Per Christum

Today is All Hallows Eve, known popularly as Halloween. Yes, it is that dreaded time when witches cackle while flying on their brooms, black cats cross your path just to damn you to years of bad luck, and neo-pagan college students think they really do have magic powers, confusing their real lives with the latest Final Fantasy game. Well at least that homemade oregano-thyme “magic” concoction is good for circulation! Of course it can’t all be scary. Halloween has its humorous aspects, like the local “hell houses” some churches put on.

In all seriousness, Halloween is always a fun time for me. If anything, my house now has a calming orange glow to it at night thanks to my electric Jack O’Lantern and orange lights on my door. My coffee has that Pumpkin Pie taste, since modern science can now put Pumpkin Pie into coffee creamer. And my kids at school are extra attentive thanks to the anticipation of sweet, sweet sugar running through their veins after trick-or-treat tonight. However, these reasons are not the main reason I like Halloween. Many people don’t know it, but Halloween is actually a Christian holiday. Halloween is the evening before All Saints Day, when we celebrate Christian saints, known and unknown. It is a perfect time to teach kids about the saints, and even let them dress up as one. Dressing up as the martyrs is the most fun! What kid wouldn’t want to walk around as St. Sebastian with a host of fake arrows stabbing his chest as fake blood stains cover the tunic? Well, I would like it! It is a perfect time to visit a cemetery, have a picnic there, and pray for the souls of the departed there. I don’t think this sounds morbid at all. Our culture’s distaste of anything related to death means that we often fail to appreciate and remember our departed relatives. There are plenty of Halloween Prayers and All Saints Day Prayers to avail ourselves of. All in all, this day is a chance to do quite a lot of Christian things.

I know, “Halloween is pagan.” “It should be called Helloween.” Yes, some customs associated with Halloween have pagan origins, like that wedding ring you are wearing and that day of the week you scheduled a meeting on. But nowadays, for most people, these customs are harmless. Sure some pagans really play up Halloween for their non-Christian purposes, but technically they do their non-Christian things everyday of the year, and my carving a Jack O’Lantern has nothing to do with whatever they were originally used for. I think they were used for scaring off spirits. Mine has such a cheesy smile it wouldn’t even scare away a toddler! Well maybe a really wimpy toddler…

Now this is not to say certain practices like Tarot Cards, divination, etc, are not harmful. From a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, these are not “harmless” fun, but dabbling in forbidden paganism. We have to have balance here. You have to go with your conscience and Catholic Teaching. However, if you confess to father that you bobbed for apples and are worried about the state of your soul, you may encounter shocked silence on the other side of the screen.

Happy Halloween!

Photos by David Bennett

On Thursday November 2, All Souls Day, my classes and I will be taking time out to pray for the departed. I think it is important to teach the kids the importance of praying for the dead because of the effects it may have, but also as a way to remember the departed. I find that praying for the departed gives me a chance to remember, and in a limited way, connect with my departed friends and relatives.

If you wish for your departed friends and relatives to be included in our school prayers, either add the names in the comment section or please e-mail me the names at perchristum[at]ancient-future.net (replace [at] with @). We will be praying in the school chapel before the Blessed Sacrament.

The Image is “All Souls Day” by William Bouguereau

I haven’t been reading mainline Protestant blogs much these days (except T-19 for news, and some of the blogs of my seminary friends), but I recently foolishly branched out and came across this post by Katie Sherrod about how conservatives are determined to wreck the Episcopal church, and in doing so, are acting like abusers. Seeing as how we Catholics have our regular political battles I thought I would respond. First, I think throwing around the word “abuse” for cases that really aren’t lessons the impact of real abuse, which many of us work hard to stop. I spend a lot of time, and have spent a lot of time, educating students on the dangers of real abuse, and we do not need to trivialize the word. What is going on in ECUSA, in my opinion, is the dynamics of strongly held differing political and moral ideas more than anything else. The conservatives are not strong, overpowering dominators, nor are the liberals powerless, brainwashed victims. Both sides are very political, very sure of themselves, and very shrewd. Second, and my biggest issue with this whole post, is that the left uses the exact same tactics, so if there is any abuse going on in the Episcopal church or any other mainline church, it is mutual abuse. In fact, if anybody is getting abused, it is the poor moderates! Let me excerpt a few parts of Katie’s post and show you what I mean.

The context of the post is that Katie listed signs of real abuse, and then she detailed how progressives are being abused by conservatives. Katie’s words are italicized.

This list could well be a strategy memo for those conservatives who are determined to wreck the Episcopal Church and/or to replace it with their own “purified” NeoPuritan version. One can go down the list and check it off.

Uses emotional abuse and calls you names? Try “pagan”” and ““revisionist”” and ““heretic.””

Try hater, caveman, fundy, idiot, right-wing nut, and so forth. Progressives never name-call? Please. I can hear the response from the left now, “but those conservatives really are haters!” Well to conservatives I am sure the progressive position seems pretty, well, revisionist. And trust me, having attended two mainline seminaries, I can tell you BOTH sides call names without thinking much of it.


Tries to make you feel guilty? Try claiming that Christians are being killed in majority Muslim countries because TEC elected and confirmed an honestly gay man.

Again, both sides use this tactic. How about “if you oppose the consecration of Gene Robinson you are supporting hate crimes against gays?” I have been told that if you believe homosexual activity is wrong, you hate gays. A commenter on the “There’s a New Boss in Town” post on Fr. Jake’s blog suggested the Catholic Church has instituted a pogrom against gays? Really? That is very serious, worthy of criminal investigation, considering the definition of pogrom. Any evidence of this? Nope, but it sure might make a person feel guilty. Sure conservatives lay on the guilt, but so do progressives. Again, left and right share the same tactics.

Plays mind games? Try claiming that Lambeth resolutions have the power of laws, or that TEC has been “kicked out of” the Anglican Communion, or that the Windsor Report is some kind of judgment from on high against us.

Again, both sides play these games. What about “Anglicans don’t have doctrinal standards” or “Anglicans have never cared about doctrine?” Mind games? Not really. A certain understanding of what Anglicanism is or what progressives think Anglicanism should be? Yes. This is exactly what Katie’s examples mentioned above are as well, a certain understanding of what Anglicanism is, or what conservatives want it to be.

Uses coercion and threats? Try threats of leaving, again and again and again and again.

Again, used by both sides. What about “we won’t marry anybody if we can’t marry gays” or “we just won’t ordain anybody if we can’t ordain whom we want.” Also, what about in the 1970s when women were ordained against the canons of the Episcopal church? Was this a threat or coercion? Objectively, I would say it was both. But if you think it was the right thing to do, apparently it is not abusive. Trust me, I have heard threat after theat from many on the left and right if they don’t get their way.

Uses economic abuse. Try withholding money from the national church.

Ok, I don’t really undestand this at all. When the left boycotts Wal-Mart or divests of Israel is it economic abuse? Or is it a justice issue? Perhaps when BOTH sides withhold money it is a way of using finance to protest perceived unjust or immoral actions. It depends on what side you agree with I guess, as to whether it is a justice issue or economic abuse. And what if the tables were turned and the majority of ECUSA was conservative, would progressives willingly send their money to support that or would they withhold funds? Probably the latter.

Uses gender privilege. Surely I don’t have to explain this one.

Honestly, this could have been written by either side. I have heard Episcopal male seminarians complain of not being taken seriously, receiving less scholarship money, and being put down at least in part because of their sex. I have heard progressive females claim the same thing. Maybe both sides are right to a degree, but again, both sides seem to benefit from “gender politics.” It just depends on your environment as to whether being a man is more helpful or being a woman is more helpful.

Here are a few Katie listed in the general part of the article, but didn’t relate to conservatives, so let me relate them to folks on all sides:

Abusers use intimidation

Yes, like women priests threatening to go into dioceses that don’t ordain women and celebrate the sacraments. And conservatives have appealed to the wider Anglican Communion as intimidation. So again, both sides do it.

Abusers use the children

Both sides are rushing to indoctrinate their children on their views, and I have heard each side say that their views are better for children, so both are guilty.

Abusers use isolation

This cuts both ways as well. I know of conservatives who feel very, very lonely in liberal dioceses and seminaries. I know of many liberals who feel the same way in conservative areas. Both sides are very good at isolating others.

Abusers minimize, deny, blame

I think the initial comment on Katie’s blog is appropos: Conservatives want to wreck the Episcopal church. Liberals apparently have had no part in it, right? It is never helpful to blame, and placing the blame on what is happening on one side is inaccurate. The liberals in ECUSA are not helpless, brainwashed, battered persons, as is the case with many of the abused, but rather well-organized and highly-political individuals. There is nothing wrong with this, but blaming conservatives for using tactics liberals have made use of for years is hypocritical.

You do it. Go down the list and see what you come up with. So. Once it is determined someone is in an abusive relationship, what happens next?

First of all, the liberals are firmly in charge in ECUSA. They are the dreaded “victors,” you know, the oppressive winners who get to write the history. You can’t keep playing the victim routine once you are firmly in power. So what happens next should first be a realization of who is in charge in ECUSA.

Second, the reason these battles constantly happen, and the reason both sides act like they do, is because of politics. Call it whatever you want, abuse, or emotional politics, but both sides do it, and quite frankly both sides, to the detriment of charity, do it very well. Part of it is because you have two or more strongly held but mutually exclusive positions operating in the same denomination. Is it any wonder both sides are constantly “abusing” each other? Is it any wonder conservatives are “haters” and liberals are “pagans” and never the twain shall meet? Maybe the best solution is a friendly, brokered split. I know this leaves the “moderates” in a bad position, but what else is there? I think both sides would thrive if they were more united, which may just take a split.

A soon-to-be-released document from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops will likely say that a Catholic who “knowingly and obstinately” rejects “the defined doctrines of the church” or its “definitive teaching on moral issues” should refrain from receiving Communion. This is likely in reaction to the publicity given to John Kerry in 2004, but the document applies to everyone, not just politicians. This information comes from a Catholic News Service Article. I was made aware of this by reading Scott Carson’s entry on it, Shorter Lines at Communion Soon.

I support this decision. First of all, it is not really news, since someone openly and clearly rejecting Church Teaching is materially in a state of mortal sin (formally maybe not), so the person likely should not receive communion anyway. However, since it happens so much these days, it probably does need mentioning.

Personally, I believe it is a matter of respect and being genuine to refrain from receiving communion if a person openly rejects Catholic Teaching and (even worse) teaches against it regularly. Notice that the issue here is not doubt, but “knowingly and obstinately” rejecting Catholic Teaching. In other words, this indicates a willful pattern of belief and behavior opposing Catholic Teaching. Unfortunately, the “you owe me” attitude prevalent in the West has many people steamed about efforts like this to limit reception of communion. The logic is kind of like this: “I don’t believe much about what the Church teaches; in fact I teach my kids the opposite usually, and I rarely go to Mass and hardly ever contribute to the well-being of the Church, but how dare they tell me I can’t receive communion!” To me, such an attitude not only lacks humility, but runs contrary to 2000 years of Holy Tradition.

Now, in our culture limiting who can take communion seems mean or exclusive, but we must remember that reception of Holy Communion is not a right (it is a rite though!), but a very special privilege. And never in the history of Christianity has communion been taken so lightly as it is in many places today. While during certain times, due to a misguided respect for the Eucharist, laypeople rarely communed at all. This was wrong. However, the modern tendency is to show little respect for communion and walk up to receive simply because everybody else is doing it. The Church needs to correct this, for the sake of respect for the sacrament itself and for the souls of those receiving unworthily. This document about to be released seems to be a good start.

Also, Catholics are not alone in insisting that a person be rightly disposed before receiving Holy Communion. The Orthodox strongly agree, and so do many Protestants. In fact, Orthodox are probably even stricter than Catholics are. Some Protestant groups are as well. When I visited a Lutheran church for a wedding a few years ago I remember seeing a card one was to fill out confessing a belief in the Real Presence before receiving communion there. Sadly, many Catholics would probably be unable to fill out such a card and mean it.

In conclusion, I welcome this new document, and I believe that all of us need to better examine our lives prior to receiving Holy Communion and take advantage of the sure means of grace that is the sacrament of reconciliation.

**Warning** Possibly Disturbing Audio

Jonestown: Life and Death of the People’s Temple, a documentary about Jim Jones was just released. There are trailers of the movie available on YouTube. I would love to see this movie.

I also found the actual tape of Jim Jones speaking to his people as they began poisoning themselves and their children while in their supposed paradise in Guyana. The audio is scary, and shows the power one man can have over a group of people. The various people testifying on the microphone call him “dad” and enthusiastically buy into Jones’ strange mix of religion and communism/socialism. The only real dissenter is Christine Miller, who argues with Jones about the need for mass suicide. Unfortunately, she too committed suicide that day. Jones speaks of “revolutionary suicide” (42:32) and at one point criticizes the adults for explaining to their children what is happening. At 39:45 he mentions “Jim Cobb is laying on the airfield dead,” followed by a round of applause. Then he accuses others of being “peddlers of hate” while he justifies his cult as one of “peace.” At 42:37 Jones likely passes out, or else dies, but it seems as if the sound has been edited here. Wikipedia says Jones died of a shot to the head, but you can hear some kind of noise that sounds like Jones has trouble breathing. The last few minutes, with music playing in the background, are eerie indeed.

A sad, sad event that needs to be taught so it doesn’t happen again.

As All Saints Day and All Souls Day approach, I felt like these quotes from St. John Chrysostom were appropriate:

Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf (Homilies on First Corinthians).

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on Philippians).

Dave Hartline, friend and editor of The Catholic Report, has written a book called The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism. It will be released in November.

I highly recommend that everyone put this book on your mental wishlists (and Christmas lists!), and if you want a copy, please continue checking both The Catholic Report itself, and this blog for information about how to order a copy. I am thinking of getting a hold of a few copies myself to give away (and one for me of course!).

The book covers a lot of ground, but the main premise is that things are looking up for faithful Catholics, especially as the younger generation of believers takes over from the baby-boom generation of leaders. I haven’t read the book yet, but from conversations, I know that Dave has interviewed a lot of people from various denominations and professions and they are fascinating. I am very excited about this book, and excited for Dave as a friend and as a writer called to preach the great news that things are looking up.

I just discovered this photo, which has been around since 1999. Dave Hartline at The Catholic Report linked over to a blog entry about it just today.

This is actually a real image, not an urban legend or doctored photo. It is 21-week old Samuel Alexander Armas grabbing the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner, a surgeon. The fetus was diagnosed with Spina Bifida, and this operation, done in the womb, was the only hope for survival.

There is debate as to what actually happened here. The photographer of the event (Michael Clancy) saw the surgeon lift the baby’s hand out of the womb, and then saw baby Samuel grab Dr. Bruner’s hand. Dr. Bruner has downplayed the activity of Samuel, although he recognizes the whole event was “powerful.” However, check out the slideshow at Michael Clancy’s homepage, which shows the 21-week old fetus clearly grasping the hand of the surgeon. See “Hand of Hope” Analysis for basic information about this story.

All I can say is wow. It definitely makes you appreciate the life in the womb.

Sunday (yesterday) would have been St. Teresa of Avila’s feast day, had her day not fallen on the weekly feast of the resurrection, Sunday.

However, I want to say a few words about Teresa anyway.

Teresa is a doctor of the Church, and a famous 16th century mystic and reformer. She helped St. John of the Cross start his ministry. Her most famous work is The Interior Castle. I confess I have not read the whole thing, but only parts. When I briefly studied St. Teresa and other western mystics of the time, I remember being struck by Teresa’s humility and willingness to be corrected by the Church. When her visions seemed to suggest a kind of unitarianism with regard to the godhead, Teresa listened to the correction of her confessor, and interpreted her vision correctly. I remember thinking this illustrated the balance between the mystical and the apostolic, i.e. that mystical experiences enliven Apostolic Teaching, but must also be corrected by Apostolic Teaching. Teresa of Avila is an example of humility, zeal, and Christlikeness.

St. Teresa of Avila, pray for us!

… or, why Protestants continually misunderstand Catholic teaching. Dave Armstrong and James White duke it out over the topic of predestination.

This is Dave’s first post on the subject, which was addressed to an atheist objector.

This is James White’s Response to Dave, with a contribution from one Colin Smith.

This is Dave’s Rebuttal.

Dave is a Molinist. Now I’m sure that he is aware that Catholics may legitimately disagree over this issue. I am also certain that many non-Catholic Christians may view his defences of Molinism and think that Dave’s views are representative of Catholic theology. Colin Smith casually associates the Catholicism and Arminianism:

The former position, most commonly taken by those of either an Arminian or Roman Catholic theological persuasion, most frequently characterizes the Reformed position as denying man’s culpability for his sin by relieving him of the guilt afforded him by the actions of his free will.

Actually, the same charge is frequently leveled at Thomism, a Catholic school of thought that varies little from Calvinism.

The dichotomy that Smith makes between Catholicism and Arminianism on the one hand and the “Reformed position” on the other is a false distinction. It would be more accurate to distinguish between those who believe in intrinsically efficacious grace (Calvinism, Thomism) and those who believe in extrinsically efficacious grace (Molinism, Arminianism).

In fact, Calvinism and Thomism are mostly identical. The biggest differences between those systems comes with the topics of eternal security and the wording of “total depravity.” But on the issue of God’s sovereignty, there is no difference. The sovereignty of God is certainly an issue that should not be church-dividing. On the issue of whether God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, for example, I think that there is more agreement than many people would like to admit. The Thomist position is that God allowed Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened by withholding grace from him. There is even a sense in which it is possible to say that God decreed it to happen.

****

Dave knows that Catholics may legitimately agree with either Thomism or Molinism:

That being the case, I have little desire to make some huge argument against the Calvinist brand of predestination. I’ve discussed that general issue at very great length (the Molinist-Thomist dispute) with a fellow Catholic (Parts One Two Three Four).

Dave goes on to clear Molinism and Arminianism (note: knowledgeable Arminians will profess a belief in Middle Knowledge) of several charges made by Colin Smith. I do not necessarily agree with everything Dave says, but I do agree with him in that a lot of the arguments that Smith uses are quite silly.

But unlike Dave, and perhaps like Colin, I think that Molinism is wrong.

There is a right way and a wrong way of critiquing Molinism.

THE WRONG WAY
(Colin Smith’s/James White’s Way)

Smith tries to refute Dave by showing from the Bible that God is sovereign, and, uh, really in control. A knowledgable Molinist or Arminian is not going to be persuaded of his error by endless Pauline quotations that only establishes God’s sovereignty, because he will want to know how God is sovereign. Is he sovereign because he is able to choose from among an infinite number of worlds to create a set of conditions that would infallibly procure the salvation of the elect? Or will God procure the salvation of the elect without Middle Knowledge? The Molinist will interpret God’s sovereignty as outlined in Paul’s letters according to his own dogmatic framework. It does not matter that the concepts of Molinism are unknown to Paul, because Molinism merely professes to be an attempt at explaining the datum of revelation. Smith does not deal at all with the distinction between intrinsically and extrinsically efficacious grace, nor with the idea of Middle Knowledge. He thinks that he can disprove Molinism by endlessly reiterating that God is sovereign and absolutely in charge. Of course, Molinists do admit that God is sovereign. The difference between Smith and the Molinists is that Molinists think that God works out his sovereignty with something called “Middle Knowledge.” How is Smith to critique Dave’s views properly if he doesn’t bring up the foundational tenet of Molinism at all in his critique? Never once does Smith mention the term “Middle Knowledge.”

THE RIGHT WAY

There are legitimate objections to Molinism and Arminianism. Molinism, in any of its forms, necessarily forces God to choose a set of options in creating the world when he predestined all people to heaven or to hell. These options are external to God and do not find their source in him. Thus, God is a determined being rather than a determining Creator.

In Molinism, if God chooses to create world X, Y will definitely happen, and W will definitely not happen. If he chooses to create world Z, W will definitely happen, and Y will definitely not happen. Thus God is limited because he is forced to choose between a series of logical chains that were not created by him.

To be a Thomist is to say that God can create world X, and he is still free to choose either outcome Y or W.

Although these issues are difficult to understand, and I do not express them very well, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange has an excellent critique of Molinism in his book Predestination.

****

Molinism, in any of its forms, represents an innovation in theology that did not come about until after the Reformation happened. It represents a departure in Catholic theology from the earlier precedents set by the Medieval theologians. Predestination devotes one chapter to each of the major thinkers on predestination throughout history, which helps to illustrate the novel character of Molinism. Of course, the fact that Molinism is new does not mean that it is untrue, but it does mean that it is a departure from previous standards of theology. Moreover, Molinism has never been considered mainstream within Catholic theology.

Defending Molinism runs the danger of making some non-Catholics confuse Catholic teaching with Molinism or Arminianism. Even worse, it makes the topic of predestination seem to be a Church-dividing issue, rather than an issue that can be debated within the one Church.

It is common for Calvinists to assume that the Catholic position on soteriology is no different from Arminianism. But Catholicism does not define the Church in terms of a particular understanding of Divine Providence. There is no Catholic position on this issue, but only positions held by Catholics.

Occasionally one finds a critic of the Church who is fluent in Catholic theology and who knows the distinctions between Arminianism, Congruism, and Thomism. But these are few and far between. And unfortunately, they are not included among the more vocal Calvinists.

Ignorance is not confined to non-Catholics on this issue. There are many Catholics who think nothing of equating the Catholic position with Arminianism. Unfortunately, this only plays into the hands of internet demagogues like James White who have an interest in generating popular opposition to the Church.

For the most part, Calvinists are not going to change their minds on the issue of predestination. And even if they did, they will not be one inch closer to full communion with the Catholic Church than they were before. Concentrating on difficult subjects like predestination will probably not change the hearts of our seperated brethren. It is likely to give the them more perceived intellectual justification for perpetuating this long and miserable Reformation.

Is Jesus Christ either God or Man? Both And

Does Jesus have either a human will or a divine will? Both And

Is God either one or three? Both And

Do we either have a choice in our salvation or are we predestined? Both And

Is the Bible either the work of God or man? Both And

Is Mary either the Mother of the Human nature or Divine Nature in Jesus? Both And

Is God either Love or Just? Both And

Are we either saved by Faith or Works? Both And

Is the Church either holy or full of sinful men and women? Both And

Is the Church either universal or local? Both And

Is the Church either above culture or working within culture? Both And

Can you think of any I missed?

Is it any wonder our beliefs are easy to mischaracterize? The modern mind, and perhaps minds of all times, do not like paradox, and since the secular enlightenment, I fear many Christians are no better than non-Christians in regard to paradox. An Orthodox Christian once said “Mystery is not a wall to run up again, but an ocean in which to swim.” So let’s get swimming!

And the Catholic loses!

Come on Dan (The Catholic), we believe those same Scriptures Zach (Evangelical) is throwing out, and the Catholic Church he is arguing against is a caricature! We do not believe Mary is the mediator between God and man, and we do believe Mary needed a savior! Jack Chick could come up with better objections.

I notice too Zach brings up the “plain meaning” of Scripture, as if such a thing exists ;).

By the way, this is from the A and E Show “God or the Girl.” I have been watching way too much You Tube lately!

Why did I post this? It was not to belittle a fellow Catholic, or to put down Dan, because when placed in the same situation I cannot say how I would responded, especially with cameras rolling. I posted this because it is becoming increasingly important to be able to explain (to different types of people in different contexts) what we believe, and this clip shows why.

From the London Times:

THE Pope is taking steps to revive the ancient tradition of the Latin Tridentine Mass in Catholic churches worldwide, according to sources in Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times.

I like the spin in the headline: “Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church.” This was done by the same journalist who wrote this snarky article.

I am beginning to talk about sin in my freshman class this week, and I find that the kids have a good sense of what is a sin (being in a Catholic school will do that!), but seem to be ambivalent about how to deal with it or whether they want to deal with it.

When I introduced the topic, I explained why talking about sin can be controversial. After all, these days it is more accepted to say “we’re all okay” than “you need work and I need work.” Most of the kids have been raised with the former mentality, and some are a little unsure how I, a priest, or even the Church, can get off telling them what is right or wrong. Some adults even lament, “I don’t like Fr so-and-so because he makes me feel bad” or “The Bible is too preachy, because it wants me to do things I don’t like to do!”

As I was writing the notes for the next lesson, the seven deadly sins, I began to think about how in our society some of these deadly sins are actually accepted and even valued. Think about it. Pride used to be defined as a too high esteem of the self. Does this sound familiar? These days “self-esteem” is the big thing. While I think general self-esteem is good, if we mean a healthy confidence in one’s self, self-esteem can too easily turn into “I am fine the way I am, so don’t tell me I need improvement.” Lust is now healthy and normal, according to some experts, unless of course it is pointed out that lust is often a man objectifying a woman, and then it becomes a sin again, cultural this time. I could point out how other deadly sins are now becoming valued, but I don’t want this to get too long.

My point is that, from a Catholic, Orthodox, and classically Protestant perspective, we have an uphill battle when discussing sin. We live in a culture where the self is valued above most anything else, and “I have my truth, you have yours” is oft-repeated and oft-believed too. Plus, we all like to emphasize the sins we don’t do, but get a little defensive when our actions are called sins. I find that the conservatives are glad to hear that homosexual sex and abortion are sins, but less comfortable when they have to confront the sins of greed, unjust wars, and torture. Liberals love it when I emphasize social justice sins, but get squeamish when the Church’s view on sex is brought up.

Yes, we have an uphill battle when it comes to teaching people about sin, but to relent would be, well, a sin.

Today is the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi…you know, the peacenik, animal-loving saint whose statue is, after Our Lady’s, the most popular in yards and gardens. Oh, and how many Catholics and Anglicans took their pets to have the Sign of the Cross made over them at the annual Blessing of the Animals? Or at least thought about it? C’mon, raise your paws…I mean, hands.

St. Francis’ Day is a wonderful day and he is a wonderful saint, “Everyone’s Saint” and “the most Christ-like person after Christ”. I want us to look more deeply at who he was and is, though. Yes, Francis gave up riches for poverty, he loved and cared for all the creatures of God put in his path, and he was a profound man of peace. But, do you know what Francis would really want to be remembered for? His deep love for and total abandonment to Jesus Christ, crucified for poor sinners. THAT was the Source of Francis’ embracing of poverty and the poor, his deep concern for the animals, and his working for peace among men.

You see, we can work to help the poor, we can work for animal protection and rights, and we can strive to bring peace on the earth but, “unless the Lord build the house, the workers labor in vain.” For Christians, Jesus…who gave His Life for our salvation and for the eventual redemption even of the whole created universe…is to be the Source and Centre of even the best and most worthy efforts. For us who “love His appearing”, keeping Him before our eyes, is the best, the only way, really, to make a redemptive impact on this fallen world. Just as St. Francis did.

O Francis of Assisi, pray for us, to Christ our God, the Source of all good works. Amen.