The Adulteress and St. Mary Magdalene

Today the Gospel reading was about the adulteress that was brought before Jesus in order to trap him (John 8:1-11). I was reminded of how the identity of this woman had often been conflated with St. Mary Magdalene. Then it struck me that whoever this woman truly was, this shameful past can be seen, in the end, as a cause for joy and rejoicing - not because such a past is in any way glorious, but the victory of mercy and repentance is. I think it is entirely human to dwell on a given moment but Christians are called to take a longer view. St. Josemaria Escriva refers to enlarging one's view until it is universal or Catholic. I think I need to start doing so in earnest, because I am often incredibly short-sighted. If the notion of sin should ever pop into my head, I should probably immediately think "Mercy!" Because, seen from the other end, sin really doesn*t have the last word. I must have read that from Mark Shea somewhere, or G. K. Chesterton. It is the sort of thing they had probably written about already. Not to mention, Jesus himself said this to the woman to tie off that dreadful episode: "Neither do I condemn you.. Go and sin no more." It slso seems fitting to point out these last words (among others) of his as he was dying: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

Today is the feast of Holy Innocents

What would drive a king to order the slaughter of all male toddlers two years and under across a number of districts? What would drive his soldiers to carry out the deed amidst the objections and wailing of the mothers and fathers who are unable to stop the massacre? What did the bystanders do? What was going through their minds?
   And then one would ask: was God also a bystander? How could he let this happen? This is a tough one, but the answer can be as simple as this: it is his will that Herod, those soldiers, the parents of the victims and the other witnesses should have the freedom to act as they choose. They were, after all, made in his image and likeness, and so they had the power of their intellect as well as conscience, enough to know that murder was wrong. For God to deny Herod and the soldiers free will is to obliterate them as human beings. And since all human beings are capable of wrongdoing at various points in their lives, then the implications are not so limited as one might think.
    The first reading from St. John's first letter tells us that we all sin from time to time. He also tells us that in God there is no darkness. How then do we achieve communion with him if there is darkness in us each time we sin? He will not obliterate us, but he will forgive our sins. He provided the sacrifice in his mercy and love: Jesus Christ, the lamb of God. Through him, our sins can be forgiven if we acknowledge them. Even Herod could have been forgiven. As for the holy innocents, they are not abandoned to their deaths, for there is eternal life in heaven, and these innocents cannot have committed sin at that age.
    But today, a slaughter of innocent continues, as this reflection points out. What would drive fathers and mothers to abort their own child, or allow that of their grandchild, nephew, or niece? What would drive legislators to advocate for more abortions, locally and internationally, to the tune of over 40 million annually across the world? What would drive a doctor, sworn to provide healing and to do no harm, to perform the abortion despite knowing that the child is viable, or the very simple fact that even the embryo at day one is its own distinct being? What did bystanders do? What was going through their minds at what was occurring or about to occur?
    Today is the feast of Holy Innocents. Let us pray for an end to the slaughter, not by legislation, not by obliterating our free will, but primarily the conversion of our hearts, through Jesus Christ, our sacrifice and advocate.

Had questions for gotquestions

I was checking on the gotquestions.org answer on the difference between the spirit and the soul, and I was bothered by this simple assertion in it that says "humanity is naturally evil". I have sent them questions about this, since it calls to question the God who created humanity. I suggested using St. Paul's assertion that sin came into the world through one man, and sin is the taint of evil on humanity. My point was that "it is important to distinguish humanity *as God intends* that to be, and *post-fall* humanity, which we are living with today. I believe that we cannot use "post-fall" and "naturally" in the same sentence because post-fall is *not* the human nature that God created. Getting this wrong would obscure the horrible reality of sin. It would also obscure the glorious hope we have in the salvation won for us at great cost on the cross."

On the offensive against sin

Many years ago, my spiritual director at the Opus Dei center I used to attend (back in college) would tell me not to take a purely defensive posture when it came struggling with sin. One of the concrete suggestions he would suggest is to up the tempo in my apostolic life. For example, to engage in acts of mercy, both spiritual and corporal. This is absolutely good strategy. Sometimes, the thought that the Enemy puts stumbling blocks in my path would strike me. While he is certainly disposed to do so, my current spiritual director reminds me that there are more practical concerns in dealing with concupiscence. I think the following are worth noting:

• There's a reason why we mention "near occasions of sin" in the Act of Contrition (the longer version). That first step can be a doozy alright.
• The defensive posture is probably more applicable in combat where you're waiting it out until the opponent makes a mistake, giving you an opening to launch your attack. That doesn't apply here, I think. The opponent is concupiscence.
• Launching the offensive is probably more effective, especially if it is in acting that one gets stronger and gains ground.
• Focus on one habitual sin at a time. Be methodical. Use psychology or whatever approach will give an edge in order to "know thyself" and thus, to master thyself, one step at a time.
• Frequent the sacraments, God's means of dispensing grace. The more habitual this becomes, the greater one's capacity.
• As St. Josemaria Escriva recommends, "[w]ith your apostolic life wipe out the slimy and filthy mark left by the impure sowers of hatred." -- even those that are left in us. "And light up all the ways of the earth with the fire of Christ that you carry in your heart." You can light up the corners of your heart with that light, rooting out your attachment to sin, one crack, one corner at a time.
• As St. Paul wrote, "[p]ray without ceasing". I'd forgotten that, once upon a time, I would pray before every activity, making the activity itself part of my prayer. As Fr. Vincent Serpa said in one of his one-minute homilies, the extent to which we spend time with Christ, such as in prayer, is the extent to which we will rejoice when we see him. It is also to that extent that we will know him better, and unite with him more, and with our concupiscence less.

I'm actually writing the above more to myself than anyone else. I have not been living many of the strategies above, at least not so much in recent years.

Time to get cracking.

Preparing for First Reconciliation

One of my kids is preparing for First Reconciliation, and I'm using a book from Catholic Answers, Today I Made my First Reconciliation. It is a good resource, using the story of two children who are preparing for that sacrament and finding themselves in a moral dilemma. There are Scriptural references at the back as well as other useful materials such as a guide to examine one's conscience. One of the things I was taught while attending an Opus Dei center in college was to examine my conscience every night at bedtime.

Some folks might actually be bringing up their kids to make decisions based entirely on amoral consequences. Well if one does not believe in God, then there is no basis for an objective moral code. No basis for a conscience either -- what on earth can that tiny voice say about anything if there is no objective moral code?

One's conscience can either be honed with reasonable attention or dulled with disuse. It can be informed with education or atrophy with neglect (life's too busy, no shortage of engaging pursuits). I'd prefer the former. The latter sounds more like what happened to those folks recently captured on video walking on by while a man lay dying on the sidewalk. Some might say that it was no big deal, it wasn't illegal to mind your own business. What, you actually need someone explaining this, and do you need legislation to tell you that you ought to call 911?

Sin and its effects

One of the most daunting things I've discovered about parenthood is how much influence my actions have on my children. Whether it is a matter of bad example, which they might emulate. Or depriving myself of sleep and making myself vulnerable to illness (which I can pass on) or unsafe driving. Or me on the keyboard at 2 in the morning, disturbing their rest. Let's face it -- I can certainly cause my children harm.

Something else that resonates for this topic: take even a cursory look at the news concerning the pope and the sex abuse scandals here and there. What trouble visited upon the Church, the faith of her members, disturbing their peace, and that of majority of her priests and deacons who are not sexual abusers. What horrors unleashed upon the victims! The Church is a household, and the sins of one can gravely affect a multitude, from the victims to their victims (for those who end up emulating the abuse) to the average Catholic whose faith is shaken.

But then that influence can work the other way too. What can we do to make amends? We can pray. We can encourage. We can clarify and expose the truth.

I'm off to bed. My kids need me awake enough to drive.

Love demands honesty

Retired Bishop Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, shares the thoughts of Phil Lawler from Catholic World News, concerning the recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy. It may seem disrespectful to call out the sought after conversion (back to the faith of his youth) from the late senator, but that sentiment comes from the same place where we dread to call out a living person to repentance and truth. It is a deceptive place. What might be thought to be love, preventing us from speaking truth to spare ruffled feathers, even genuine pain, is not love when it does not seek to save one who hurtles towards destruction.

The Archbishop is indeed human

But the latest news splattered around about uncharitable words allegedly uttered are incredible sad. I consider them "alleged" until I see the actual court documents, but that he apologized would mean that something uncharitable was uttered. Not that it was unthinkable; bishops are no more immune to sin than any of us. No one claims perfection in this life: the sacrament of Confession is a recourse to all Catholics, bishops included. At the beginning of every Mass, we all (priest included) admit to our sinfulness and appeal to God's mercy. The worst thing that could be happening now is that all the heat is fanned against the words of the archbishop, whereas they should keep their eyes on the ball: preventing future abuse, healing victims, and justice for all. If the current model is flawed, then something better is called for.

I wouldn't know what that is, though.

Things parents don't tell kids anymore

.. will probably make up an interesting list. Catherine Deveny writes about one: vanity is unbecoming. She doesn't use those words, of course; her opinion piece is much better written.

What about the importance of modesty? Chastity? Humility? Ambition? Obedience? Right vs. wrong? Why drinking yourself silly every week at 16 years of age is dangerous? Watch your language? Respect the elderly? Moderation? Love thy neighbor? Thou shall not commit adultery (or fornication)?

It's a long list, and these topics have fallen into disuse more in some countries than in others. But that things have gone this way should be a concern, but I suspect it is being largely ignored by parents who are in a perpetual state of adolescent/teenage rebellion (despite being in their 30s or 40s perhaps. Poor kids (the children, not the parents).

'or something worse may happen to you'

In the gospel reading from last Tuesday, Jesus heals a man who was apparently unable to walk for many years (John 5:1-3,5-16). Afterward, Christ warns him:

‘Now you are well again, be sure not to sin any more, or something worse may happen to you.’

I'd read in some commentary someplace (can't remember by whom) that sin and sickness were commonly associated in ancient times. But it would not be a very Christian attitude to allude irrational superstition to the Son of God. There is, in fact, a lot of empirical evidence for the association.

I can think of a few sins that involve behavior that risks one's health. Violence has its own risks, and a violent life, and certainly when unwarranted (not in war or law enforcement), carries unwarranted extra risks. Substance abuse? Sexual promiscuity certainly comes to mind, too. It is now considered conventional medical wisdom (for example) that there is a strong correlation between promiscuity with multiple partners and STD contraction. If environmentalists can cite violations against the ecosystem, why can't we cite destructive human behavior, too? It doesn't even take being a Catholic to understand that. Perhaps all you need are facts.

The last will be first

Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio writes an excellent piece about the God of the most destitute, whose kingdom is Catholic but whose gate -- Jesus of Nazareth -- is narrow (Lk 13:22-30). Unfortunately for many, pride is precisely what will keep them from appreciating what this means. It is ironic but not incorrect to say that even my miserable sinfulness can be made into the opposite by the Lord, whom alone I can boast about.

Sin, Scrupulosity, Fear and Lov

Lito had posted in his blog about Sean Hannity and Fr. Tom Euteneuer, the latter having publicly contradicted the former's heterodox notions about contraception. Lito had latched on to Fr. Tom's later statement (in another venue) that he was compelled to try and correct Mr. Hannity by his duty as a pastor, that to fail to even try would jeopardize his salvation. Lito and I had been going back and forth about justification by works (and Catholics do not advocate that this is by works alone), so I felt that I had to respond in order to head that off. Then Lito asked about mortal and venial sin:

All sins from my understanding are mortal as I think Jesus taught - for example he says to the Pharisees "to look at a woman to lust after her" is already tantamount to adultery so we sin in our thoughts, in our words and in or actions too. Would you agree to this characterization of sin? For example we do not love God and neighbor constantly so we are sinning mortally everyday.

This was my response. Not that everything that follows is spot on -- I am often guilty of hastily writing a response, particularly when I'm way past my bedtime (and the bread has probably gone past simply cooling down -- it is probably soaking by now -- in the bread pan). But Mark Shea's quip that no thought of his, "no matter how stupid, should ever go unpublished," is forever etched in my mind, so I wish to post my response to Lito for posterity:

I think the Catholic theology on mortal and venial sin is more .. rigidly organized. To constantly ask the question "is this mortally sinful or is it venially sinful only?" is not really the right attitude to sinfulness, but some people do fall into that. I have been known to drive myself crazy with scrupulosity, particularly when I was still in college.

BTW Cardinal O'Connor gives a good homily on that.

For me, scrupulosity loses out with love and trust: God's love and my trust in God's love more than any fear of God's judgment. It took a while for me to get here though, and scrupulosity can still rear its ugly head from time to time...

But as to sinning mortally everyday.. let's just say that we would disappoint God daily if not for His grace which, from time to time, manages to spur us into love. When we are called to regular confession, Catholics are urged to consider two things: God's love and our contrition. Love is superior to fear, but fear is not without its place. The fear of the Lord is of wisdom. Love of the Lord is at the end. Fear brings about imperfect contrition. Love spurs us into perfect contrition, with the right motive being that we would want more than anything to please the Lord because we love him. Now for those who would worry about mortal and venial sins.. I guess at a tender age with an immature level of faith, one would go through that stage when the Law is a set of rules; before one moves into the Law being a life of freedom written in our hearts. For those, I guess it is important to reassure them that, so and so are not serious acts of unrighteousness and so should not elicit an exaggerated dread of having lost Heaven, something which can harm one's faith -- the notion of God picking you apart for every transgression, the minor as much as the major. At the same time, it is important to be able to bluntly (sometimes necessary) point out to those with calloused consciences that so and so are serious sins which cry to Heaven for justice and must be dealt with appropriately. To do otherwise would also be harmful to the faith -- the notion that God does not care for the oppressed, does not expect justice in our actions.

There will always be people for whom the difference between mortal and venial, serious and minor trespasses, are relevant. To fail to distinguish them could be harmful to such people as they are still growing in their faith and righteousness.