up the pus and bandaging his wounds, the cameraman blurted out, “I wouldn’t do that if you gave me a million dollars.” To which Mother Teresa replied, “Neither would I.”
And neither would the peasants who worked themselves to death building the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages, monuments to the Faith that no one would even consider building today; and neither would the artisans who poured heart and soul into the ornamentation of those cathedrals, creating works of art unrivaled by the best and most well-paid of modern artists; and neither would the men who gave their lives in the First Crusade, to liberate their fellow Christians and reclaim the land where Christ walked; and neither would the followers of Saint Benedict, who established monasteries and copied manuscripts and created the first hospitals and engaged in works of charity and developed sustainable agricultural techniques (which is a large part of the reason why widespread famine is found in the modern, but not the medieval, world) and kept the Faith alive in the years of brutal barbarism following the fall of Rome.
It just cracks me up when the people try to make their "just war" case 4 years AFTER the war started.
How memory fades.
Let me take a moment to list how I recall the chain of events:
First their was talk of going to war with Iraq because Saddam harbored terrorists, terrorist training camps et al., there were even suspicions that OBL himself was in Iraq.
Then we're told us it was WMD's & Biological Warfare, that Saddam had violated the UN Sanctions in place since the Iraq War I.
Then when no WMD's were found, they try to rewrite history and say it was to free the persecuted Iraqi's, Kurds.
My recollection of the Church LEADER's response is that it has been consistently, outspoken AGAINST:
Pope John Paul II said the Premptive attack on Iraq was unjust. Not once, not twice but incessantly. He never stopped decrying the war.
Cardinal Ratzinger said that the the attack was Unjust and that you won't find the concept of premptive attacks in the Catechism.
here's an excerpt from an article in the Houston Catholic worker publication written in 2002: http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God,"...
John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust.
Shortly before the war began, through the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, President Bush sent Michael Novak to go to Rome to try to justify the war to the Pope and Vatican officials. Catholic News Service reported that the two-hour symposium was attended by some 150 invited guests, including lower-level Vatican officials, professors from church universities in Rome and diplomats accredited to the Vatican. Since with one voice Rome had already rejected the argument for a preventive war, Novak took the approach that a war on Iraq would not be a preventive war, but a continuation of a "just war," Iraqi War I, and actually a moral obligation. He argued that a was also a matter of self-defense, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was an un-scrupulous character, and therefore it was only a matter of time before he took up with Al Qaida and gave them such weapons.
Novak did not succeed in convincing Church leaders-in fact, some commentators reflected that his efforts might have had the opposite effect.
Now it seems that having failed to convince "The Church" leaders these same neocons have been trying to convince the "Church body of believers". For the most part it's been a huge success, until now, as many of us are beginning to wake up to hear the alarm bells going off, alarms that have been ringing since the very beginning of the war.
OOOOPS!
correction to the above:
the article referenced was "Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July-August 2003." not 2002
Scott Richert starts his essay with the following:
"[T]he Antichrist presents himself as a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist. He convokes an ecumenical council and seeks the consensus of all the Christian confessions, conceding something to each one.
"The crowds follow him, except for tiny groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Chased by the Antichrist, they tell him, “You have given us everything except for the one thing that interests us, Jesus Christ.
"—Giacomo Cardinal Biffi, meditation at Lenten Retreat for the Papal Household, February 2006. "
Richert does not seem to contest the appropriateness of Biffi's unnecessarily narrow choice of depiction. Instead Richert goes on to use a lot more words to show why Biffi's comments (as well as an earlier inclusion of vegetarianism in the list of Anti-Christ characteristics) does not support the conclusion:
"[W]hat better way to combat this evil than to rally behind a warmongering Texas rancher and oilman". Richert's conclusion: "Any attempt to co-opt the Faith for the service of a particular ideology has about it the air of sulfur."
The trouble is that Biffi's choice of examples is either dumb or extremely ideological, or both.
If Biffi intended to say that the Anti-Christ is one who will falsely masquerade behind the appearance of high-minded virtue, then he should have said so. He could just as well have said that the Anti-Christ will take on the identity of a holy roller or of a humble supplicant or of high Church official or of a warrior President seeking to spread democracy.
What would people like Richert or Mark Shea say if Biffi had suggested that the Anti-Christ will come in the guise of an anti-abortionist, anti-Muslim, pro-business, pro-democracy, wealthy person or cleric?
The somewhat selective effort to separate ideology from morality, and to identify ideology with immorality, is defective in an even more blatant way.
Whether one reads through the Jewish Bible or Christ's words in the Bible, there is a great deal that many would associate with ideology. The Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the rich man/camel and admonition about casting the first stone are all far to the left of right wing ideology.
It is heartening to see that some Catholic blog leaders have rejected the conquer and torture and kill-em approach of the right wing ideologues. It would be even better if they would also focus on what Christ said, as recorded in the Gospels. Christ was pretty plain speaking. It is peculiar how there is so much more emphasis on what right wing ideologues see as good or evil.
HBoitel:
Your tendency to read looking only for ammunition makes you dumb. You've completely misread both Richert and me. Try again.
What would people like Richert or Mark Shea say if Biffi had suggested that the Anti-Christ will come in the guise of an anti-abortionist, anti-Muslim, pro-business, pro-democracy, wealthy person or cleric?
We'd say, and fact the whole point of the essay is that we HAVE BEEN SAYING that this would be just as sinister, because the spirit of Antichrist is the reduction of the gospel from an encounter with Christ to a set of ideological values. It matters not *which* values.
Please learn to read.
Mark P. Shea - The words quoted were those of Cardinal Biffi. The essay by Scott Richert was in no way critical of Biffi, but rather, expressed admiration for him. Your commentary, in the initial posting, equally admired Richert's treatment of the matter.
I think I read it all correctly.
Do you think it was appropriate for Biffi to cloth the Anti-Christ in robes that are particularly associated with liberal concerns?
If some church person had made the same statement, but clothed the Anti-Christ in right-wing agenda items that are agreeable to you, would you be as ready to accept that tailoring by Biffi?
Most of the charitable conduct described in the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with generally accepted liberal ideology and appears to have little to do with the focus of right-wing concerns. Try to understand why I think that much of the demonizing of liberals is simultaneously, sub silencio, a demonizing of the charitable values advocated by Christ.
While I am at it, it is clear that there have been and are many people or movements that have engaged in and promoted activities and attitudes that are in opposition to the principles advocated by Christ. Frequently such persons and movements present the false face of being morally principled. They fit in with biblical descriptions of the concept of anti-Christ. I am not persuaded that there is any reason to believe that the biblical references compel the conclusion that there is going to be a single anti-Christ in whom a fullness of apocalyptic immorality will be focused.
One need only look back over the past 2000 years, and the times that preceded them, to see where the principles of Christ have been most disregarded while masquerading behind false moral and ethical principles.
HBoitel:
If you would learn to read, you would discover that Biffi is quoting Soloviev. If you would learn to read, you would also discover that in my remarks on the piece which Richert linkled, I noted that Biffi is speaking to a European audience which is more prone to leftist ideology the rightist ideology, but that this should be no consolation to Rightists. If you'd learn to read you'd realize that Richert concurred with this and directed the bulk of his criticism at rightist ideologues who place their ideology before the Faith.
Please learn to read before jerking the knee.
Mark P Shea -
I do not find your last note to be particularly coherent. It seems to suggest that the quoted language was not the view of Biffi, but the view of Soloviev. A reading of the article, as well as a source that the article quotes, makes clear that Biffi was quoting with approval and adopted the view expressed.
I stand by my prior analysis. It demeans Christian charity to adopt the types of nonsense spouted by Biffi. It is the ultimate in disrespect to suggest that the focus of evil will appear in a person who advocates pacifism, ecology and ecumenism and vegetarianism.
Since you claim to be such an expert on Biffi, perhaps you can refer us to something that he has written critical of right-wing dictators, advocates of war, polluters of the environment, activities that are cruel to animals, or respectful of religious liberty for those who are not Catholics. I only know about him what is quoted by material that you quote with approval. If you are claiming that he is better than a right-wing ideologue, point us to writings that make the point.
I do not find your last note to be particularly coherent.
That's because you are unable to read, except in search of ammunition.
Exhibit A: Since you claim to be such an expert on Biffi...
Do I?
Mark P Shea -
1. Please get it right. I am not in search of ammunition. I have plenty of that. You present a broad target. I wish you did not. Shooting fish in a barrel does not have much appeal to me. But someone has to do it.
2. Ok, you do not claim to be an expert on Biffi. You seem, however, to think that you have a substantially better understanding of him and of Richert's essay than I do.
3. The bottom line is that, once again, you have declined to respond to the substance of the complaint. Please, I am not worth venting your spleen on. Try to show the other readers that there is some substance to the material you publish and either demonstrate why complaints are in error or acknowledge that you have gone over the line in promoting such stuff. Let's not make this about you and me.
HJBoitel:
My article, and Mark's first comments (back in February or the first few days of March) on Cardinal Biffi's remarks prove your comments wrong. Beyond that, Mark has clearly explained why you're wrong here.
But if you need anything more, please read all of my comments above. You'll see that, in response to Steven Cornett, I addressed the issue of those who want to restrict the Culture of Life to "contraception and abortion." And replying to Dale, I cited a story of Mother Teresa, which pretty much goes to the heart of the Sermon on the Mount. I even briefly touched on the medieval economic system, which was founded on a Catholic understanding of Just Price.
The trouble is that you're caught up in left/right political distinctions, and you want to apply them to the Faith. What Cardinal Biffi very clearly said (using Solovyov as a starting point) is that such application of politics to the Faith is a reduction of the encounter with Christ to mere "values." It doesn't matter whether those values are identified with the political right or left; once the Faith is reduced to mere values, it isn't the Faith.
The Faith should motivate us to act in the world. But that action will almost certainly not be easy to pigeonhole as right-wing or left-wing. Anyone who can reduce Christ's teachings to the statement that they "are all far to the left of right wing ideology" has already reduced the Faith from an encounter with Christ to mere "values." And the same goes for the many St. Blog-gers who would readily agree with the counter-proposition that Christ's teachings "are all far to the right of left wing ideology."
Hboitel:
You are in constant search of ammunition. That, and your asinine fatuity is what makes your writing so tedious and uncomprehending.
Scott P. Richert -
1. Actually, Mark Shea, in his second response to me, sought to massage the facts. My response demonstrated that, and I note that neither he nor you has sought to return to that issue.
2. Your comment to me moves the goalposts somewhat from the initial posting in this thread. My comments are not about what you believe or what Mark believes. It is about the quotation, with approval, of a statement by Biffi who, in turn, cites with approval a statement by Soloviev.
I see no basis, whatsoever, for Biffi or Sloviever to focus on the selected examples. The verbiage is the verbiage of a right-wing ideologue.
You attempt to soften it, by construing it as though it were not Biffi's intent to single out what right wingers characterize as liberal causes. Is the gloss of right wing propaganda on his narrow choice of examples. You can bet your sweet biffi it is.
Let's assume, however that Biffi actually made the argument that I did not see him making. As you put it: ". . .such application of politics to the Faith is a reduction of the encounter with Christ to mere 'values.' It doesn't matter whether those values are identified with the political right or left; once the Faith is reduced to mere values, it isn't the Faith".
I have to admit I do not know what that means. To me, it sounds like a right-wing position attempting to avoid a confrontation with generally held values. "Values don't mean anything - the wrath of God and respect of the hierarchy is what it is all about".
Well, as I understand it, faith without good works is meaningless. What constitutes good works has to do with values. From my perspective, at least, the good works that Christ advocated were works that a person of good will would perform naturally.
When persons in secular life do good works (other than bombing people to bring them democracy and freedom) there is a segment of society that labels them as "lefties" and leftwing and other words intended as disparaging, contemptuous or hostile. Their values are demeaned. Mark does it with some frequency.
To me, Biffi, seem to be suggesting that those who speak as Christ spoke may well be an anti-Christ.
So, let me take this a step further. Most people who have every existed have not had a meaningful opportunity to follow Christ. I hold such person to no less a standard than the good will and good works standard preached by Christ -- even if they never heard of him. The standard of goodness is self-evident. Christ did not bring new standards of goodness. He reiterated that which is naturally in the hearts and minds of people. He also threw off the yoke of Old Testament wrath and primitive practice.
You say: ". . . once the Faith is reduced to mere values, it isn't the Faith". In my view, faith and values are complementary to each other and, in the end, values trumps faith -- Faith without good works is dead. There is no such thing as "mere" values, as you put it. Due to circumstance, faith will vary from person to person, regardless of their goodness. Everyone has the opportunity to be good.
Let's talk more about what it means to be good, and less about damnation. If goodness is encouraged for its own sake, damnation will take care of itself.
I have to admit I do not know what that means.
Then you should shut up until you do, because understanding what that means is the key to understanding everything that Soloviev, Biffi, Richert and I are talking about.
Mark Shea -
I forgive you for attacking me rather than dealing with the issues.
I hope that Holy Week will give you the opportunity to contemplate our effort at a dialog and will bring you closer to a realization that an emphasis upon personal and social goodness is more important than a theology of damnation.
Your progress on matters such as torture, unnecessary war, clerical integrity and some aspects of extremism, is to be commended. Keep up the good work and understand that there is plenty of room for more breakthroughs.
"...goodness is more important than a theology..."
And there we have pretty much exactly what Biffi was talking about.
It is false ecumenism (all faiths are equal), false environmentalism (Gaia worship) and false pacifism (peace through submission to ideals of The Collective) that I'd wager Biffi is concerned with.
That kind of ecumenism says that all religions are equally true, when it means they are all equally false.
False pacifism holds the absence of violent conflict to be the ultimate value, to which all other values must be sacrificed.
False environmentalism serves as a substitute religion as much as anything, it's view of mankind (humanity as a virus and a blight) making the infamous "Catholic Guilt" look anemic by comparison.
Tim J -
What you would wager is not what we are talking about. I can only deal with what the man said, not with what we speculate he "really meant".
In any event, your characterization of the isms (you omitted vegetarianism)molds the issues in a way that, for you, suits the resolutions you wish to reach.
All faiths are not equal. I do not think anyone says that. For most people, it would be inherently inconsistent. The issue is whether government ought accord equal respect and protection to all religions. I trust that, with the exception of pseudo religious organizations, you would agree with that view.
I have never heard anyone say that pacifism holds "the absence of violent conflict to be the ultimate value, to which all other values must be sacrificed." Personal pacifism, such as that practiced by Christ, Ghandi and Martin Luther King is a judgment that each person must make for himself. Yes, Christ was the ultimate pacifist. The public policy issue is not so much pacifism as it is just war, just treatment of prisoners and just treatment of one's competitors. I trust that you agree that there are moral restraints that apply to each of those areas.
I don't know anyone who worships at an altar of environmentalism. Increasing evidence points to the the conclusion that we are abusing the earth and that substantial cutbacks in that abuse are imperative, lest we do harm to ourselves and future generations. I hope you agree that there is source for concern there.
You may wish to read an article in the April 1, 2007 NY Times, front page, entitled "Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms".
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/0...climate.html?
hp
Your progress on matters such as torture, unnecessary war, clerical integrity and some aspects of extremism, is to be commended. Keep up the good work and understand that there is plenty of room for more breakthroughs.
I shall endeavor to evolve to His Majesty's level of sublime enlightenment. Be patient with your unworthy servant's feeble and halting efforts to imitate Your Royal Highness' perfections and attain to Thy virtues. Forgive me for thinking that Your Highness should understand what he reads before expounding upon it. I, who am but base metal before the unalloyed splendor of thy gold, have no business correcting the Seer of All Souls, nor in pausing in my "progress" toward conformity with your glory. Thank you, Your Majesty, for pointing out that the gospel is about goodness. Your unworthy servant had no idea! And thank you for correcting the pernicious errors of Pope Benedict XVI, who leads the Church astray with his talk of the possibility of damnation. Thank you also for correcting the false teaching of St. Paul with the purity and refulgent wisdom of your own counsel. For who has known the mind of HBoitel? Who has given him instruction? Is there any worthy to tell him to learn to read? Nay, not one! I thank you for stooping down to one of my station, both to forgive and to raise me up to the starry spheres of your wisdom.
Sheesh!
That the same "ultimate pacifist" Christ that overturned the money changers' tables and drove them out of the temple grounds with a whip?
Yes, Christ was the ultimate pacifist.
No. He is not. If he were, there would be no Just War teaching. He is the Prince of Peace, but he is also the Lord of Hosts.
By the way, when speaking of Christ, the present tense is proper, because he is not dead.
Jarnor23 -
Come on, you can do better than that. There is no suggestion that Christ injured or killed anyone.
With regard to the preaching of Jesus, I was thinking:
In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)
A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:27-31)
Christ made the point in a very ultimate way during his passion and crucifixion, which we commemorate this week. Given His powers, it would seem that he was the ultimate personal pacifist.
Mark P. Shea -
Aw shucks,there is no need for you to grovel. I know it is difficult for you, as the BM (Blogibus Maximus) to confront the need for a course correction. Meditate on it this week.
As to your additional post, denying that Christ was a pacifist, try to deal with the facts, some of which I laid out in a separate posting to Jarnor23.
Just a quick update on my Catholicism Guide Site for About.com:
It did not go live on Friday, as expected. (Apparently, there's a backlog.) That means that it will go live next Friday (Good Friday).
When it has gone live, you'll see my name and picture at the top of the page--until then, it will continue to read "Apply Now" and have a gray silhouette. All of the content currently on the page belongs to the former guide, not me.
Scott P. Richert -
Perhaps, while we await the appearance of your About Guide, you can give us a preview by responding to a question asked earlier on this thread.
Can you refer us to something that Cardinal Biffi has written critical of right-wing dictators, advocates of war, polluters of the environment, activities that are cruel to animals, or respectful of religious liberty for those who are not Catholics?
I only know about him what is quoted by material that you quote with approval. If you are claiming that he is better than a right-wing ideologue, please point us to writings that make the point.
HJB -
Perhaps Biffi chose those "isms" because they far better represent the "spirit of the age". It's difficult for anyone to dress up war, pollution and cruelty to animals as any kind of Shining Path to Utopia, where the "isms" Biffi cited are regularly presented as such. That is precisely their danger.
"Nothing to kill or die for... and no religion, too." That's the lie.
What does ecumenism necessarily have to do with religious freedom as a political reality? Do you imagine that Biffi is somehow offering a critique of Freedom of Religion? Isn't it more likely he is warning against watering down the faith in order to accomodate and validate every viewpoint? To try and paint that as a desire to restrict religious freedom is quite a stretch.
The cornerstone of false ecumenism is the dogma that NO religion can claim to be The Truth... you know, as if they have some kind of Divine Revelation or Miraculous Protection from Teaching Error. Ecumenism in that sense is fundamentally anti-Catholic.
Or, I should say, anti-religion.
Scott:
His Majesty not only cannot read, but continue to labor under the delusion that it is the task of others to do his research for him on any question that strikes his fancy, no matter how irrelevant to the matter being discussed. If you fail to please the King's grace, he will declare you part of the Dark Side of Catholicism and deem you to be responsible for the present state of the Church, a Church among many horrors, pays attention to St. Paul. Beware! Beware!
So drop everything this Holy Week and get cracking. His Majesty commands it.
Tim J -
You say: "The cornerstone of false ecumenism is the dogma that NO religion can claim to be The Truth... you know, as if they have some kind of Divine Revelation or Miraculous Protection from Teaching Error. Ecumenism in that sense is fundamentally anti-Catholic."
Can you refer us to any prominent religious Priest, Minister, Rabbi, or Imam or any prominent lay religious educator who has taken the position you describe?
If not, can you point to any prominent person with a substantial following who has taken the position you describe?
If not, from what have you created the strong assertions contained in your posting?
Mark Shea -
Bless you. In your own, unwitting way, you have rapidly presented yourself as an instructive illustration of the Archie Bunker school of religious discussion and collegial etiquette.
I am torn between truly not wanting to see you embarrass yourself, on the one hand, and realizing how well the caricature that you present demonstrates the error of both your style and substance and, on the third hand, so to speak, my concern that when insight finally dawns on you, it will be very painful. Out of concern for the third item, I will continue to make my concededly inadequate efforts to help you in your search for truth.
It seems to me that if someone on this blog makes a statement of fact, without noting their source, it is reasonable to ask them if they have a source and, if so, to cite it. I know that does not fit in well with your standards, as applied to your own claims, but that is the way most responsible people have a rational discussion.
HJB-
Hans Kung, for starters.
Joan Chittister, J.D.Crossan, Matthew Fox...
And that's just a few of the so-called (and former) "Catholics".
Heck, just poke around BeliefNet for a while, if you can stomach it.
Were you under the impression that this viewpoint was something I dreamed up? Do you deny that many influential elites and media darlings think this way (if it can be called thinking)?
Tim J
I hunted around a bit and I did not find anyone saying what you ascribe to them. I would say that the viewpoint you seem to see as some kind of a tsunami, against which we must set ourselves, is held by the smallest of minorities, if anyone.
Hanks Kung's views are compatible with many of my views. He makes the very logical argument that most religious are in agreement as to basic moral principles. He encourages religion to joint in a statement of their commonly held moral views. In this way they can join as a combined force for the prorogation of those moral views. That a look at Declaration Toward A Global Ethic - http://www.weltethos.org/dat_eng...ng/
index3_e.htm
Or here as a single pdf.
http://www.weltethos.org/dat_eng...ng/
dekl_eng.pdf
---------------
There certainly there are people who believe in and practice moral lives, but who think that organized religion of any kind is unnecessary to a good life or to merit heavenly bliss. The number of such people is probably substantial and increasing. This is not the same as people who say there is no difference from one religion to another.
The non-organized religion people present an interesting question. In order of priority, which is better:
1. A person who leads a good, moral life but does not participate in organized religion;
2. A person who participates in the RC liturgy, but is a hypocrite, i.e, does not lead a moral life, but manages to make an effective, last minute confession, before going to meet his maker;
3. A person who leads a good, moral life but associates with a religion other than Roman Catholicism.
My view is that 1 and 3 are clearly preferable to 2.
"I hunted around a bit and I did not find anyone saying what you ascribe to them."
Well, I did. Now YOU can look them up.
Tellingly, your list left out #4, A Catholic who faithfully upholds all the teaching of the Church, which is preferable to all the other three, in fact so preferable as to leave the other options in the dust, spiritually speaking. Is it better to be ignorant, or a hypocrite? No other choices?
Oh, why am I not shocked that you admire Kung? God help you both.
Scott:
I think you've misunderstood, and for my part I mis-stated my position. I understand your position against the Iraq War is based on your interpretation of the Just War doctrine. You also argue solidly that the Catholic who is serious about his faith must allow it to guide his decisions in all matters of life, including the political, and not let the other way around.
That means applying the teachings of the faith to matters such as euthanasia, abortion, and contraception and oppose them. It also means applying them in matters of law enforcement, economics (where I find myself agreeing with Chesterton and Belloc in much of what they say), and yes, war.
The fact is that, as I tried to point out, I did in fact look over the Iraq War from the Just War doctrine elucidated by the Church, and from that came to a different conclusion than you on the issue. This is not an issue where the Church has decided the faithful must take support or oppose the war, but must look at it conscientiously.
What I was trying to say is that you may be doing what you're accusing me of doing, namely, taking one issue of the spectrum of issues where our Church has something to say and making your interpretation of that teaching more important than the anything else. You implied with your reference to the infamous "seamless garment" ideology of Cardinal Bernadin that we pro-lifers hypocritically invalidate our stands by not joining in protesting the war.
You have not considered that we pro-lifers may have looked at the teaching and simply come to a different conclusion as you do. I think you've displayed the very same attitude you accused me of showing, and have demonstrated the very problem I warned against in my initial post.
Tim J -
You say: "Tellingly, your list left out #4, A Catholic who faithfully upholds . . . "
In wanting to add another category to the list you demonstrate that you miss the point.
One defines away the problem if one, for example, includes a Saint who has fully grasped and followed the moral way and correctly perceived divinely inspired truth.
The purpose of limiting the choices was to drive home what is obvious to me: a highly moral life led by a person who has made erroneous choices as to faith, is preferable to a life of immorality, even though the immoral person has made correct choices as to faith, and even though that person receives "last minute" absolution.
As far as Father Kung is concerned, he remains a Roman Catholic priest, in good standing, and had dinner with the present Pope during the current pontificate. [Has the Pope given scandal by associated with the likes of Kung?] As far as I am aware he is thoroughly consistent in following the word of Christ. He disputes papal infallibility. Keep in mind that the theory of papal infallibility is made on a claimed logic and not on any explicit statement of Christ. One cannot very well say that infallibility is infallibly pronounced.
I see you are following the kind of high school freshman academic approach that is used by Mark Shea. When someone questions the source for your somewhat wild generalizations, simply tell them to go find the source for themselves. Bravo. It is an improvement over jumping up and down and stamping your feet and having a sissyfit.
It strikes me that the current debate between Scott P. Richert and Steven Cornett is inevitable from the weak foundations from which each of them starts.
When one starts with cherry picked allowances for both implicit and explicit inconsistencies, relatively minor deviations stretch out to differences separated by a rather wide arc.
What is it about "Thou shalt not kill" that is difficult to understand?
The same can be said about the unqualified admonition to "Love thy neighbor" and to "Turn the other cheek." and to "Cast the first stone".
Life, particularly a life that follows the Word of Christ, entails risks.
Love, whether given or accepted, entails a price. Eliminating the risk associated with love means that something other than love is being given or accepted. Tough to accept, but that is the way it is.
"I see you are following the kind of high school freshman academic approach that is used by Mark Shea."
Whatever. I did enough poking around to satisfy myself that the people I listed in fact advocate the kind of view I descibed, if not in the very words I used. I am not obligated to keep track of every document or resource and paste it all for your convenience. If you are familiar with Kung'sthought you should hardly need for me to explain his (il)logic. You prove as much by admitting that Kung has a problem (to put it mildly) with Papal infallibility (actually, he has a problem with any authority that isn't his, but that's chasing rabbits).
You're doing cat-and-mouse, here. You know this view is out there, and I expect you know perfectly well that these people hold it, promulgate it and influence others to do the same. I see nothing of Christ ("obedient, even unto death") in Kung's views. I see lots of Hans Kung.
"a highly moral life led by a person who has made erroneous choices as to faith, is preferable to a life of immorality, even though the immoral person has made correct choices as to faith, and even though that person receives "last minute" absolution."
Do you actually know some Church document that advocates either of these? Is some Catholic out there making the claim that hypocrisy is preferable to ignorance? I want sources!
The goal is to cultivate faithful Catholics ("make disciples of all nations"). Neither hypocricy nor ignorance is an acceptable alternative to evangelization.
"As far as I am aware he is thoroughly consistent in following the word of Christ".
Can you prove that? Show some documentation.
BTW, DID you read Richert's article? He didn't exactly go easy on right-wing hypocricy. Where does this idea come from that he is a lock-step right-wing apologist? If he is, the right wing should be worried.
Steven, from the first three paragraphs of your response, we seem to be in agreement. Where the disagreement comes in is in your original comment, where you seemed to indicate that those of us who oppose the war, and try to convince our fellow Catholics to do so, are serving the Culture of Death.
Sorry, but I don't buy that. Yes, we can disagree on the justice of the war in Iraq--though, as I argue in a later installment of "Thoughts on the Antichrist," Catholics should put great weight on the judgments of popes, even when those judgments aren't binding--but when you argue that someone who is both pro-life and opposed to this war because he believes it is unjust and immoral is ultimately serving the Culture of Death, it's just a little bit hard to believe that you're being serious.
Thanks, Tim J. I'm what's usually called a "paleoconservative" (in fact, the word was originally coined to refer to Chronicles and its editors), and more than one person has claimed that we paleocons spend more time criticizing our supposedly "fellow conservatives" than we do liberals.
In once sense, it's true; on the other hand, part of our critique has long been to point out that what passes for conservatism today would have been rather far to the left not all that long ago.
These are political categories, though, and, as I've pointed out above, within the context of the Church, left and right do not apply. When I criticize either "right-wing Catholics" or "left-wing Catholics," I'm really making the same criticism--these are people who are putting political ideology first, which means that they are (often unintentionally, or even with the best of intentions) distorting the Faith.
Tim J -
You have asked me to give a reference with regard to my view of which of the noted lives is better, in a Christian sense. I based my statement only upon my own view. I have never seen a papal pronouncement on the issue.
I was hoping to have your view as to which is the better life. Can there be any doubt that those who led a good life, regardless of faith, will be more favored than one who squeaks in via a last minute absolution ex machina?
You ask for a citation about the views of Father Hans Kung. The only view I am aware of that has incurred formal Church displeasure is his view concerning infallibility. I have provided you with a reference to "Toward a Global Ethic" which appears to be a good summary of many of his essential moral views. Do you have a problem with the positions taken in that document?
Scott P. Richert -
What you describe sounds like it could be titled "Escape from Moral Choices Unless They Interest Me".
A lot of this is semantics. One person's moral imperative is another persons ideological view. At the end of the day, as Christ repeatedly drove home, morality is not simply a theory. It is an application of moral principles to the real world choices we must make.
Some choices are very personal, but others have to do with the acts and omissions of the social structure of which we are a part.
Ideology, , is neither consistent nor inconsistent with, neither relevant nor irrelevant to morality. Invariably, there are planks of ideological platforms that will be consistent with and relevant to (or otherwise), the fundamental moral obligations of the social structure.
Ideology, whether presented in an academic sense or in a partisan political program, should not be dismissed by the Church. Such ideology is morally important in its own right, regardless of whether it is linked to religious faith.
Please do not confuse the foregoing with the fact that ideologies can make some wrong moral choices. When an individual blindly supports an ideology or a political platform, regardless of what mistaken moral choices it may make, he violates his own individual moral obligations. Moral choices should not be made out of a desire to win as opposed to a desire to do the correct thing.
"The only view I am aware of that has incurred formal Church displeasure is his view concerning infallibility"
Oh, well if THAT'S all...
At least it wasn't anything really important.
(pulling toungue out of cheek, now)
steven,
re: "This is not an issue where the Church has decided the faithful must take support or oppose the war, but must look at it conscientiously."
but you're not "responsible for the common good" so it's really not up to you to evaluate.
2309...The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Most people assume that the common good is referring to themselves, the common good of their country, but not so.
The Church defines the "common good" as:
1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority.
1924 The common good comprises "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (GS 26 1).
1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.
1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."29
Ratzinger stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” He also said the United Nations was the proper public authority to decide the war with Iraq:
“the United Nations … should make the final decision,” he said. “It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.” http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?
sid=25413
which makes perfect sense when it comes to international issues:
1927 It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.
The bottom line here is that there is a moral truth underlying the Iraq War. It is not a "relativistic" issue i.e. it's moral if I feel it's moral, or it's moral because I agree it's moral. It's either moral or it's not. Given that, I have to ask myself, who do I look towards for moral truth? My Church, my President, or my self? Of those three choices the only ones who have the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide them is my Church. Therefore, when it comes to a moral truth, I will defer to the Holy Father's judgement over my President's, whether it's his prudential judgement or dogmatically defined.
HJBoitel, with every comment, you simply further prove my point. I don't recall a single passage where Christ speaks of "ideology," "planks of ideological platforms," "the acts and omission of the social structure of which we are a part," "the application of moral principles," or even (and this is likely to shock others beyond you as well) "morality."
Anyone who has spent any time with the Fathers of the Church knows that their writings, too, are blessedly free of this modern ideological cant.
What you will find in them is precisely what Mark and I, echoing Cardinal Biffi, echoing Solovyov, with loads of John Paul II mixed in, warn is being lost: the personal encounter with Christ. That encounter, the Fathers tell us, will change our lives. Contrary to what you wrote above, faith is, according to them, prior to works. "Faith without works is dead"--of course, but the Fathers uniformly interpreted St. James to mean that works are the proof of faith, not that works are prior to faith.
To argue otherwise is to set yourself against the Tradition of the Church.
Scott P. Richert -
I think we are getting someplace in this discussion. Not closer to agreement, but closer to defining differences.
Instead of dealing with issues, your post is wrapped up in semantics. You are correct, Christ and early Church writers did not use the words and phrases that modern advocates of morality use. Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's teachings were not focused on the morality of motives and actions? If so, we have read different scriptures.
You concede that "Faith without good works is dead". I trust you concede it means what it says. Faith, alone, means nothing in terms of compliance with one's personal obligations to the Creator and to one's fellow man. Have you noticed that nowhere in the scriptures does it say, "Good works without faith are worthless", or that there is no point in loving your neighbor if you do not believe in this or that item of faith?
I have no difficulty with the idea that good works are the proof of faith. Of course that is true. However, you distort the meaning of that statement.
1. Footprints in the snow may be proof that someone walked on the path since the snow began, but that is not proof that either the snow or the walking is dependent upon the other.
2. Based upon what Christ said and the context within which He said it, my view is that a person who never heard of Christ and never heard of any teachings of the Church, but who naturally lives a moral life (Cf. The Sermon on the Mount), is no less a holy person than one who has heard about and believes in all of those things. Christ never made the concept of the good life dependent upon belief. That stands to reason since, by definition, belief is not a function of free will and it would be absurd to judge someone on other than his willful acts and omissions.
3. True faith is, as many have said, a gift. It can enable goodness, in the sense of giving people the strength to follow the correct path, notwithstanding the adversities of life. The attainment of God's approval is not contingent upon faith, it is contingent upon acts and omissions. In deed, one who follows the path of goodness, not from fear or obeisance, but because it is good, probably demonstrates the most holy level of humanity.
4. One who proclaims faith, but acts or omits in violation of the principles articulated by Christ (what we call moral principles), has nothing. That does not mean that faith must "precede" good works or that goodness is dependent upon faith. Effective faith is dependent upon good works. You have it backwards.
5. In many religious contexts, including Roman Catholicism, some people, including some Church people have deemphasized good works in favor of obedience, faith, the rewards of the afterlife and "acceptance of the will of God". In effect that has meant: "Accept your suffering and do not compare it to my luxury (often at your expense) because that is the way God wants it; do not question my logic in defining what is right or wrong, because God put me in a place to rule over you and you must accept my views without question." -- Please do not misinterpret what I have just said to mean that there should be no authority or structure. It only means that authority is accountable for a failure to comply with morality. "Faith" is not a basis upon which such accountability is avoidable.
6. I know nothing about you and I have no reason to believe you are not a person of good will. I often wonder why people such as you find it necessary to place good works as secondary to (or even ONLY informed by) faith. I suspect it is because it is difficult to reconcile the Word with the meandering path that religious leadership has taken over the past two thousand years or the empty morality that currently passes for political rectitude.
7. "21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
HJBoitel:
Effective faith is dependent upon good works. You have it backwards.
I don't have it backward; I follow the Fathers of the Church on this one. Your debate is with them, not me.
I advise you to take it up with them. The best way to do so is to engage in intensive study of their works. Come back in a few years after you've done so, and we'll talk.
Scott P. Richert
I think this is a genuine clarification of what separates us.
I can understand why you would want to put off further discussion for "a few years", but why not use this opportunity to expand upon exactly what the Fathers of the Church have said that supports your position and disagrees with mine.
HJBoitel, I've tried to be polite, but I'm not going to spend my day going through the PL and PG to prove to you something that anyone with a passing familiarity with the patristic writings knows to be true.
The fact that you seem to doubt that the Fathers interpreted St. James this way is proof either that you don't have even a passing familiarity with patristic writings or that you've simply decided that your interpretation trumps everyone else's.
If the first, then my suggestion stands: Read the Fathers.
If the second, then there's really no "discussion" here to continue.
HJBoitel seems to have concocted a definition of "morality" or "moral science" largely ignorant of the history of Moral Philosophy evident in the western tradition.
For example, he seems ignorant of the fact that Faith, according to Scripture and the Magisterium and tradition of the Church, is an "act." Which is why in the OT it is credited to Abraham as righteousness, and elaborated on by the Church Fathers and Doctors.
For this rich tradition he seems to substitute a fairly hubristic conception of moral action which devolves on to the individual will the entire weight and credit for "good" acts.
The "difference" between the two points of view is simple. One has encountered the person of Jesus and the other has encountered his teachings. To break it down even further, one has realized who Jesus is and accepted him, the other has realized what he taught and applied it to his personal viewpoint.
Dr.Brian --
I wonder if you might expand upon your point. Unavoidably everything is filtered through "a personal viewpoint".
I confess that I do not know what "encountering the person of Jesus" means, but if it means a mystical unity with Christ, I suspect that people who believe they have experienced such unity will perceive that from their "personal viewpoint".
The same might be said of one's perception of loving one's fellow man or engaging in good works. But, with Christ's words we have some pretty unequivocal admonitions in that regard, just in case is does not come to us naturally.
Scott P. Richert -
I thank you for your time and your effort at politeness.
I admit to not being either a moral theologian or a scriptural scholar. If you can help me to better locate and understand the fixed and binding interpretations of Church Fathers that I am contradicting, I would appreciate it.
HBoitel:
Here's a good summary of the Church's teaching on justification by faith through grace expressing itself in meritorious acts of charity.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/
p3...s1c3a2.htm#1990
Al - You say: "HJBoitel seems to have concocted a definition of "morality" or "moral science" largely ignorant of the history of Moral Philosophy evident in the western tradition."
As a side note, Scott P. Richert, notes that "morality" and similar words (perhaps "goodness" and "ethics")are not mentioned by Christ and thus suggests that they are not really relevant to the discussion.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=33033#869962
I wonder whether he deems irrelevant the moral theology and moral philosophy courses that many of us have taken in Catholic Institutions.
In any event, I would appreciate it if you can reference me to specific binding or, at least, authoritative, moral philosophy precepts that contradict what I have said.
You say: "For this rich tradition [of moral philosophy Boitel] seems to substitute a fairly hubristic conception of moral action which devolves on to the individual will the entire weight and credit for "good" acts."
If you read what I said, you will note my view that faith, if present, can assist in fulfilling the mandate of good works. My view is that people can be good, in every sense of the word, even if they do not have the gift of faith. If faith enhanced their ability to be good, then I suppose it can be said that faith lifts some of the "weight" from their shoulders and therefore deserves some of the "credit". I guess that means that a good life that does not rely upon faith is a more credit-worthy life, all other things being equal.
It seems obvious that faith, like taste, is fairly individualized. It is quite difficult to determine whether faith means the same thing to two different cardinals, much less two different laypersons. At least one person still has faith that the non-existent Saint Christopher will protect me as I drive my car.
If faith makes you a better person, then it is good for you. If it inspires hate, pride, despair, apostasy or indifference in you then it is not good for you. You can split all kinds of hairs but, in the end, that is what it comes down to.
Some say "true faith" can only bring good. The tough part is the modifier.
My view is that people can be good, in every sense of the word, even if they do not have the gift of faith. If faith enhanced their ability to be good, then I suppose it can be said that faith lifts some of the "weight" from their shoulders and therefore deserves some of the "credit". I guess that means that a good life that does not rely upon faith is a more credit-worthy life, all other things being equal.
So Jesus suffered and died to commend us on our more credit-worthy life well lived without his help? That would appear to be what you are saying.
I really am curious what you believe the point of the Passion, Death and Resurrection, Ascencion and Pentecost was, HBoitel.
An encounter with Christ is not a "mystical union." An encounter with Christ is that which leads us to conform our image to his rather than conform his teachings to ourselves. That we must abide by his teachings is part of this, but it does not reduce Christ merely to his teachings because the encounter is with the risen Lord himself. It is not a personal viewpoint as it is not something I have deduced on my own. Rather it is an experience with Christ as he is revealed by his body, the Church.
Mark P. Shea -
Thank you for the reference to a portion of the Catechism. http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1554932/
#870068
I think the segments most relevant to our discussion are 1996 and 2005:
" 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
"2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.
"A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God's grace, she replied: 'If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'"58 "
1996 suggests to me that grace precedes faith and that God bestows grace on all human beings. I suspect that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and the ability to naturally understand the obligation to engage in good works, are matters of grace. Without such grace there would probably be no such thing as free will.
I am not sure I understand what 2005 means.
Its first sentence says: "Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith." If that means God does not bestow grace except upon people who have faith consistent with the Catholic Church's definition of what should be believed, then I doubt the validity of the sentence. If, on the other hand, the word "known" means "understood", then I do not have any problem with it. I doubt that anyone except God understands what grace is.
The second sentence of 2005 is: "We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved."
I think it is a fair statement that we can never be certain that we have lived a sufficiently moral life. We do the best we can and hope that God will agree. While I envy the self-confidence of those who believe that, through their faith and/or good works, they have merited, earned or will otherwise receive the ultimate prize, I think that when they use faith in that way it is self-delusion.
It is, on the whole, instructive to me that Christ was able to express the great moral truths in relatively simple examples and precepts. I often wonder what is accomplished by the fine parsing of concepts found in the catechism you reference. 99.99% of Catholics will never read it, and of those who do, I doubt that their faith, or the likelihood of their living a better life, will be enhanced or that there will be substantial agreement as to the meaning of what they read.
Mark P. Shea -
You ask: "I really am curious what you believe the point of the Passion, Death and Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost"
I doubt whether anyone can fully know what the "the point" of those events was.
I think there are a lot of good people. People who were good before Christ and people who would have been good, whether or not Christ had endured or experienced those events.
In my view the symbolism of a God of wrath and moods, depicted in the Old Testament, was replaced by the sacrifice and love preached and demonstrated by Christ. God as teacher, God as sharing the burden of the human condition, The Word made flesh, with confidence in eternal life.
From the time of Christ until now, most human beings who have existed have not had a meaningful opportunity to know the teachings and example of Christ. No doubt, by means analogous to the "butterfly effect" many have indirectly been impacted by Christ. Cf. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi652.htm
However, it is likely that many were not, and some are still not, being impacted by His life in any meaningful way.
Perhaps the question assumes that everyone was impacted or enabled in some kind of equivalent way. There is certainly an appeal to that view.
However, neither logic nor the scriptures suggests that is true. In fact, all other treatment of people by God is laden with inequality of circumstance, opportunity, happiness, suffering and lifespan. If, in everything we see, people on earth are treated in radically different ways, why should it be concluded that Christ's incarnation and life would provide some opportunity equally available to all? It may be so in some supernatural way, but that is beyond my ability to describe or explain. I wonder if it makes a difference for us to know.
Sounds unfair? Perhaps. But I believe that in the final accounting a lot will be taken into account, including all of the opportunities that each has had to know and live a moral life.
You did not mention redemption. If we had to be redeemed because of what Adam and Eve did, then Christ enabled our redemption. I don't really have a view on that. If we were redeemed, we were redeemed.
Do you believe that a person's salvation depends upon whether he believes in the necessity for and the occurrence of redemption?
Jesus did not come to "express the great moral truths", He came to show us that he IS truth.
he did not come to show us a better way, he IS the way.
He came not to improve our lives, but to bring us to life... and by dying to destroy Death.
He's not a road sign, he's the ROAD.
Tim J-
If all that has beneficial meaning to you, use it in the best way you can. To me, it seems more like a cheerleader's chant than an insight.
"To me, it seems more like a cheerleader's chant than an insight."
How sad.
Tim J, Mark Shea and Mr Richert are all much more educated on Church teaching than me, but earlier HJB said:
"Can there be any doubt that those who led a good life, regardless of faith, will be more favored than one who squeaks in via a last minute absolution ex machina?"
I think the story of the Prodigal Son will answer this question. If the one who "squeaks in" has truly seen his errors and seeks forgiveness prior to his death, then he will be forgiven by God. The person who is an atheist, but has led a "good" life, will not be favored. If he has not accepted God, I would not like his chances. Plus, define "good".
I doubt whether anyone can fully know what the "the point" of those events was.
Could you give it a try? Is the death and resurrection in any way related to our salvation, in your opinion? If so, how? Given that Jesus himself seems to have thought it was the whole point of the story and that the evangelist devote a quarter of their ink to a 72 hour period in the life of Christ, can you venture a guess about what they think is so important about it?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" is a cheerleader's chant?
Quite seriously, HBoitel, are you familiar with the gospel of John?
One of the readers has misinterpreted somethings I said on this subject in response to your prior question. This is an area in which sensitivities run high and rather than risk further misinterpretations during Holy Week, I will forgo responding to this narrow area during the remainder of the week. If you still want the question answered, ask me again next week.
I'm just trying to figure out what you are talking about.
I am quite familiar with the quotation. I do not find it to be the same as the series of statements made by Tim J. Go back and read what he wrote.
I do not know what you think that sentence and the rest of the verse means, but as far as I can recall, Christ never said that those who existed before him are not saved, nor did he ever say that those who in the future are not aware of him will not be saved.
If there is anyone who can point us to words of Christ that state that such people will not be saved, please point them out to us.
I read what he wrote. He's making an obvious allusion to those words.
I have no idea what prompted you to say the rest of what you wrote. Nobody existed before Christ. Through him all things were made.
I imagine you mean that people who lived before he assumed human nature and was born a man can be saved. Of course. Has anybody here said otherwise?
Mark P. Shea -
Perhaps you should start a movement to get all those BC's removed from at least religious texts.
You agree, as I thought you would, that persons, who lived before Christ, were saved.
You did not answer the other question, can persons who have lived since Christ, but who die without ever having heard of Him, be saved?
The Church has always said so. But, of course, like everybody else, if they are saved, they are saved by Christ. Did you think the Church taught something else?
By the way, I don't agree that *all* persons before Christ are necessarily saved. I'm not a universalist. I leave such matters up to God to judge and don't presume on his mercy.
"1996 suggests to me that grace precedes faith and that God bestows grace on all human beings. I suspect that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and the ability to naturally understand the obligation to engage in good works, are matters of grace. Without such grace there would probably be no such thing as free will."
This grace is *merely sufficient grace*. I assume that you understand the distinction between sufficient grace and sanctifying grace. Clearly you must, because you are lecturing all of us on the proper understanding of Catholicism and Christ.
P.S.- this:
"Its first sentence says: "Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith." If that means God does not bestow grace except upon people who have faith consistent with the Catholic Church's definition of what should be believed, then I doubt the validity of the sentence..."
is priceless. Oh, the humility.
HJBoitel,
As I said, and perhaps due to your "instruction" at said Catholic Institutions in the likes of Hans Kung, you seem to inadequately understand the Church's notion of acts, and indeed of justification.
As St. Thomas admirably describes, Faith is an act--an Act of assent of the intellect to God's authoritative revelation of Himself.
Because it is a Theological or Infused Virtue it is both a meritorious act, and one whose merit ultimately proceeds from God's work within us.
First, you should read St. Thomas on the Act of Faith, the definition of which the Catechism quotes verbatim when it defines faith, authoritatively.
You seem to juxtapose "faith" and "works", but that is simply in contradition to the Church's understanding that Faith itself is a "work" and a necessary one, not the instrumental aid to "good works" that you describe.
Now other than your earnest assurances of what you "believe" regarding justifcation, why don't you provide some sources for your seemingly idiosyncratic conception of works.
al -
Sure, one can call faith an "act". Many things are acts when that word is used in a broad sense. Note however, that faith is an act like suffering or being beaten or experiencing the sunshine is an act. Faith is repeatedly called a gift.
The acts of love for one's fellow man that were carefully listed and mandated by the words and example of Christ are also acts.
Faith and recitations of what one believes are a different kind of act that the acts of love toward one's fellow man.
Your construct seems to be that acts of faith satisfy the good works mandated by Christ. That is patently not correct. As I have said elsewhere, such compulsion to suppress the good works mandate appears to be characteristic of a number of those who write on this blog. It is also what triggers my criticism of the Bifi perspective.
In portions of its history, the Church, itself, has been deficient in the promotion of good works. Surprisingly, the Church has even been known to take the position that personal good works and governmental good works ought be discouraged except to the extent that they take the form of contributions given to the Church which would then use its discretion as to what should be done with them. I do not thin that Christ intended such a distancing of the individual from the object of good works or Church monopoly on organized good works.
You seek to turn the tables on me and ask me for citations to my views as to good works. From the outset I have relied on the direct words of Christ. That is about as close to the source as I can get.
You refer me to Aquinas. I am familiar with his arguments relating to faith. Some of them are like the argument that, aerodynamically, honey bees cannot fly. The proof are great, but the fact remains that bees fly and we are all dependent upon their ability to get from flower to flower.
Here we are, two thousand years after Christ, and there are billions of people who fervently adhere to religious that are predicated on belief systems that do not rely upon the beliefs that you think are fundamental and unique to Christianity. These people often make substantial sacrifices to comply with their faith. Their belief systems have been determined by the accident of birth. Only a very small minority of persons who are not born Christians voluntarily convert to Christianity, just as only a very small percentage of persons born Catholic convert to other religions. [Although that number is increasing at a substantial rate, in addition to people who are simply becoming non-practicing Catholics]
So, in the main, the accident of birth determines both active and passive belief systems with which most of us are associated.
I adhere to a the position that a person who leads a morally good life and who is faithful to his belief system, is no less loved by God and headed for his eternal reward than one who knows, accepts and follows Christ.
Do you disagree with that? My impression is that you do.
As a separate point, I have as much of a duty to love and do good works for persons who are not Christians as I do for persons who are Christians.
Do you disagree with that? I am not clear on what your position is.
HJBoitel:
Over on the other thread, I noted that you have done an injustice to the people who write on this blog in claiming that they downplay good works. Now, you've compounded that injustice by repeating it (without any evidence) and expanding it to the Church Herself!
Sorry, pal, but but when you get to the point where you set yourself up as the judge of the Church, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.
Go, and do your good works. But keep praying for faith--because, contrary to what you believe (what you take on faith?) you're going to need it.
What we believe shapes what we do. Every non-Christian religion is more or less in error and therefore creates to some extent obstacles to right faith, and therefore to right behavior - "good works".
Sincerity does not equal goodness. There is such a thing as being sincerely wrong.
God can certainly save whomever he wishes, and He will get no argument from me, so I do not presume to speak in any individual case on whether anyone is damned. Neither do I presume that I will be saved.
But from the get-go, the whole world is fallen and deserves hell. No one can work their way to heaven. Truly Good works can be defined only as those accomplished in cooperation with God's grace.
Lots of people feel affection for their children and treat them well. So do lots of animals. Loving your children in that sense is better than not loving them, but it is not work of supernatural grace. "Do not even the Publicans the same?".
That's why "love your enemies" was such a shock, and still is.
No, a "good moral life" (whatever that means) by any outward measure will not get anyone to heaven, nor will mere intellectual ascent to the points of the Nicene Creed (dead faith).
Neither faith alone, not works alone will do. What's required are Works of Faith, and that means cooperation with the grace of God.
Scott P. Richert -
Thanks for calling me your pal. I hope I can merit your gracious offer of friendship.
As regards doing injustice to the Church, I doubt there are many who would deny that, as a human institution, the Church has, over the ages, reflected all of the warts common to human institutions, particularly those that are invested with or assume temporal power and wealth.
Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia that reflects historical and current views, as of the early 20th century, with regard to Charity and Charitable giving. Informative in several respects.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
03592a.htm
Tim J -
You say: "But from the get-go, the whole world is fallen and deserves hell."
You have opened another door of potential controversy.
Mary was five years old when she developed a cancer. She suffered intensely for the better part of a year and died. She was born to a family that is not Christian and not particularly religious. Did Mary hell. If she had been baptized by a Christian snake handler, would she still hell? Would it make a difference if she had reached the "age of reason" when the cancer struck her?
I have been under the impression that one deserves punishment for what one does or at least for what one "does in his heart".
If I do not believe she deserved to go to hell, then do I deserve to go to hell, even if all of other Heaven entry requirements have been satisfied?
I hope you will not simply say that we all to go to hell, regardless of personal innocence, but, through the grace of God, and the intervention of Christ, we will be treated better than we deserve.
"You have opened another door of potential controversy."
Pardon me, HJB, but I did not invent that... "There is none righteous, no, not one".
But let me modify my hyperbole, since literalism seems to be a snare for you; "The whole world is fallen, and those capable of making a choice all choose to sin".
Your wish to understand rules by the exceptions is not uncommon, but neither is is helpful. OF COURSE we're not talking about babies, or the mentally handicapped, or other exceptions.
But we are fallen, and at some point, we all ratify our fallen-ness by choosing sin.
By asking about the eternal destiny of an individual, you ask what can not be answered. Is this or that person in hell? Hell if I know.
But, as you anticipated, yes, the "age of reason" does figure prominently.
God is both just and merciful. More so than any of us. I trust him with the babies. But you and I are not babies, nor is the farmer in India or the factory worker in China.
You said "I hope you will not simply say that we all to go to hell, regardless of personal innocence, but, through the grace of God, and the intervention of Christ, we will be treated better than we deserve."
No, I do not say that. Once a person is capable of choosing sin (the worship of self) however, the arguemnt from innocence goes out the window.
Through "the grace of God, and the intervention of Christ", we ARE treated better than we deserve (as the scriptures make clear - "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us") but not in the way you seem to be thinking.
Christ does not ignore our sin, wink and let us into heaven anyway, He - through the Holy Spirit - really, actually, for-real changes us into beings who are fit to inhabit heaven. This is a process. It is hard and painful. He enables us to recognize our sin, to repent of it, and most imnportantly to increasingly conform our will to his. We can't do this on our own, or even begin to. And how do I conform myself to Christ without knowing Him?
He transforms us - with our cooperation - into beings like himself ("we will be like him"). This is no mere legal pronouncement. If God does not REALLY free me from my sin, then how can eternal life be anything but hell?
I would not see any unclean thing enter the Holy Place, and if that means going to hell MYSELF, I would rather see that happen than to drag my sins into heaven with me. Some heaven that would be.
So, yes, we get better than we deserve, in that we get a bunch of second chances and unimaginable supernatural help, if we will take it. Those chances do run out eventually, though. Not something I would care to bet on.
HBoitel:
Another useful section of the Catechism deals with your question about the meaning and effects of baptism and the Church's hopes for the unbaptized.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/
p2...s2c1a1.htm#1231
Please do not complain that the Church goes into a lot of detail. It is pointless to ask the questions you are asking and them complain when it is pointed out that the Church has, in fact, though through these matters (as well as many matters it has not yet occurred to you thing about). You asked what the Church's view is about poor little Mary. Now you have a chance to find out.
I know there are some open issues, but as is our family custom, I will be doing other things for rest of the week.
Best wishes to all for the Holy Days that are upon us.
HJBoitel
Mark Shea -
You say: "Please do not complain that the Church goes into a lot of detail. It is pointless to ask the questions you are asking and them complain when it is pointed out that the Church has, in fact, though through these matters (as well as many matters it has not yet occurred to you thing about)."
What I actually said was:
"It is, on the whole, instructive to me that Christ was able to express the great moral truths in relatively simple examples and precepts. I often wonder what is accomplished by the fine parsing of concepts found in the catechism you reference. 99.99% of Catholics will never read it, and of those who do, I doubt that their faith, or the likelihood of their living a better life, will be enhanced or that there will be substantial agreement as to the meaning of what they read."
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I have no problem with the Church being as explicit as possible with regard to what it defines or suggests as being the relationship of man to God and of man to man. In substance, I think it ironic that, in a practical sense, the Church has not added much to what Christ had to say, and, sometimes obfuscates truths that appear clear from Christ's own words.
It is also fair to say that the formal Catechism of Christian Doctrine is a high level, frequently uninformative exposition that is not likely to have a direct impact upon the beliefs or practices of Roman Catholics or others, except to the extent that preachers and teachers interpret it.
In any event, I am happy for you to direct me to any sources you deem to be relevant and informative.
That's why I directed you to the Catechism.
HJB:
I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are sucking up the oxygen in the comboxes. I'm limiting you to three responses a day. Make them good ones. Valiant declamations about freedom of speech will be cheerfully deleted. You don't have unfettered freedom of speech on my blog. You are my guest and here on my sufferance.
You've already used up your allotment for today. Write back tomorrow. But don't blow one of your three chances by a windy exposition about right-wing censorship.
I'm still trying to figure out what you think the point of the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus was. You tend to speak of him as a mere teacher and moralist and don't really seem to think the passion and resurrection mean much. Or else you think them so mysterious that there's no point in discussing them. It would be helpful if you could give me something beyond "Beats me" and then returning to Christ the Left Wing Ideologue Who Agrees With Me as your theme.
But all that can wait till tomorrow. You've sucked up enough oxygen for today.
Commenting by HaloScan
