The Mediation of the Saints: Part 1

(Parts 2 and 3 of this ongoing series are completed, with more on the way! 
Check it out: 

Part 2: God Works Through Us, 
Part 3: Walking Together)

A: Introduction

In this piece I hope to accomplish, step-by-step, an understanding of the saints. In a small part how we should strive to be saintly and in larger part how we should consider those who are called saints in the fullest sense, i.e., those with almighty God in heaven who pray for us and continue, in His friendship, to aid us in many ways. Though I will begin by mentioning mediation I will pick it up in a later part.

I. Who are They?

Christ indeed is “the one mediator between God and the human race” (1 Tim 2:5) but does this mean that God the Father will only listen to Christ? Does not the Lord “have eyes for the just and ears for their cry”? (Ps 34:16). Further still Christ tells us to “ask and it will be given to you” (Mt 7:7). The letter to James further qualifies this when he says “You do not possess because you do not ask. You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James 4:2b-3).

What should we ask for and how do we ask rightly? The letter of James further tells us that in order to do this we must be “doers of the word and not hearers only” (1:22). We learn through many venues but the most powerful teachers of faith and love are the saints.

The saints are, in short, exemplary doers of the word. They stand as a model for us in courage, patience, and wise-counsel among other virtues. We are drawn to a truly holy person because it seems like that ‘have it together.’ They exemplify—it’s almost an aura—a love of God and a love of neighbor. This power and aura are displayed by the Apostles themselves. Look at see the circumstances of these examples:

+Phillip runs up to the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah and says ‘Do you understand what you read?’ The man replies, ‘How can I, unless someone instructs me?’ Phillip, filled with the Holy Spirit, instructed him. The eunuch, himself moved by that same Spirit, sought to be baptized immediately. Phillip became a light to a man searching for Christ. (cf. Acts 8:26-40)

Philip instructing the Ethiopian eunuch, pointing to Scripture and pointing to God. His bodily presence and actions making it possible for this man to see both.

+Paul and Barnabas preached at Lystra and healed a crippled man. Their presence and power of spirit and speech drew a large crowd to them. The Greeks there took them to be the gods Zeus and Hermes and began to worship them. But Paul was distraught, saying to them ‘We are flesh and blood just as you are. We have done these works so you might turn from idols and false gods and turn to the living God.’ (cf Acts 14:8-20)

Paul and Barnabas (right) pleading that the Greeks stop worshiping them after healing a crippled man. Men are drawn to great power mixed with great humility, but here too Paul reminds them that they are flesh just as they are.

The Apostles, men moved by the Spirit, proclaimed God to their fellow men. But some men, those confused or unable to see God themselves, found Him through His servants. The living saints do this just as the Apostles did. Some do it through humble service and others through great and powerful works. Saints pray and then go forth having an impact on those around them.

Moving, then, to the blessed Virgin Mary and the saints of past ages, they intercede to Christ for us, asking Him more perfectly than we ever could what we need (this does not deny the Spirit does this for us too). This is because they live with God and have achieved oneness with Him after life here on this earth. For Christ Himself prayed that just as He and the Father were one that “they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me” (Jn 17:21).

When we ask a saint living here on earth or in heaven to pray for us it is not an affront to Christ or the Spirit, rather it is an act of humility. It is an act of humility because we ask the very proper question “Lord, teach us how to pray just as John taught his disciples” (Lk 11:1). John the Baptist, one of the chief saints and prophets, taught his disciples to pray and how to live. A saint, in John’s image, lived these words perfectly: “He must increase, I must decrease” (Jn 3:30).

Thus, asking the saints for intercession is not ignorance of the power or mediation of Christ. The presence of the saints influenced many to virtue and faith. This is why Paul longs to be with the Corinthians in person and to “fill the deficiencies of your faith” (1 Thes 3:10).

In life the Apostles tirelessly labored for the sake of the faithful and even died for it. Their lives and examples alone filled the deficiencies of the faithful. Their faith and the faith of any saint, however, was not a source of pride. Rather they always pointed to Christ.

Peter, saying he would be unworthy to die as Christ did, was crucified upside down. The Cross itself points to heaven.

In the next section, I will discuss in what manner they pointed to Christ and how a saint effects the work of salvation in the world. I shall begin by looking at the Old Testament and then the New to show that this process is nothing new in the long history of faith. Having introduced saintly intercession it is good to see how the holy prophets interceded to God for the people of Israel. Thereafter I will elaborate on the communion of saints in heaven who work tirelessly on our behalf.

Faith and Works: Introduction

I. Introduction

For the average person, the debate of faith and works will change little in their lives with regard to how they live it out. Even still, I urge anyone who considers themselves a student of faith and of Christ to examine more closely the relationship of faith and works. The reason is not because I wish to change your faith or to suggest one good work over the other but rather that the way which we conceive a relationship between ideas affects those ideas.

I will give two analogies to help illustrate this:

A basketball coach conceives that defense wins games and because of this the offense of that team will proceed from the defense (e.g., turnovers lead to fast-break points, etc.). This is to say that the idea about defense builds the idea of the offense.

Tom Thibodeau, coach of the Chicago Bulls, prides his team on perfecting their defense first. The Bull's refined defense leads them to shutting down teams and winning even if they shoot 30% or score only 80-some points. Their offense depends on their (and the coach's) passion and vision for defense.

Likewise, when a man and a woman are married, one (or both) may have an image about what their marriage should look like, such as what a good husband/father/man does and what a good wife/mother/woman does. They make this image of what the relationship should strive for and they order their daily lives, thoughts, and actions to look like that idea and image—for good or ill.

Regardless of all the work that goes into the perfect photo, reception, and wedding, a couple gets married in order to live a full life together, a life of trials, periods of loneliness, difficulties, and disappointments just as much as they will experience joy, peace, and togetherness. The difficulty lies in the greater emphasis being placed on perfecting the beginning as opposed to perfecting each other along the way.

What I mean by these two analogies is that the way we look at faith and works are important. Where we may have an idea of faith and an idea of what (good) works are, the relationship between faith and works is a third idea added to these two. It is the nature of these ideas, so to speak, that I would like to write about for you.

As I considered the relationship between faith and works I found that the matter can be more difficult than it first appears because of the nature of faith. Faith can be a difficult subject for a few reasons. On the one hand faith is a very personal affair, for each one of us has experienced God in a particular way and we have grown in that relationship in various manners. On the other hand, the purpose of faith is unity, not just with God but with each other as well, for “I pray … that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me” (Jn 17:20, 21). Faith is furthermore described as “the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1) which is related to ourselves as well as for the whole world. For why else would we pray, in faith, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” if it wasn't for the hope that all might be as one? In the Old Testament the covenant was for a people of God. Whether the king of Israel sinned or the people sinned the whole land was afflicted with injustice and many other evils. Faith in Christ is the new covenant. Through that faith we are all connected. Far be it from me to suggest faith is impersonal, but I hope to show in addition to faith being deeply personal that faith is at its core equally communal.

This depicts Moses speaking to the children of Israel. All of them are intently focused on him. They receive one word and one people which has come from one God.

When I reflected on works I found that whether or not one believes in the efficacy of works for salvation it nevertheless follows that good works are preferable to evil ones. Further still, whether good works are inspired by the Spirit or come about as a result of personal effort (or both) they are often considered a sign and expression of faith. Works point toward that supreme Good toward which all men strive to varying degree. I do, however, still plan to speak on works as they pertain to Scripture and how they pertain to faith in greater detail.

My overall goal is to elaborate on the relationship of faith and works in a manner that neither diminishes nor emphasizes one over the other. In short, how shall we understand this passage by James? “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works … See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:22, 24).

With these introductory remarks being said I will move onto my investigation in subsequent pieces. I shall begin by moving away from directly speaking about this matter and instead focus on love. Perhaps if we examine love more closely we will see more clearly the matter at hand.

For next time:

“To Speak of these Things We Must Speak about Love”

Seminary Appeal Talk

This is a slightly edited representation of my address to Our Lady of Victory parish this past Sunday (September 23^rd). The readings for that day may be found here.

Seminary Appeal Talk

I would like to talk about vocations, specifically the vocation to the priesthood. We can see from the many different people gathered here that God has called us to married life and single life. Likewise, many of you have a great number of occupations that you were drawn to as well. But God also calls young men to consider the priesthood as his calling in life. The call to the priesthood and a unique life of service is given a special prominence in the Gospels and New Testament as a whole. All are called to conversion but only a select few are called to serve as Christ for the sake of His people.

The Apostles are a prime example of this call. Jesus Christ entered into their lives—He sought them out—and commanded them to follow. The Apostles are a group of different men and it is worthwhile, I think, to look at their responses.

Peter was a fisherman, and when Christ entered into His life Peter fell on his knees and said “Leave me Lord for I am a sinful man” to which Jesus simply responded “Be not afraid; from now on you will be catching men” (see: Lk 5:1-11). After this Peter left all he had and followed Him. 

Peter: a man of great courage but one of many faults and weaknesses. But he was able to acknowledge those weaknesses and through Christ was set apart as an example of forgiveness (because he was forgiven) and leadership (his teaching and martyrdom)

James and John were likewise fisherman and when they heard the call of Christ they left all they had and readily followed Him. The call of St. Matthew too had different circumstances as well. Matthew, whom we celebrated on September 21^st, was a tax collector. He was regarded as a traitor and an outcast for the Jews and perhaps hated by even his own family. It was possible that he embezzled money, but at the very least he was employed by the Roman Empire. Yet when Jesus came into his life he left his own way of life behind and followed Jesus without hesitation.

Matthew: surprised that Jesus, a Jew, might call for him to be his disciple, he converted and immediately drew tax collectors and sinners to share in the same joy Christ gave him.

I believe we can all say that our lives are similar to the Apostles. We have felt Jesus come into our lives in some manner and lead us to where we are today. He searches us out and calls us to Him. In the seminary, in my own class, we have men who were laborers, ex-military, farmers, teachers, lawyers, and seminarians like myself. We can see that like the Apostles God isn't picky with whom he calls—in fact we're fortunate His call reaches ever corner and every life.

As such, I would like to speak to my own experience, in brief, in hopes that it encourages you to listen for God's whispers in your life.

I first began thinking about the priesthood in 5^th grade. We had recently received a new pastor and it was a day like any other. At the words of consecration and the raising of the host I remember I said to myself, “Maybe I could do that.”

And that was it. Is wasn't earth-shattering or overpowering, just a subtle feeling and an inclination. But I didn't fight it nor did I dismiss it. Rather, I accepted it and simply lived my life after that. I was encouraged by that same priest to consider the priesthood and so I did.

When I went into 8^th grade I was still on the fence, but the concern was more academic. Eventually, however, I noticed that I was happier at Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary and chose it. I'm happy to say it was probably the best decision of my life. The opportunity to be taught by priests and laymen and women was an excellent one. They not only taught us the necessities a student needed in subjects such as literature, history, language, theology, and science but each teacher had an appreciation for the Catholic tradition and instilled in me a real love of our Catholic heritage.

Time went on and I joined the college seminary. Now, at that point I was still riddled with old habits and dispositions, many of them bad, and likewise I had yet to mature into a priestly identity that I had taken for granted. At the same time I was still 18 years old and growing—I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to grow in the seminary with authentic and attentive human formation. I was there for two years before I went for 3 (blessed) years in Washington DC. Though much happened at St. Joseph's and DC I will share with you one experience of prayer that has given me an image of priesthood that I still consider and follow today.

I was praying at a 24-hour adoration, perhaps it was 11, 12, or 1 in the morning. I recall the image came to my mind almost like a dream:

I was standing above a large crowd and as I looked down everything was gray. People were walking back and forth, much like what you would see downtown on Michigan Avenue. Each of them, however, had their heads down. Some were scared, others crying, others anxious, while others still seemed indifferent or apathetic. I recall looking on them with a great deal of sadness and compassion. Just then a hand was placed on my shoulder that said, “My son, do you see my children down there, crying and broken? Who will go and comfort them? Who will be with them?” Without any real hesitation I remember that I turned around and said, “Please, Lord, send me.”

This is an image I've kept with myself for some time now and one that informs my image of the priesthood. I realize it can seem rather dire and serious and at the time it did seem this way to me. As with many things in life, however, what seems one way at first grows with us over time. Now there have been numerous instances where this has been a great source of joy and reflection for me. Not every person who is worried or afraid is depressed, rather they are looking for God at pivotal moments in their life. There are parents who wonder if they can raise their family right, there are married couples who wonder if they'll make ends meet, and there are those who are alone in the hospital who feel abandoned. A priest is with these people at their most important stages as a living image of Christ. I don't mean in the sense that I or a priest replaces God, but a priest is one who is sent to minister to His people. The job of the priest is to listen, to guide, to teach, and help those he meets go to the Father, just as Christ did.

I believe that the Gospel is also helpful in this case (Mk 9:30-37). In the seminary, even though I'm 24 years old, my friends and I are still guys. We're competitive, at times confrontational, and enjoy hanging out (with the idle talk that comes with it). Here we have the Apostles acting like guys. They have already experienced Christ and listened to them. They have been taught be Him and they are already following Him and yet “they were arguing among themselves who was the greatest.” Jesus responds in a surprising way, however. He places a child in their midst and says “Who ever among you wishes to be great must make himself as this little child.”

The reaction on the Apostles face indicates, I think, the difficulty and puzzling nature of Christ's command for them and His insistence that this would be "greatness" before God.

Now, at this time period in time a child was considered as completely dependent, helpless, and as someone generally disregarded. A child was someone who could never hope to repay someone back but needed your help all the time. It was a lowly life. But what an image for a holy priesthood! It's a powerful image to think that what I and other men are called to is in the likeness of a little child. What this means is that a priest must constantly humble himself, both because he is called by and led by God to do his work but also because of the great responsibility of leading others while expecting nothing in return. A priest is a sower of the Word and a shepherd to the people, but not everyone will hear nor will every sheep remain. But it is His task to be at the total service of his people, which are in reality His people. Without child-like trust and humility we would never listen to God, and without child-like concern and love we would never be attentive to the people who need us most.

What I've learned over the course of time is that God does not call those of us who are the best speakers, the greatest intellects, the most pious, the most athletic, nor the most skillful—necessarily. Rather He calls those whom he sets apart for a special task and for some that special task is a priest of Jesus Christ. For indeed “before I formed you in the womb I knew you [and] before you were born I dedicated you” (Jer 1:5a). God calls those from families who have perhaps fallen away from Him to act as a voice that calls them back. He calls those from broken families, common jobs, and who live simply. He calls those who come from loving homes, highly trained, and from affluent areas. All of them are called to serve and give what has been given to them.

In conclusion I would ask all of you to rededicate yourselves to encourage young men to the holy priesthood of Christ. In the same way I encourage you to affirm young women to consecrated life and religious life (guys too). When you see in someone qualities that you want in the priesthood you should affirm it. My vocation began in part because my pastor said to me 'I think you should think about the priesthood.' Our voice can be an instrument of God that leads young men and women to discover what God wants from them. They can certainly deny your words or discover that religious and/or priestly life isn't for them but as the people of God we must recognize in those who we raise the qualities of a good spiritual father and good shepherds. Are we courageous enough to speak when we see these qualities in our brothers, our sons, our nephews, and our friends?

I ask humbly that you continue to pray for me as I discern God's call in this my 11^th year of formation. You know, many of you, my past and with it my weaknesses, habits, faults, and failings. I ask you pray that I persevere while also humbling myself always to be molded and formed in Christ Jesus in order that I become the man that God wants me to be for His people. Please pray for my fellow brothers who are doing the same.

Pray especially that we all, especially young men, are attentive to the call God has placed in their hearts. I thank you for the encouragement and nourishment that you have already given me in abundance.

Thank you,

Matthew

The Workers and the Wheat

[Author's note: This is a very analogy-laden piece. I'm sure you would discover that. What I want to mention is that I hope you take careful not of the parallels I'm talking about here. I wrote this at about the same time as hierarchy. It's another example of my "evolved literature" style. No, it doesn't mean it's getting better, but what I do is hand-write everything first. When I begin typing (a day or two, even a week later) many new ideas, themes, and considerations enter my head and it expands the piece by 2-3x. I always try and keep the continuity in mind, but I may have failed in that respect. This was originally intended to be very simple and gentle but I hoped for a stronger tone in the middle. I hope you like it! ~ M]

____ 

“You are God’s field” (1 Cor 3:9).

As I considered these words and the many comparisons made between the faithful and seeds, plants, and wheat I thought to myself, “How difficult it is to be the wheat!” Indeed, as the wheat we are dependant upon others and God for our own growth. But if the planter was wise and the cultivator good then the wheat flourishes. For “I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. … [Neither of us is anything], but only God, who causes the growth. [But], the one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and reach will receive wages in proportion to his labor” (1 Cor 3:6-8).

Indeed, when the wheat flourishes it is kept and the laborers are honored. But if the wheat is sickly it is burned and the laborers rebuked for producing a weak crop. So too there are those who have given us our faith, those who have cultivated it, and those who safeguard it.

Children, do you not see how fickle your faith is? Yes, many of you and even me are like children who need “milk, not solid food, because [we are] unable to take it.” (1 Cor 3:2). Do you not see the gift you were given, and how easily it could have been taken away? How easily it could yet still be taken away? Your faith is not only an affirmation of God the almighty Father and thereafter you flourish. Your faith is a seed that needs careful cultivation and only in due time will it flourish.

The laborers deserve their wages. Whom have you paid?

Some of us were planted and cared for by words, deeds, and other examples. Parents, priests, and friends lived in a manner that did not make us lose heart. Truly they were like “a lamp shining in a dark place, until … the morning star [dawned] in your hearts” (2 Pet 2:19). But some of you, having been raised like this, left their example behind and refused cultivation. Does the wheat grow and care for itself or is it not at the mercy storms, pestilence, and other harms? Who will protect your faith? Certainly God protects His children, but does the wheat’s desire for life and flourishing guarantee it?

Others among you were sickly, living a life of pride, sloth, and many other vices. A laborer who had pity on your plight rescued you. Do you realize that your conversion was an act of grace on your behalf and grace working in the other as well? Or was not Paul converted by the grace of God acting on both him and Ananias? Many had to cooperate with God’s grace so you might experience it yourself. But many of us, like thoughtless wheat, did not know how our soil was prepared or who prepared it. When we reaped the many benefits of grace and revelation we thought ourselves initiated into a personal relationship and that this was all we needed. The wheat thought itself as existing (in its current state) by its faith and by the grace of God alone. Truly nothing grows toward God without Him, but the wheat here did not count himself as the fruit of many unseen labors. For recall that even the Enemy has sown weeds among us and the workers, picked by God, toil tirelessly and often unseen so you won’t be bundled among the weeds.

The laborers deserve their wages. Whom have you paid?

Who has God appointed as laborers? The seeds are not all men but “the good seed [are] the children of the kingdom” (Mt 13:38). The seeds sown are faith inspired and given freely by the Son of Man. But God also sent us laborers. He selected them from among the people to cultivate and harvest.

I do not say all these words to discourage you, but I say them so you might reflect more deeply on how great a gift the present moment is. For even if there are tempests in our own life, are not the love, memory, and example of good laborers (and the Good Shepherd Himself) who help us to persevere? And do we not have a history of good laborers in the saints (now) in heaven and our loved ones here on earth?

My friends, persevere when times are difficult and rejoice with God and His laborers when you flourish.

Truly, there are times when we must be laborers and we must emulate them by their tireless and quiet efforts to produce good crops. Other times we must be as the wheat, perfectly willing to be cultivated—humble, steadfast, obedient, and wholly dependent on the laborer. It is when we start growing (i.e., discovering our own calling and gifts) that we can often neglect cultivation. Do not lead yourselves to ruin.

Do not be deceived that either the laborer or the wheat is perfect. Do not both have faults within? Do not both face dangers on the outside too? All the same, both are honored when one cares for the wheat and that same wheat produces a great yield. Therefore when we neglect our own labors we are shamed by lack of a fruitful yield. When we reject cultivation (as living wheat) we produce little or nothing at all. Recall that even the one who works hard but sees little fruit grows himself by virtue of his hard work—do not be discouraged by proximate and immediate failures!

Sometimes we must work with rough soil and other times unsure hands guide us—but what benefit is it to not toil? What benefit is it to refuse growth?

On Tolerance

I'll begin with a jarring statement to most readers: it seems to me that the Catholic Church is really the most tolerant of anyone or anything.

This is because the Catholic Church has rightfully questioned everything and accepted what it must. It is derived from the fact that we see creation as good and, as such, there is nothing that exists separated from goodness—no matter how hopeless. We are tolerant precisely because we call things evil and because we call things good. These are like the actions of a wise gardener who prunes leaves and branches, allowing the good to grow properly and the bad to fall lifelessly.

Indeed, the history and hagiographies [lives of the saints] of the Church attest to this attitude. St. Martin of Tours, though he had the mighty pine tree cut he erected an altar in its place. He removed the worship of something false with the worship of something true—he did not remove worship.

St. Catherine of Sienna scolded and encouraged Gregory to return to Rome. She did not seek to rid the Church of the papacy but rid the Church of the errors of the papacy.

But it seems that others consider themselves more tolerant by virtue of their adherence to progress, equality, or some such idea. Secular-types may see themselves as tolerant because equality and liberty are good, even though many disagree as to what sort of good they are. Some see utility as good, others consequences, and others still tolerance itself as a good worth pursuing in its own right. I propose we step back for a moment and look at these matters in brief:

+Those who propose a sort of utilitarianism replace the notion of good with "useful" and "beneficial." These terms are often anything but permanent and subject to a great number of changes. This avoids the discussion of what is really good. It is also a disposition that lends itself to casting off one thing in favor of another, e.g., the old for the new. The old being "what doesn't work" and the new being "what does work." If anything, utilitarianism is almost always intolerant to things seen as obsolete.

I readily confess that this attitude can be adopted by those who espouse an objective good. For some, this is how they see Martin of Tours above: he replaced the old worship with a better one. But unlike this, with an objective good in place one may easily examine the means by which that good is achieved and why. And this is also why Martin of Tours did not act out of a desire for utility. He did not believe that it was more beneficial for Germans to believe in Christ, he believed that it was necessary.

+ Others still try to champion the idea of progress, but it is often without purpose or direction. Some try to give each human being everything but they often ignore what it means to be human. They often reduce human beings to mere biology and the human person to whimsical preference. That is to say there there is no purpose to life but happiness, whatever it may be.
But if one progresses without knowing from where or to where they are going, he might as well be going in circles, which is to say he isn't progressing at all.

Tolerance

Tolerance has been very watered down as of late. In reality we are all intolerant of some things. Even to the person shallow enough to believe tolerance is "I like X, but I'm not forcing you to like it [and other variations]" is intolerant of various things.

And yet the rubik's cube remains unsolved despite there being a solution.

So we must ask ourselves, 'Is tolerance really something that is self-evident? Or is it the case that the grounds for tolerance lies in something else?'

I would argue that without a proper discussion of what is good we can never truly discuss what tolerance is. And anyone who discusses tolerance has some idea of what is good, yet some have been foolish enough to suggest that tolerance is a good in itself. These ones really are the most confused of all on this subject. This is because they don't realize that in order to tolerate anything there must be something worth tolerating.

Toleration, as some have seen it, is to love the person regardless of who they are or what they do—within reason. They cite love as the key to tolerance, yet this in itself is a poor argument. When one examines love it is paradoxically the most freeing and oppressive of things.

Love is seen most powerfully between persons and less perfectly in things. Those who advocate tolerance (as a higher good than 'good') ask people to love others without a care for what they do. Yet, for one who is in love cares for nothing but what his beloved does.

When one makes tolerance a greater good than "goodness," what that person is really saying is that "since we cannot agree on what is really good, let us make peace, concord, and our personal happiness our aim. Let us allow what we both see as good to be determined by these things." This is all very good if we all lived alone but this is not the case nor is it practical.

Tolerance, I say, comes from an agreement on what is really good and not from an agreement that it is better to not pursue that answer. This is why I can tolerate the faithful and moderate (for lack of a better term) Muslim or Lutheran more than many others, since they agree that good must be pursued, defined, and lived.

But I believe that Augustine gives us great wisdom when he says "love the sinner but not the sin."

More specifically he says:

For this reason, the man who lives by God's standards and not by man's, must needs be a lover of the good, and it follows that he must hate what is evil. Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of "perfect hatred" (Psalm 139:22) towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there will remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate.

(Augustine, City of God)

The City of God, the glorious Church that awaits the day to truly proclaim "on earth as it is in heaven."

Some may decry what Catholicism labels as a fault, yet from her earliest days the post-apostolic fathers of the Church proclaimed that "no one is evil by nature." Rather, by sin man has perverted his nature and at times seeks what is temporary and whimsical as the truest good. One of the greatest tragedies of sin is that we do not seek our true and proper goods. One of the great graces of the condition of sin is that when we finally come to recognize the true good we love it and hate all else that tries to separate us from it. This is so that, by means of our own journey and will, we come to love God personally. And by virtue of that love of God we love and seek what is truly good and hate what is evil. Incidentally, hate has become a strong word whereas love has become a soft word. In reality love is an even stronger word than hate, for love makes us vulnerable since it calls us to change.

When others claim we are intolerant what they mean is that our value of good is not theirs, but this does not excuse those who are truly intolerant.

There is no exhaustive way of showing which Christians are tolerant, which are intolerant, and in the proper or improper means. But, as the old adage goes, "a tree is known by its fruit." One who engages in violence, coercion, and slander for "love of the person" ought to reconsider tolerance. On the other hand those who are apathetic, noncommittal, or lax should reconsider how tolerant they are.

For my own part I see tolerance in its truest form exemplified by Christ. As God readily desires to pour out his mercy he also directs and commands us to change our hearts.

In this famous passage, an adulterous woman is brought forward both because she was an affront to the law and because she was being used to condemn Jesus. At its conclusion is our own lesson here:

"He was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'

She replied, 'No one, sir.'

Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.'"

(cf Jn 8:1-11, esp. 9-11)

Reflect for a moment on what has happened. The others, the scribes and Pharisees, stood her in the middle so as to shame her and do violence against her. Yet Christ stood in their midst without shame nor making the woman to feel any shame. He dismissed the crowd and then stood alone before the woman. He did not condemn her but all the same he commanded her to sin no more. She was caught committing adultery but was still pardoned.

The image of love. A lesson on tolerance.

Out of love for her Christ kept the woman but dismissed the sin. That is to say that by mercy, patience, and forgiveness he so loved the woman so as to both protect her and urge her to remove what was wicked from herself.

And here only lies, for some, the door to our discussion. This is because many see their actions as neither wicked nor perverted, but this too stems from what both they and we believe to be good—a subject worthy of discussing and a subject worth submitting ourselves to.

[Edit, 7:13am: some diction and syntax revised]

For Those Who Deride Christian Morals: Initial Response

An introduction:
Okay, so maybe I got a little out of hand with the length. In that sense I may consider streamlining and simplifying what I've done here.
 
That being said the overall purpose of this piece is to provide a response to those who ridicule, critique, or speak out against Christian morality and in turn posit a secularist/atheist/humanist morality as superior, more rational, or whatnot.

The problem I've seen is that most secularists (etc.) do not really understand morality (the science) and many Christians do not understand morals (the nature).
 
I seek, perhaps foolishly, to address both problems. As I mention above the scope is rather large and far-reaching. I revised and expanding on my central claims so much I had to split it up. The whole thing was intended to be 3-single spaced pages. The first theme ended up being that length.

Here I do not seek to call atheists (etc.) immoral or stupid, but I will challenge that the morality they propose is incomplete. The problem is that "faith" has becomes a quick word to mean gullibility, stupidity, or naivety by a number of people--I can't say that Christians have always acted or spoken valiantly to the contrary. Nevertheless, I am never one who intends or wishes to present a weak opposition to support what I believe--just the opposite.

This may be a bit tough and my worry is that it won't seem organized enough. I tried my best to keep focus on some important points but I fear some deficiencies will arise. That is why I feel this piece may require some revisions despite heavy revisions already applied.

I just ask that you try and follow me, asking questions along the way. ~M

______


There are those who might deride Christian morals in that Christians "follow God" or "follow the Church." They, in turn, might also say of themselves that "we're good on our own." Below I would like to address this contention in both a positive and critical way. I fear that the scope of this piece will be broad, so I will break it into smaller segments. Even then, I will touch on matters such as faith, community, Tradition, the Church, and morality, among other subjects. I will attempt to weave in and out of topics with care. My hope is that my reader will catch me when I falter and hold me accountable to providing a cohesive account.

What I will do is begin by introducing the context by which I see faith and morality. I will also do this in regards to the Catholic Church, meaning that I will give a (very) brief explanation for the importance authority and Tradition. This will all be done to confront and explain some of the notions that often serve as ground for critiques. These themes, however, will only be touched on in this first part but expanded after I introduce some critiques by secularists, humanists, and atheists in the second part. Therein I will address some of their arguments and, hopefully, show their deficiencies. At the same time, however, I want to clear up some confusion about the relationship of faith and morals that fuels some of these critiques—both Atheists to Christians and the other way around. I will then return to morality that is informed by faith and what that means. Finally, I will comment on what the "force" of morality is and where it comes from. There is little better way to begin than jumping right in.

When one says that Christians do things out of duty or obligation he is only half correct. But this is not a legalistic duty but a duty that comes about by a real relationship. If you love someone you give your all to that person or, at the very least, you learn to over time. Catholics are a covenant people, meaning that we enter into a relationship with our Creator such that "we shall be His people, and He will be our God" (cf. Ex 6:7a, Jer 30:22,  Lev 26:12). The language used is not one of servant and master, though we rightly call Christ master and teacher. Rather, the language Christ uses is very clear: he taught us to pray "our Father;" he no longer calls us servants but friends. Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. The language concerning God and his people and Christ and his Church is used for a specific purpose and for a very important reason—one which I shall elaborate on later.

Now, amid the complexities of life and morals we trust the Church as she preserves for us the wisdom of many ages whether they are  temptations, failures, trials, or triumphs. We also train men (as priests) and men and women (as chaste religious) to guide us. These men and women are specially trained to know God, to know how to pray, to understand the human soul and, in humility, to serve others so they might know God. Just as good parents teach their children how to be good parents themselves, so too do we look up to the Church and holy and learned men and women to teach us how to love God better (and to love ourselves and others better as well). As such, we assent to their authority on account of their worthy actions and learning.

Yet, what son or daughter respects an abusive parent? So too, what man seeking God follows a man who cannot lead him? On the other hand, how many sons and daughters neglect the teaching of good parents? How many more faithful men and women, in closing their ears and hearts, neglect the wisdom and urging of holy men and women? This is why we need to form good relationships with one another.

Not only that, God, the Church, and all these men and women (clergy, religious, and lay), want to establish a relationship with each of us based on trust and love. Any relationship, though, involves a change and a transition. Because of this is has its own unique set of growing pains and how we deal with those pains can make the relationship a difficult and rocky one at times. We all know how difficult relationships can be with one another.

We Catholics must keep in mind specifically that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ—our relationship is not only as bride to bridegroom. But we are also related to each other, not only as brother and sister but as veins to the heart, arms to their sockets, and lungs to the mouth. We, as members of one body, members of the faithful, cannot survive without one another.

Faith plays an important role—it draws together many to God as well as to each other. Faith is more than trust in a proven idea or theorem. It is a dynamic trust in a person. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says "Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person" (sec. 150).

I do not deny those who claim that there is a personal element to faith, but I deny that faith is and remains a personal element. Faith moves one to act just as faith itself is an action in response to something, namely God acting in our lives. This is true because "it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason" (CCC 154). One must hear the Word before he trusts the Word in its fullness. Faith is personal insofar as how we've come to know and believe but it is communal insofar as what is believed and whom we believe in.

So, to summarize, faith is a matter of community and relationships just as morality is. Is faith just a type of morality or something super-added to morality? I propose that faith is not a type of morality or something grafted onto morality, but I will claim that morality that is informed by faith is more complete, whole, and true. I am, however, perhaps getting ahead of myself. Let us consider some things before we turn to secularism, humanism, and atheism and their claims/critiques.

Here are some important primary considerations of faith and morality which will guide us beyond this point.

First of all, faith is an experience and a response. Just as Christ descended in the Incarnation he also rose at the Resurrection and Ascension. God comes to us and he raises us up. But, how was that rising possible? By following the will of the Father and responding to his grace. Remember that faith is a free assent to the truth. It is also a relationship between two persons, an adherence to God. In this manner faith is, as I have said, dynamic in a way that a relationship between two friends or spouses is dynamic—it is never always clearly defined but it is all the same a bond that is always present.

Secondly, we must talk about morality in greater depth. The word itself derives its meaning from the Latin word "mores" meaning custom or ways. The Greek similarly has "ethos" (custom, practice) [ethics] and "nomos" (custom, law) that came to describe personal character and make-up.

Thus, when we speak of morality we are talking about the character of the individual. Now, there are many schools about how a character, but what I propose is both the classical and normative consideration. One derives his character from three sources:

The first is order, that is to say learning precision and clarity in ones actions and decisions. When we are left to our own devices we might learn, but not without consequences. When we are taught right from wrong (properly) we do what is good and avoid what is bad or evil.

The second is habit, which is to say an action practiced such that it becomes a part of us.

The third is rules, principles, tradition, and customs. Conveniently these words are contained in one Greek word, "nomos." This is to say that a character is formed by principles and ideologies for action—and this is important—precisely because an individual's character is not limited to himself (as an island unto himself) but rather as a character who lives among other persons. It might be said that principles, traditions, and customs are the "voice of generations" who assert that this is the 'right way to live.' Now, this does not mean it is immune to a critical mind and eye, but we should respect the force of tradition—even if only for a little while.

Whether it is faith or morals, I argue that both of them deal with the individual but always in a lens that has the greater whole, or others, in mind. One does not have faith merely for salvation but to be "as Christ to others" and that means sacrifice, service, speaking the truth, and love. This too I will elaborate on later. For now we will shift our focus to critiques to these claims above as well as other critiques.


[to be continued in part 2/3]