Good Distinctions

Thank you for listening to Will Wright Catholic. Please share it by clicking the blue button below!

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

The Nature of Human Beings

Let’s start with… well… everything! Reality exists: both natural and supernatural. The natural realm is everything that we can detect, observe, or measure. This part of the created order includes atoms, molecules, and matter, in general, but it also includes unseen forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and the like. All of this exists in space and time, in a closed system where matter is neither created nor destroyed. But is there more? 

The “more” would be above nature or “supernatural.” The supernatural is all that exists apart from the material and natural realm. Angels, demons, and the Creator Himself all exist apart from the visible observable universe. Truly, God deserves His own category as the only Necessary Being whereas everything else is contingent on Him.

We speak of the things of our material universe as Nature. Here on Earth, nature includes the elements: earth, fire, water, wind, and life. However, there is another usage of the term “nature” which is more important to our conversation today. The nature of a thing is the basic or inherent features of that thing. 

So, when we speak of human nature, we are not necessarily referring to the things which can be observed in human behavior or external characteristics shared by homo sapiens. Human nature is the basic or inherent features of being human. What is written into the very heart of man? What pertains to the nature of the human person from the beginning, now, and forever? This is what we mean by human nature.

All Human Beings Have the Same Nature

All human beings have the same nature. If they did not, then they would not be human. Again, the vital distinction is in the difference between observable behaviors on the one hand and those intrinsic and essential aspects on the other. The former is merely behavior and the latter is the necessary realities of being human. 

We are human beings, after all, not “human doings.” So, if someone has a mental disorder that causes them to act in a way that is opposed to human nature, they are nonetheless still human. 

This distinction is important because we hear people speak of such and such phenomena “existing in nature” and drawing the conclusion that the observed phenomena must be “natural.” Quickly falling apart upon examination, this line of thinking leads to great confusion about human nature. 

A coworker recently brought up an example of this with the phenomenon of geophagy. In certain instances, pregnant women will begin to experience an inordinate desire to consume dirt and clay. The ingestion of this non-food item is compulsive and might derive from a deficiency in iron. At any rate, it is not “normal” or “well-ordered” to eat dirt and clay. Yet, geophagy “exists in nature.” So, is it part of human nature to eat dirt and clay? No. Something is seriously off in this phenomenon. Just because some human beings do certain things or even desire certain things, this does not make it part of human nature.

What We Ought to Be

Because all human beings have the same nature, endowed by the Creator, there are certain standards consistent across the entire human race. When we say what a human being essentially is, there is an implication of what human beings ought to be.

From before recorded History, human beings have been self-reflective - incidentally, self-reflection and powers of abstraction is an intrinsic part of human nature. In this self-reflection, human beings have interrogated the known and the unknown, within and without themselves. 

The fundamental questions resound through the ages: who are we? Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why is there life at all? Who am I? What is a human being? What does it mean to be a human being? Is there something after death? Do I have a soul? And so on…

These questions are universal: in every time and in every place, human beings have voraciously questioned everything. Many of these questions require philosophical investigation and others require scientific examination. But philosophy and science can only get us so far in inquiry. From the beginning, human beings have also relied on the queen of the sciences: theology. 

Admittedly, theology was not called the “queen of the sciences” until the High Middle Ages. Schools of higher learning used the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy to investigate the universe - both seen and unseen, within and without. Nevertheless, theology as the study of God and the divine in general could be called religion.

What is Religion?

Before we can define what religion actually is, we need to understand what we, as human beings, are capable of. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Being made in the image and likeness of God is to possess a rational soul. Human beings have the ability to know things (intellect) and the ability to choose freely the good (will). Endowed with freedom, man seeks the good and is capable of understanding the ordering of reality, established by the Creator. 

Given possession of a rational soul, man ardently seeks after reality. The disposition of the soul towards the good, true, and beautiful, in practice, is religion. The word religion has derived diverse meanings over the last few millennia. Cicero seeks religion as deriving from the verb relegere which means “to treat carefully.” On the other hand, the fourth century Christian apologist Lactantius says:

“We are tied to God and bound to him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name (Divine Institutes, IV, xxviii).”

Speaking in a Neoplatonic mode, the great St. Augustine in City of God gives a sense of recovering God: “having lost God through neglect [negligentes], we recover Him [religentes] and are drawn to Him.” However, he later leaves behind this idea in favor of Lactantius' view, saying, “Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, does not make a decision between the three views but sees them as all valuable: careful consideration, recovering God, and binding oneself. In a general sense, religion is the free choice to subject oneself to God. We are binding ourselves to God and Him to us in the practice of true religion. 

Are Human Beings Religious? 

Certainly, some human beings are religious, but would it be proper to say that all human beings are religious? Controversy is perpetual surrounding this question, especially in the modern world. How many times have you heard someone say, “Oh. I’m spiritual, but not religious.” Or perhaps you have heard the usually evangelical Christian idea that religion is opposed to the true practice of faith in Jesus Christ which is a relationship. However, I hope to show by the end of this short article that all human beings are truly religious, at the deepest metaphysical level. 

The first example of being spiritual and not religious is something that I will get to in a moment. But, let us begin with the second notion of relationship versus religion. If religion is about voluntary subjugation to God and binding ourselves to Him and Him to us, then I would suggest that religion, properly understood, is entirely about relationships. Right relationship with God bears fruit in the right relationship with our neighbor. The practice of true religion is all about relationships. Often, when people levy this rejoinder, it is from a misconception or false view of what religion ought to be.

Spiritual, But Not Religious?

Now to the notion of spiritual, but not religious. At the core of our being, as human persons, we are religious. This is the fundamental fact of our nature. It is right to say that we are spiritual, but it would be equally correct to say that we are corporeal. We are body and soul. If we were bodies without souls, we would be zombies. And if we were souls without bodies, we would be ghosts. So, our bodily-ness and spiritual-ness are part and parcel of our humanity. Yes, we are spiritual. But how then could we not also be religious? 

The human heart is made to worship. The notion of worship comes from the Middle English word worthschipe. Literally, it is an amalgamation of the word worth meaning “worthy” or “honorable” and the suffix -ship which means a denotation of a property or state of being. To worship something is to show with the depths of our being, body and soul, what we put worth in. What is worthy to us? This is what we worship. Centering and prioritizing our lives conveys what we worship and bears fruit in our actions.

Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said in 2011 that, 

“We tend to see purpose in the world. We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can’t see it… All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking… If you’ve got something so deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests. There is quite a drive to think that religion is private. It isn’t just a quirky interest of a few, it’s basic human nature.”

Professor Trigg hits the nail on the head. Religious thinking is basic human nature. All human beings have a hardwired religious drive. Now, an atheist might say that this is a bio-evolutionary oddity which motivated us in the past but is antiquated. They might say, like Marx, that religion is the opiate of the masses. I would say that the atheist and the marxist are in denial about their own nature and are dismissing as a nuisance the idea that perhaps God is in control. Because what is marxism or atheism if not a deep desire for control over the uncontrollable, for knowledge over the unknowable? 

Everyone puts worth in something. If they are not worshiping God - who alone is worthy - then that religious drive, essential to human nature, will be directed to something else. The rub is that the new object of worship will always be infinitely less than the Almighty. And so, aiming far below the Way, the Truth, and the Life, man falls prey to his base desires and can never find happiness. The conception of “spiritual, but not religious” does not conform to reality and will always result in the worship of creation rather than the Creator. Our soul, at the deepest level, desires to bind itself to the higher things. If we aim at God, then He will bind us to Himself. If we aim at lesser things, then we will be bound to them, to our detriment and perhaps even our damnation.

Human Nature Cannot Be Repressed

Any attempt to repress, control, or snuff out human nature in the realm of religion has miserably failed and has always been accompanied by widespread human suffering. In the 20th Century alone, we can look to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Nazi regime in Germany, the later Soviet policies in Russia, the Cultural Revolution in China, and other instantiations of godless Communism and Socialism. 

Human nature is hardwired into our being at the deepest levels. The human heart will always seek out God and will only be satisfied in Him. As St. Augustine said in the opening of his Confessions, “Our hearts are restless, until they rest in Thee.” Our restless hearts are religious. They want to worship. Who or what are they worshiping? 

Even for the believer, the exercise is worthwhile: what is the object of our worship, our desire, and our ultimate affection? If the answer is God, then we must beg the Lord for the grace to grow in this. If the answer is anything else, the pruning shears need to spring into action.

Thank you for reading Will Wright Catholic. If you've enjoyed it, please share it by clicking the blue button below!

Thanks for listening to Will Wright Catholic Podcast. If you’ve appreciated this podcast episode, please share it by clicking the blue button below!

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

Logic and Feelings

Logic seems to be far less important to most people than their feelings and comfort. Emotional reasoning has supplanted logical reasoning in almost every sphere of human activity. The reason for this seems to be directly connected to personal comfort. No one likes to be uncomfortable, but, oftentimes, this is what is required if we are to embrace the truth. Truth requires suffering sometimes. We have to understand as a society that we cannot function without logical reasoning.

A functioning society requires that there be a prioritization of the needs of people. Certainly, each person has the basic right to order their lives according to the priorities which they desire. However, if there is nothing bonding man to man, then the priorities chosen will not line up man to man. There will be great disparities between the goals sought and the common good will certainly not be served. 

Aiming Together at the Right Target

Speaking of goals sought, we can use the example of archery. If you have a bow and arrow and you are aiming at a target, you stand a chance of having the arrow pierce the target right in the center. If you are aiming even fifteen degrees away from the target, you are unlikely to hit the mark. Every person wants to hit the metaphorical targets in his or her life. However, because we live in a fallen world with a fallen nature, we often miss the mark. In fact, this is the meaning of the word “sin.” To sin is to miss the mark; it is an old Greek archery term.

Traditionally, we know that sin comes from three main causes: the world, the flesh, and the devil. We should not be under false assumptions about the lack of logic in our society and its connection to widespread sin. Sin is sometimes the consequence of valuing and utilizing emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. If we operate under false assumptions, then we will miss the mark when trying to think logically. 

The good news is that we are not doomed. We can purify our assumptions and targets with humility and inquiry. If, however, we stick to thinking only with our emotions, we are going to be as inconsistent as our emotions. In many ways, emotions are like wind to our sails. A good sailor knows how to go with the wind or continue to hold course in spite of winds blowing the wrong direction.

A Shared Morality?

In a world marred by sin, with each person choosing their own priorities to the exclusion of those around them, how is society to function? How can a community organize around common goals and principles (the target) if our values and priorities are so disparate. Before we can ever suggest that people be more logical or rational, we need to introduce a common identity and vision. Truly, this common identity is a shared morality. 

This is where most conversations in our pluralistic society derail. How can we possibly have a shared morality? Even Catholics cannot seem to be on the same page about very simple matters of faith and morals. Then there are non-Catholic Christians, Jewish people, Muslims, pagans of various assortments, agnostics, and atheists. How can we ever speak of a shared morality?!?

Thankfully, our shared morality is already present! It is hardwired into us. There are certain things which every person intuitively knows are right and wrong. Murder, rape, and arson are always immoral. You do not need to be taught that such things are gravely wrong. However, it does take self-knowledge and self-possession to listen to this law written into the hearts of man’s own nature. The law in our hearts which rises from our deepest nature as human beings is called natural law. 

Why Do People Do Terrible Things if Natural Law Exists?

St. Thomas Aquinas says that the “light of reason is placed by nature in every man to guide him in his acts.” If this is true, and natural law exists, why do people do horrendous things?

Why do people commit murder? Why do people rape other people? Why do people commit arson? Each of these disordered acts are the result of unbridled passions. Those who kill the innocent or sexually violate others are doing so because they have a disordered inclination to do so. They believe that committing this action is a good thing. If they thought about it, maybe they would see their error, but they are likely acting from a place of emotion and passion. We all do this to some extent because we all sin (we all miss the mark). We choose a lesser good instead of a greater good. 

If we are honest with ourselves, we realize how irrational we are. Human beings are imperfect. We make mistakes. We use our rational powers of intellect and will to choose things which are bad for us, but we are convinced that they are good. We are broken. This is where any conversation of a shared identity has to begin. 

We have to be willing to remove the plank from our own eye before inspecting the speck in our brother’s. Certainly, there is a duty to call a spade a spade and judge actions which go against a basic sense of morality. But, we have to be willing to forgo judging the individual committing the action. That is simply not our place. To reiterate: judge actions, not people. Love people, not their actions.

A Shared Vision

So, how can we bring this all together? If we recognize that we are broken and miss the mark, then we are in a better place to grow, personally. Once we begin to grow in our own lives and put our affairs in the right order, then we can turn towards those around us. In this way, a single person begins a ripple effect of virtue and right order. 

Once the bulk of the community is oriented in the same direction, with logical reasoning receiving deference and emotional reasoning receiving suspicion, then we can begin to truly coagulate a common identity once more. It has been some time since society shared a common vision, but it is possible to instantiate once more. A common vision, identity, and purpose is possible when we begin to possess ourselves and know ourselves as we truly are. With this clarity of vision, we can organize ourselves with common vision. 

Self-Knowledge is the Beginning of Wisdom

Aristotle said that, “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” This self-knowledge does not come from within. I am sure you have heard the phrase: “I need to find myself.” No, you don’t. You need to sit still, in silence, and let reality form you. The world exists in a certain way and we often convince ourselves that our feelings will tell us the right way to go. The alternative is to observe reality, as it is, not as we would have it.

As a theist, I am strongly convicted that God is the only source of truth and the author of reality. As the ground of being, He informs us of who we are. Hidden just enough to not be seen unless sought, God shines a light on the beginnings of true self-knowledge. Armed with this new vision, in humility, our culture begins to be centered on the ultimate logic, the Logos: the uncreated Word which brings all things into being. 

Perhaps you are a believer and perhaps you are not. The nice thing about reality is that facts do not care about your feelings, to borrow a phrase. Our subjective opinions and whims have to take a back seat to cold, hard logic if we are to be fulfilled and well-ordered. This necessarily means that we will be uncomfortable. We will suffer. And that is okay. It is better to live in accord with reason and be uncomfortable than to be numb and out of step with reality. 

I should mention, of course, that while facts do not care about your feelings, Jesus Christ absolutely does! And, as one human family, we should care about the feelings of our brothers and sisters. Facts and reality might be cold and logical, but human persons do not need to be. We do good and avoid evil and we charitably admonish the sinner. We conform ourselves to reality and call out others when they are acting against reality, but always in love.

Wisdom Itself

In the Incarnation, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on flesh. In other words, He took on human nature while retaining His divine nature. He did not become partly human and partly divine. He is both fully God and fully man. Therefore, He is the perfect model for humanity of what we can be.

Our Lord is the embodiment of Wisdom, literally. He is the uncreated Word of God which was spoken by the Father eternally. Therefore, when He speaks in the Gospels we hear the words of the wisest man to ever walk the face of the Earth. Though He is fully God, He is also truly man. He had to grow in knowledge of language and customs. Jesus shows us what the human person is capable of, in some measure, when unencumbered by sin. This is not to say that we will be like Him in all things on this earth, but He does call us to grow in knowledge and love of Him. Therefore, inspired by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and led by our Lord who is the Eternal Word, we can begin to think clearly. 

How to Think More Clearly

The more we learn about Jesus Christ, about the Catholic Faith, and about the world around us (from God’s perspective), the more we will grow in our capacities for rational thought. There are many brilliant atheists, but what they lack cannot be supplied by human effort. The grace of God to enlighten our hearts and minds comes from Him alone. So, it is a good thing to pray for clearer thinking and opportunities to learn more. 

Second, it does no good to think clearly if we are unhealthy emotionally. There will be times in our lives when we are compromised by our passions and emotions, and therefore, are not thinking as clearly as we ought to be. It is important to reflect on our emotional state, seek the counsel of a good friend or spiritual director to enlighten us, and pray to the Lord for emotional health. Only Christ can bring us true peace in the storms of life. But no good human decision can be made while we are not in our right state of mind. 

Being able to see when we are unhealthy emotionally takes a great deal of introspection and self-knowledge. As an important note, by emotional health, I do not mean mental disorders. Those suffering from anxiety, depression, bipolar, and so forth are not incapable of making good decisions.

I am referring more to emotional health as it relates to both our own personal spiritual life as well as our interaction in the public sphere. How do we react when challenged? Are we calm and balanced? Do we seek the common good or only our own good? Are we willing to listen when confronted with someone who disagrees with us?

Thirdly, we must form our conscience. If our own conscience is guiding us to act in ways incongruous with the Faith, then we are serving our own whims, not the Lord Jesus. This is a tricky thing because the Church tells us to give deference to the promptings of our conscience. If our conscience is compelling us to act a certain way, we are obliged to listen. However, the Catholic both/and comes into play here. We are called to both follow our conscience and work to form it in accord with the teachings and principles of the Church. 

Fools Despise Wisdom

I will end with this reminder from Proverbs: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7).” In sum: let’s not be fools. Fear of the Lord is a gift from God. It is recognizing who God is and who we are before Him. It is the first and most important priority. When we have humility, we have a healthy fear of the Lord and we begin to grow in self-knowledge and wisdom. Only then do we begin to have the vision that will lift ourselves and, ultimately our culture, out of the mire.

Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

What are the Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching?

Human beings are social, by nature; we do not live in isolation. The teachings of the Church regarding good social ordering springs from the heart of Christ. We are called to holiness, but this call requires cooperation with those around us to be authentic followers of Jesus.

To understand how we are to order our society, we need to heed Catholic Social Teaching (CST). The U.S bishops offers us seven themes of CST: 1) the Life and Dignity of the Human Person, 2) the Call to Family, Community, and Participation, 3) Rights and Responsibilities, 4) the Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, 5) The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers, 6) Solidarity, and 7) Care for God’s Creation. 

To His disciples, Jesus says, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Mt 25:40).” And He also says, “… what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me (Mt 25:45).” This implies that there must be action taken by the members of the Body of Christ in each of the seven themes.

Does Jesus, therefore, ask us to be social justice warriors? Do we need to take on one of the themes as a project? Or do we need to try to tackle all seven? 

Some, in the Church, fight for the dignity of life while others focus more on stewardship of the environment. Both are doing these actions out of love of Christ and His creation. However, what I hope we will see in their examination is two things: 1) all seven themes are important and 2) they must be prioritized. 

1. The Life and Dignity of the Human Person

Human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, each person has dignity and a right to life from the moment of conception in the womb until they draw their final breath. Human life is sacred, which means that it has been set apart. The Church fills out this meaning by calling us to sainthood. 

Human life is under direct attack from the evils of abortion and euthanasia, which are unacceptable under any circumstance. There is also a threat to the value of human life from embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and the imprudent use of the death penalty. There are unjust wars, acts of terrorism, and acts of violence in our world.

Catholic social teaching exhorts nations to find peaceful solutions to disputes whenever possible. However, a nation or an individual has the right and obligation to protect innocent human life when it is threatened. The preservation of innocent human life is a principle contained in this theme of the life and dignity of the human person.

2. The Call to Family, Community, and Participation

In 1960, the global divorce rate was 12%. Divorce is also a violence to a couple because marriage is a lifelong union. There is no such thing as a clean divorce; someone is always harmed. For this reason, the Church tenderly reaches out to those who have suffered divorce to offer the healing of Christ. A few years ago, the global divorce rate was 44%. In the United States, the rate is 46%, 42% in the United Kingdom, and 38% in Australia. 

With such high divorce rates, it is not uncommon to see broken families. Catholic social teaching upholds that the person is sacred, but that the person is also social. Our economics, politics, laws, policies, and social institutions must therefore defend marriage and the family. Without the family being at the core, these social institutions will erode and eventually break apart. 

With crumbling families, the need for community has never been more important. It is our obligation as Catholics to reach out to our fellow man, especially the poor and vulnerable. All are called, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity to seek the common good.

Our participation in our community is not negotiable. We need our brothers and sisters and they need us. Our world has become increasingly isolated which is contrary to God’s design for us as individuals and as a society. As a result, rates of mental illness and suicide have skyrocketed. As Catholics, we are called to breathe life into our communities, in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. 

3. Rights and Responsibilities 

For communities to thrive and uphold the dignity of human life, rights must be protected and responsibilities met. Pope St. John XXIII enumerates these rights: 

“We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live.  He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood (Pacem in Terris, 11).”

Every natural right begins with the right to life, because without life there are no other rights. The natural rights listed by Pope St. John XXIII lead to the duty of the state and individuals to protect the rights of others. There is also a responsibility to use these rights well in the service of God and man. We are not free to do whatever we please; we are free to choose the good. This is how rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.

4. The Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

In nations ravaged by communism, there is an ever-widening gap between the super-rich and the ultra-poor. In areas of unfettered capitalism and many types of socialism, there is likewise a disappearing middle class. In other words, societies that do not care for the poor and vulnerable tend to lead to the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.

The Catholic Church has always upheld the call of Christ Himself to the corporal works of mercy. The needs of the poor and vulnerable must come before our own. This is called the preferential option for the poor. Do I feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the ill, visit the imprisoned, and bury the dead? Notice I said “Do I?” It is not enough for our parish to do these things; in one way or another, we will be individually judged by God on whether we personally contributed to these efforts in service of Christ, according to the circumstances of our own lives.

5. The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

Work has dignity because it is a participation in the creation of God. Further, economies exist to serve the people in a society. We do not work simply to make money. If work has dignity, then the rights of workers should be protected. 

The U.S. bishops summarized the rights of workers very well: 

“All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages and benefits, to decent working conditions, as well as to organize and join unions or other associations. (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Catholic Framework for Economic Life, no. 5).” 

6. Solidarity

All of our earthly fathers share in the Fatherhood of God; they are a sort of “icon” of the Father. Our Father in Heaven has called us His own through the waters of Baptism. Therefore, in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters; we have become co-heirs to the kingdom. Beyond our own belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, we also share in our one Creator. Therefore, we all belong to one human family, regardless of nation, race, ethnicity, economic or ideological differences. 

Recent technological shifts and globalization have made this reality clearer (while unfortunately undermining solidarity in key ways - but that’s a whole other episode). The fact is that we are connected. Our solidarity with our one human family spurs us to pursue true justice and peace. In the midst of sufferings, especially violence and conflict, we are called by the Church to work for peace, in solidarity with one another.

7. Care for God’s Creation

Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, followed suit after Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, and wrote beautifully on the care for our common home in his work: Laudato Si. In this document, he writes, 

“Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit (Laudato Si, 159).”

Caring for God’s Creation is part and parcel of the Catholic life. In our throw away culture, we realize that the environment is impacted by wastefulness and the dignity of human life is impacted by a disregard for the poor. Everything in God’s creation is connected, and we must seek to serve God and our fellow man in all things.

Applying These Themes in Our Lives

So, how do we actually go about applying these principles to our lives? Over the course of history, there have been hundreds of different cultures, customs, circumstances, political systems, and so forth. It stands to reason that the practical instantiation of these principles will vary due to the tangible situation of a particular time, people, and place. 

The seven themes of Catholic social teaching fall under the unflinching category of Faith and Morals. Faith and Morals have been infallibly declared by the teaching authority of the Church and they apply to all places, times, peoples, and circumstances. This means that Catholics of good will are not at liberty to disagree on these central teachings of the Church, in principle.

The key distinction is: principle vs. application.

Catholic political and social engagement, or tangible application of principles, can be called prudential judgment. Prudential judgment is making decisions, in line with the Faith and Morals of the Church, using the virtue of prudence. 

“Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; ‘the prudent man looks where he is going.’ (CCC 1806)”

Prudential judgment takes practice, listening to God, and being formed in the principles of Catholic teaching - and the other teachings of Faith and Morals of the Church, of course. The solutions Catholics may take on social welfare systems, minimum wage, and other political issues will and can vary from person to person. Further, what works well in one area of the world may be wholly inappropriate in another locale. Rarely is anything black and white. However, there is usually a solution which borrows from one side and another. This is the perennial Catholic both/and position, and a reminder that we need both “conservative” and “liberal” forces in the application of principles.

Need to Prioritize

In the application of the seven themes of Catholic social teaching, it is important to prioritize. We cannot tackle all seven at once. It really is a team effort. But, we must let the Lord lead the way. We cannot think of any of the seven themes as pet projects. We are a Church of Christ not a church of causes!

The trick then becomes: who decides the prioritization? The key principle we need to utilize is subsidiarity.

The Principle of Subsidiarity

To make the best decision possible, the Church employs the organizing principle of subsidiarity. Basically, this principle states that the best decisions for a local community are made at the lowest possible level and the highest level necessary. 

In the hierarchy of the Church, the Pope makes decisions based on the common good of the whole Church on earth, whereas a local bishop makes decisions only in his particular geographical area or diocese. Likewise, a pastor represents his bishop and makes decisions for his own parish and parish boundaries. 

However, subsidiarity is best shown by the family: the foundational cell of society. Parents make decisions for their family, especially their children, without overreach from the local, state, or federal government. The family then makes decisions with other families at the local community and parish level. If the decision needs broader input, then it might fall to the state or eventually the federal government. Subsidiarity, once again, dictates that if the family has the power to make and implement the decision, then they alone should do so. Practically, an example of something that might take federal reach would be border security or a standing military. These are out of the reach of a smaller level of governance (individual, family, community, or state). If an entity has proper authority and they are the closest to the situation, they ought to make the decision. 

Pope Pius XI illustrates this principle and safeguards the diversity of humanity and richness of her talents when he says, 

“… it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do (QA 79).”

The Common Good

Subsidiarity is always ordered to the common good. This means that governments have the solemn responsibility to create the conditions of human flourishing. The proper authorities must be ready to provide the resources and direction necessary to direct the community to the common good. Each individual has something to offer and ought to be engaged in their own welfare as well. Pope Benedict XVI puts it this way:

“Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others (CV 57).” 

Subsidiarity transcends any political system or political affiliation. This guiding principle represents the great Catholic both/and. We have an obligation to the poor and vulnerable and to maintain the dignity and productivity of all people. In other words, subsidiarity must be linked to the principle of Catholic social teaching of solidarity! If we have subsidiarity without solidarity, society becomes disconnected and privatized to the extreme. If we have solidarity but no subsidiarity, society “gives way to paternalistic social assistance that is demeaning to those in need (CV 58).”

A Proper Prioritizing

A proper prioritization of Catholic social teaching will, therefore, apply the principle of subsidiarity. If human dignity is under attack by abortion or euthanasia, then that takes first priority. 

* Protecting human dignity is the preeminent issue to address because without life, no other right matters, and it is manifestly opposed to the common good of all. Then, 

* We must shore up the family as the cell of society. 

* Our families must work together to secure the rights of those around us and fulfill our responsibilities to one another, 

* In justice, the virtuous pursuit of rights and responsibilities must have a preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, who must never be forgotten and brought further into the community, 

* Of course, a community needs participation, but specifically in the form of dignified work and the rights of workers which must be protected, 

* Further, our society, now solidly functioning at the local level must never lose sight of our solidarity, our interconnectedness, and, to some extent, this will extend to our state and nation and the whole world, and 

* While accomplishing all of these things, we must do our part to care for God’s creation as good stewards.

As presented above, the themes of Catholic social teaching are not at odds with one another; they are not pet projects. God may call us to emphasize one or the other more prominently in our own work or ministry. Hopefully from the way I organized it, you can also see what I mean by the importance of prioritizing the themes as well. They build upon one another, like a building.

You may think that the themes should be taken all at once, like a “seamless garment,” but this approach does not take into account that a prioritized layering is necessary, nor does it do justice to the necessary principle of subsidiarity. Ultimately, the seamless garment hypothesis does not do justice to Catholic social teaching, in practice. 

Generally, this idea of the seamless garment is where Catholics, well intentioned as they might be, go off the rails and become SJWs or “Social Justice Warriors.” The Lord calls us to practice justice in society, but it has to be done in a prudent way, respecting the principle of subsidiarity. So, no, we are not called to be social justice warriors. 

We are called to focus on Jesus Christ and live our lives as His hands and fight, keeping the themes of Catholic Social Teaching in mind and in the proper prioritization.

PLEASE CONSIDER SHARING THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY!

This post is public so please share it by clicking the blue button below!

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

The Last Two Weeks

Over the last two weeks, we have explored two distinct but related topics: first: judging actions, not people, and second: how ideology can come at the expense of charity and kindness. Those topics are foundational for any conversation on forgiveness. So, if you have not read or listened to those, I highly recommend going back and viewing those first!

To Err is Human, to Forgive, Divine

Alexander Pope, in his poem An Essay on Criticism written in 1711, says, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” This comes from an old Latin proverb errare humanum est (to err is human). Erring is easy. We do it all the time. We make silly mistakes and sometimes we make big mistakes. We can be selfish, careless, ignorant, or down-right malicious.

Every human being sins and falls short of the glory of God (cf. Rom. 3:23). We all need forgiveness. Why then is it so darn hard to forgive sometimes? Maybe we are waiting for the apology that never comes. Maybe we have tried to make things right but it falls on deaf ears.

Given our fallen world, it seems that forgiveness is just out of reach, a lot of the time. This is why Alexander Pope says that forgiveness is divine. Do we need the omnipotence of Almighty God to muster up forgiveness? Or perhaps, paradoxically, we need to emulate the sublime humility of God to forgive others?

Do We Need to Forgive? - Natural Order

Is it necessary to forgive? Do we need to forgive? If it is so difficult, perhaps it would be easier to forgo the exercise and just move on? The problem with this is that resentment can build. Forgiveness is important for our physical and mental well-being. As the Catholic author Bert Ghezzi puts it in his 1980 book The Angry Christian, 

“Resentment is like a poison we carry around inside us with the hope that when we get the chance we can deposit it where it will harm another who has injured us. The fact is that we carry this poison at extreme risk to ourselves.”

Phrased another way: unforgiveness and resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. If we do not let go, this resentment will kill us. 

Before you get too deep into resentment, remember that most people err out of ignorance. Malice certainly exists. People do bad things out of malevolence; it would be naive to think otherwise. But it would be a mistake to assume malice. Instead, apply “Hanlon’s razor” - “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I am not suggesting we assume everyone is stupid. Remember to judge actions and words, not people. However, it is far more charitable to assume someone is acting out of misguided passion or ignorance rather than malice. 

Do We Need to Forgive? - Supernatural Order

What about in the supernatural order, spiritually-speaking? Our Lord Jesus lays it all out on the line for us: 

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Mt. 6:14-15).”

We are all sinners in need of God’s forgiveness. Accordingly, it is not only a good idea to forgive; it is absolutely necessary for salvation. Our Blessed Lord shows us also in the Gospel of St. Mark that,

“whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses (Mk. 11:25).”  

Our forgiveness of others is plainly concomitant with the forgiveness that we receive from God. Jesus Himself teaches us to pray to the Father with these words, Father: “... forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors (Mt. 6:12).” Hearing this alongside the other two passages calling for us to be forgiving, the necessity is clear. But Jesus makes it even clearer in St. Matthew’s Gospel right after giving us the Our Father prayer. He says,

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Mt. 6:14-15).”

The call to forgiveness is so important that it needs to be put forcefully and plainly. If you and I do not forgive others, we will go to Hell. The call is that simple. This act, however, is not simple; in fact, it is impossible for man. But with God, all things are possible. He gives us the grace in His Holy Spirit and through the merits of His Cross.

Forgiving Even Our Enemies

Forgiveness is one of the most powerful acts of love. It is requisite, if we are to love. This is all well and good when the person who needs to be forgiven is a friend, family member, or acquaintance, but what about when the person is our enemy? Jesus says at the end of the Sermon on the Mount:

“43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:43-48).”

For a brief reflection on this last line about perfection, check out “The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good” from a couple weeks back, here on Will Wright Catholic!

We must love even our enemies and this means forgiving them.

Radical Forgiveness, In Christ

One of the most poignant examples in recent memory comes from Corrie Ten Bloom. She was a Dutch woman who was arrested by the Nazis for hiding Jews. She survived countless horrors in the Ravensbrück concentration camp. Later, in 1947, in a church in Munich, she saw one of the vicious guards of Ravensbrück. Since the war, this vile man had become a Christian. After her talk, he approached her and asked her for forgiveness. By the power of Jesus, Corrie Ten Bloom did forgive that Nazi guard. This is the strength God gives us to overcome anger, if we only ask.  

It would have been easy for Corrie Ten Bloom to give into hatred of this guard who had caused her so much suffering. It would have been easy for her to curse the man and walk away. A compelling argument could even be made that he would have deserved to be treated like dirt. 

 She describes this moment, frozen before the former guard, as one of the most difficult things she has ever had to do. She cried out in the silence of her heart to Christ saying, “Jesus, help me! I can lift my hand. I can do that much. You supply the feeling.” Of course, Jesus answered. He desired for forgiveness to win the day, as it always does. 

She put out her hand describing being filled with a “healing warmth.” Tears came to her eyes and she said, “I forgive you, brother. With all my heart.” The love of God has a power that cannot be explained in words. This forgiveness is impossible for man, but with God all things are possible. 

This radical love and forgiveness is only possible with Jesus Christ. He Himself said, “Father, forgive them” of the Romans while suffering His agonizing passion and death.

Are We Forgiven?

Okay. We can forgive our friends, family members, and acquaintances, and even our enemies. But, what about forgiving ourselves? Sometimes the hardest person to forgive stares back at us in the mirror each morning. 

Again, the only way to truly forgive ourselves is to love ourselves. To get to this point of humility, we have to see ourselves how God sees us. We need to deeply experience His love, mercy, and forgiveness. You might be thinking: that’s fine for other people, but I’m pretty awful. I mean, I suck. Well… first of all, shush. No you don’t. In the future, we are going to talk about the difference between conviction and condemnation. Suffice it to say, the former is a gift from God and the latter is from the pits of Hell. 

What does God reveal to us about His merciful forgiveness? Above all, He showed us the depths of His love from the Cross. Jesus Christ is sinless and blameless, but for our sake, for our sins, He endured the weight of the Cross. He suffered, died, and rose so that we might be forgiven. We share in His merits because He made us coheirs with Him through Baptism. What a gift!

God Alone Blots Out Our Transgressions

God alone can forgive sins. Furthermore, we need Him to see our faults clearly. As the Psalmist says, “Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults (Ps. 19:12).” As an aside, this is why I end my confession in the Sacrament of Penance with some iteration of: “and for all the other sins I have forgotten, I am sorry.” I am not saying this to “cover my bases;” I am giving thanks to God for declaring me innocent from hidden faults.

Only when we receive God’s love and mercy with an open heart will we be truly happy. As the Psalmist says, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered (Ps. 32:1).” 

How do we become so fortunate? How do we receive this divine forgiveness?!? Simple: we ask. As Pope Francis says rightly and so often: “God never tires of forgiving us.” We need only ask for His forgiveness with a contrite heart. Then, we receive the promise of Jeremiah: “I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me (Jer. 33:8).”

Further, by a true miracle, it is as if our sins did not exist. To illustrate the point, God speaks through the Prophet Isaiah saying, “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins (Is. 43:25).” The Psalmist echoes the same joyous song: “as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us (Ps. 103:12).”

When and How Many Times Must We Forgive?

It is clear that God forgives us when we are contrite and ask for His forgiveness. He never tires of forgiving us. Every single time you or I commit the same sin that we confessed last time. Every time we find new ways to offend the Lord. He does not stop His mercy. As long as we have breath in our lungs, we can receive His forgiveness. 

What, then, should our response to this gratuitous mercy be? It should be gratitude, first. What a beautiful gift to continually be drawn back to our Heavenly Father by our Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Second, we should do likewise. 

In the Gospel of St. Luke, Jesus says this:

“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him (Lk. 17:3-4).”

Likewise, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is asked by St. Peter: “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus replies, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times (Mt.18:21-22).” Here, Jesus is not saying that we forgive seventy-seven times but to heck with them on the seventy-eighth time. It simply means an uncertain and inscrutable number - as many times as it takes.

This is not an excuse to sin, nor is it a free pass for the offender. Right before this passage Jesus says to His disciples: 

“Tempations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. Pay attention to yourselves… (Lk. 17:1-2,3a).”

But when someone does offend us, in sin, but then asks for our forgiveness, who are we to deny them? We cannot judge people. We judge actions. We can judge rightly that an action against us was immoral or imprudent, but we cannot judge the offender’s heart and soul. So, following the command of Jesus, we forgive - as many times as it takes.

The only way for this platform to grow is for you to get the word out! I would greatly appreciate you taking a few moments to share this episode with your friends or family, if it’s been a blessing to you.

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

Last Week

In last week’s episode/article, we took a deep dive into the distinction between judging people and judging actions. If you have not yet read that, I suggest doing that first! Next week, we will be rounding off this trilogy of articles/episodes with an exploration of the call to forgiveness.

We Disagree… So I Hate You

“You actually like that? You must be complete scum. I hate you!” 

Okay. So, most people do not speak this way. But, I absolutely am convinced they are thinking it, on some level, and probably not too far from the surface. 

Ideology, in our polarized society, is our overriding hermeneutic, which is just a fancy way of saying our method or theory of interpretation. Charity and kindness are afterthoughts, if they are thoughts at all. To bring back a real sense of culture and authentic human flourishing, we have to find a way to restore charity as the intentional hermeneutic. Charity is the principle virtue and kindness as the default approach.

In order to accomplish the restoration of charity as the guiding force and a kinder society, we have to understand what charity and kindness are. Charity, above all else, is a virtue. Kindness, rather than being only a virtue, is a fruit - the result of virtuous charitable living.

Virtue Training

It would be worth offering a quick working definition of a virtue. A virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to the good. As a habit, a virtue must be utilized; it cannot be enlargened with misuse or disuse. It must also be a firm disposition. Our choosing of virtuous action will not always be completely perfect and firm, but for an action to be virtuous it must be firmly chosen. 

You cannot fall into virtue. It is intentional. As a disposition, the firm habit has become the routine course of our life. We are used to choosing a given virtue. Virtue has become a well-trained muscle, so to speak.

Charity is the first and greatest virtue. Without this virtue, no other virtue is possible. Charity is the greatest virtue because it is the love of God through which all things came into being and continue to exist. Without the Charity of the Almighty, we would cease to exist. As St. Paul says, and we will use the King James Version for some variation - I usually use the English Standard Version - “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring (Acts 17:28).” 

Love Requires Freedom

Freedom is necessary for real love. Charity is freely given or it is not charity. It cannot be compelled. Love which is forced is not love at all. At the risk of being crass, but in order to make a point, what do we called “love” that is forced: we call it rape. 

By the virtue of charity, we freely choose the good, as we understand it. In the private order, we give to others, without expecting anything in return. We share our time and talents with others, as a primary concern. We love those placed in our lives with full attention and care. In the public sphere, an entrepreneur practicing charity should seek to create value primarily and capture value secondarily. Much of virtue, in this regard, is right ordering of our lives: making sure our priorities are solid. 

One Person at a Time

Freely chosen, the practice of the virtue of charity with one’s time, talent, and treasure begins to affect the whole world. Of course, this begins one person at a time. Charity moves in the heart of the virtuous person to act in accord with reason and reality. Rippling out, charity then begins to have an effect on all those in that person’s sphere of influence. This process of paying it forward then continues until the world is changed, if only slightly, for the better.

Once we have this process of rippling charity in view, it is easy to see how kindness results as a fruit on this tree of charity. When individuals are generous with their time and ability, directed to human dignity and flourishing, the world becomes just a bit better. The rough edges of the human experience are softened by authentic love and care. Blossoming from these encounters is true, selfless kindness.

Everyone Has Bad Days

Everyone has bad days. Perhaps we struggle to be charitable because of the struggles and suffering in our life. The purpose here is not to be perfect, but, on the balance, to improve. Getting a bit better at practicing charity each day requires cooperation. The objective moral order compels us to act in accord with reason and in line with reality. When we do this in a way which seeks the good of the other, we strive for charity and will bear kindness. 

St. Augustine reminds us of the universality of the “bad day” but a reminder to live for today: “Bad times, hard times, this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times.”

Meekness is Not Weakness

We are called to be meek, as Jesus is meek. But meekness is not a weakness; it is strength. Meekness is power under control - a moderation of anger and stress. As conversations get tough, you can see where meekness is so vital. Kindness and charity does not mean shying away from the tough issues of the day, in order to not offend someone or hurt his or her feelings. We must never be malicious, if we are to be virtuous. We must never be intentionally hurtful, if we are to be charitable. 

Instructing the ignorant can be a great mercy. St. Thomas Aquinas once said, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists of leading him from error to truth.” This gentle, kind leading from error to truth is a path that is best borne out of friendship. It is uncharitable to beat someone over the head with the truth. The most fruitful way is to share in the life of another and walk with them. There is an old saying, attributed to Billy Graham, that you must “build a bridge of trust to support the weight of truth.” Certainly, this is the case.

Back to Ideology and its Dangers

So, why does ideology sometimes work against charity and kindness? Ideology can be comforting. It assures us that we have a good, working framework from which to try to make sense of the world. If we did not have a point of departure, the sheer volume of data in the world around us would crush us into submission. In this way, ideology can be a comfort but we also run the danger of becoming too entrenched and defensive. 

When someone adheres to a set of principles of ideas, they believe these ideas to be true, at least for the most part. For someone who is dogmatically affixed to only one viewpoint, the other perspectives are simply wrong. For someone who is unsure of their position or who adheres to a shaky viewpoint, another perspective is not only wrong but is seen as catastrophic. A single stray thought runs the risk of crumbling the foundations of an ideology. The response then becomes greater division, close-mindedness, and hatred. 

There is nothing wrong with having convictions, especially about philosophical and theological matters. I would argue that these convictions are necessary to a well-ordered life. Otherwise, what is the organizing principle? The danger that must be avoided is a close-mindedness which cannot separate human persons from the ideas they hold. True charity accepts the person as they are, while also making the right distinctions in what that person might believe.

Making the Right Distinctions

If someone holds an ideology which does actual violence to another, then that ideology needs to be corrected and brought in line with the good of society. If an ideology goes against reason and reality, then it absolutely must be challenged and intellectually dismantled. This cannot, however, bleed over into a hatred of another person. This was the subject, in small part, of last week’s episode on judging actions not people. People and the ideas they hold are distinct, even if they are deeply-held.

On the other extreme, charity does not require having a mind which is far too open. The great English polymath, G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” If the mind is too open, the brain might slip right out of the head. Open-mindedness must be a willingness to engage with conflicting ideas without being hostile.

Put another way: if you are certain that your viewpoint is correct, then there is no need to be personally offended at the attack of that viewpoint. If your perspective is in accord with reality and reason, then you are on firm ground and can stand confident. And, if your perspective needs to be further clarified, then perhaps a good conversation or exploration will bring you closer to the truth. Either way, unwarranted outrage has no place in human flourishing.

Wrapping It Up

Rejecting harsh ideological divides, we can be virtuous men and women striving for charity and bearing kindness. Undoubtedly, such an example will have an effect on those around us. Charity and kindness are far more attractive than hatred, harshness, and pride. Maybe charity is not as flashy as uncharity and kindness is not as noticeable to our cynical modern world. But, they must be the goal if society is to be restored and culture is to be revived.

Thank you for reading Will Wright Catholic. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

“Stop Being So Judgemental!”

One of the most quoted verses in the Bible today is some iteration of the following:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye (Matthew 7:1-3)?”

Usually when we hear it, though, we hear: “don’t be so judgy!”, “only God can judge me”, “you’re so judgemental!”, or “stop being so judgemental!” But is that what this passage means? Are we never allowed to pass judgment? Can we judge others? What’s the truth of the matter? 

In looking at this topic, we are going to investigate four main questions: What is a judgment? Can we judge people? What can we judge? What are the spiritual dangers when we judge?

What is a Judgment?

First, what is a judgment? This might sound like an obvious question with an obvious answer, but let’s take another look.

The verb to judge is shared in English and French and comes from the Latin iudicere which means, generally, to proclaim, determine, or conclude. However, in a legal sense, from Roman usage, we get a few synonyms: accuse, reprimand, condemn, and damn. The word came from two root words: ius and dico. Ius means law or right and dico means I call or I point out. 

I love word etymology. Usually when I am trying to figure out what a word really means, I look at the history of it. Here is no different, and, in fact, we have already stumbled on an important fact. Even in the Latin context, there are two usages of the verb to judge - one means to proclaim or determine and the other means to reprimand and condemn. These are very different usages of the same word! 

So, we could say that there are two types of judgments, generally speaking. The first judgment belongs to any individual who has come to a conclusion and makes a proclamation. The second judgment pertains to one with authority handing over a ruling. Put another way: the first is an action (to judge) and the second is a job (acting as judge). 

Can We Judge People? 

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the one and only eternal Judge. As we read in the Gospel of St. John:

“For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life (Jn. 5:22-24).”

Only He can discern the thoughts and feelings of the heart, mind, and soul. Judgment, in the eternal law sense, belongs only to God. To only Jesus is the judgment of damnation reserved. Upon death, all will appear before Him and He will make the eternal, lasting judgment of the state of one’s soul, ultimately, to Heaven or Hell. 

So, can we judge other people? The answer is simple: absolutely not. This is what Jesus means when He says, “Judge not, that you will not be judged.” We are not omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. We simply are not equipped to be the Judge. We do not know the state of someone’s soul. 

What Can We Judge?

If we cannot judge others. Rather, I should say - going back to our Roman dual-usage of the word - that we are not the Judge. What then can we judge? Jesus also says in the Gospel of St. John: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment (Jn. 7:24).” It seems, then, that we can judge something! At the very least, Jesus is asking us to use *right* judgment.

Counsel is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is also called “right judgment.” Counsel is the perfection of the cardinal virtue of prudence. Counsel allows us to judge promptly and rightly what should be done in especially difficult situations. Of course, this is a gift from God for our own personal use. What then is the right judgment of others? I think a prerequisite would have to begin with a firm grasp of the virtue of prudence.

Prudence is the virtue that disposes of practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it, using the language of the Catechism. Put more succinctly, quoting Aristotle: “recta ratio agibilium” - “right reason applied to practice.” By practicing and growing in the virtue of prudence, we begin to determine with greater ease what is truly right or truly wrong. This is why the Catechism refers to prudence as the “charioteer of the virtues.”

To paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas, prudence allows us to do three things: 1) to discern the best means for action, 2) to judge soundly whether that means is fitting, and 3) to command the employment of the means. As we grow in this virtue, we will inevitably begin to notice when others employ less-than-virtuous means to attain a goal. 

We will make judgments. Even our legal code reflects this. We make and enforce laws because we are making a judgment, collectively, that certain actions are morally good or evil, right or wrong. 

Jesus presupposes this when He gives this charge to His disciples: 

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt. 18:15-17).”

Here the disciple is making a judgment that his brother has committed a sin. Then, he is charged with telling him this judgment. I am not sure how much clearer our Lord can be in the call to judge the actions of others, at least when someone has sinned against us personally. 

What are the Spiritual Dangers in Judging?

We can judge the actions of others without judging them personally. But what are the spiritual dangers of judgment? 

First, we have to remember that we live in a fallen world and have an inclination to sin. We are not perfect, and, as our Lord says, we need to recognize the log in our eye before trying to remove the speck in our brother’s eye. In other words, any judgment and correction needs to come from a place of righteousness and humility. We have to be cognisant of our biases, our passions, and our own short-comings. Once we have a real sense of self-knowledge, gained in prayer, we can, then and only then, look outward.

Second, we must avoid rash judgment, detraction, and calumny. The Catechism summarizes this succinctly:

“Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them (CCC 2477).”

The Catechism then gives a lot more on this subject from paragraphs 2478 - 2487 .

Conclusion

Judging the state of someone’s eternal soul is out of the question because you and I are not the Judge. There is only one Judge and His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 

Judging the actions of another, after sufficient discernment and prudence, is called for by the Lord and presumed by every human society with a legal code. 

I will try to conclude by summarizing this as succinctly as I can:

Judge actions, not people. 

Thank you for reading/listening! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Thanks for reading and/or listening to Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

The Loss of Wonder and Awe

Wonder and awe at the glory of the natural order is lost. In no small measure, this has caused our culture to cave in on itself in black holes of immeasurable self-aggrandizement. Function, utility, and efficiency have become the unholy trinity that beat the drums of progress as we march towards cultural suicide. In our imperfect world, perfect utopia is unattainable for many reasons, two of which include an utter lack of consensus and pride. What is the perfect world? What conditions have to exist for true human flourishing?

Philosophers, theologians, political thinkers, and historians have debated this concept of the perfect world from time immemorial. In our fractured state, true consensus does not seem likely or possible in the court of public opinion. Without a concerted popular effort towards aiming at the same goal, the likelihood of achieving it is low. As to pride, it is not controversial to make the claim that most people today are either unabashedly or unwittingly self-focused.

True Societal Progress Does Not Come From Within

The foundational underpinnings of true progress and human flourishing comes from without, not within. The greatest minds of science, historically, were motivated by wonder and awe at the majesty of the created order. Relatively infrequently are people truly amazed by something. What does this blasé attitude do to a society? What becomes of culture? 

Putting the “Cult” Back in Culture

Culture is connected intimately to worship. The root word is “cultus,” from which arises the English word “cult.” Cultus comes from the Latin verb colare which means “to till.” This is why we have the word agriculture (agri - field, cultus - till). In the Middle Ages, cultus came to mean adoration or veneration specifically. The prime act of worship is sacrifice. It is getting outside of oneself in order to show that worth is found outside of the self. Worship could thus be seen as “giving worth.” 

So, what happens when we lose a sense of wonder and awe? It’s simple: we start to worship inwardly; we start to worship ourself. Instead of the worship of one God, the replacement has been the worship of over seven billion “gods.” When every person is master of their own domain, then communal ties, even familial ties, begin to crumble. 

What would happen if we cultivate a sense of wonder and awe in our own life? I would imagine that we would start to be more appreciate and less cynical. We would be less pessimistic and more pragmatic, if not actually optimistic. We would have a longer viewpoint and shorter fuse. We would see beauty all around us instead of fixating on the ugly. We will understand that we are not the center of the universe but will not be lost to existentialist dread.

Avoiding Existential Dread

This last thought is one of the most pressing. Given the loss of wonder and awe, our world has descended into meaningless existentialism. Shouting into the void in a primal scream is the only prescription for our nihilistic culture. Of course, if we recapture the sense of wonder and awe, then we realize that nihilism is itself nothing. We realize that there is something greater and that we are an important part of the whole. 

Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of True Wisdom

Wonder and awe are not fixtures of a bygone era. They are the beginning of true wisdom. In fact, we could call them by their traditional name: “fear of the Lord.” This fear is a filial one, as a son to a father. When we begin to let God be God and understand that we are not, then we begin to see things differently. We take ourselves less seriously and take the Creator more seriously. We find ourselves, not “out there” or within, but rather where we place worth itself. 

Let us put the cultus back in culture, tilling and cultivating a sense of wonder, awe, and amazement. There is much to be grateful for in this world. It will not take long to recognize the Giver of the good gifts who gratuitously and generously generated all things and respond in gratitude.

Thank you for reading Will Wright Catholic. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Patriotism is, in Fact, a Virtue

A virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to the good. Our rights from and responsibilities to our country derive from the virtue of piety. The virtue of piety pertains to the broader virtue of justice. Patriotism is the balanced application of piety, and therefore justice, in a habitual and firm way to the good of the country. Therefore, patriotism is a virtue.

The Virtue of Justice

Justice exists between beings that can act morally towards one another. As a virtue, it regulates the way that human beings operate and interact. Justice moves the will of the individual from within and without to seek the good for each and all. This interaction of seeking justice can take place between individuals or between an individual and his greater community. Generally, all people of good will, motivated by justice, seek the common good of every person. This common good is not subjective but pertains to the highest good which is God. So, the idea of seeking justice apart from an objective morality rooted in the Creator is unintelligible.

The great Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas defines justice in this way, “the proper act of justice is nothing else than to render to each one his own (ST II-II, q. 58, a. 11).”

Justice requires that all persons are treated with equal respect and dignity, but not necessarily that each person is treated exactly equally. Each human person, regardless of circumstance, sex, race, nationality, culture, or any other characteristic, is made in the image and likeness of Almighty God. Though we are all sinners and fall short of seeking the good as efficiently and perfectly as we could, t he fundamental ordering of justice is due to all human persons and this reality must be upheld.

The Virtue of Piety

Piety is the virtue of justice which is ordered towards responsibility to family and nation. In the Christian Tradition, the gift of the Holy Spirit of piety is the recognition of total reliance on God and to come before His majesty with humility, trust, and love. The virtue of piety works in tandem with this gift. St. Thomas Aquinas refers to the Roman statesman Cicero’s definition of piety: “it is by piety that we do our duty towards our kindred and well-wishers of our country and render them faithful service (ST II-II, q. 101, a. 1).”

Piety recognizes that God is the primary source of both life and government. We enter the world by way of the family into a society that is governed. Therefore, we know that God sustains the propagation of humanity, but we also see that the rightful authorities, permitted by God, that require our just obedience. After God, we chiefly owe our lives and well-being to our parents and our country. Piety means giving honor to our parents and, by extension, our entire family, and to give honor to our country which includes our fellow-citizens and allies of our country.

The Virtue of Patriotism

If we drill deeper into justice and then into piety, we see two main branches: 1) our extended family and local community and 2) our fellow countrymen and friends of our country. Of course, these cannot be separated. They are inexorably linked. No man is an island unto himself.

If we focus on the second of these two, we finally arrive at the virtue of patriotism. The power of the State is granted by God, but this power does not allow the State to make or enforce laws and orders that violate the natural rights of its subjects. If the State is not infringing upon these natural freedoms, then the citizenry is obliged to act in obedience to the legitimate authority.

It is impossible to be a patriot without freedom. Civil allegiance is the virtue of patriotism combined with the virtue of obedience. Allegiance requires that the citizen be free to give his service to the State. Otherwise, he is no patriot at all, but is living under oppression.

Patriotism means having a reasonable love and esteem for one’s own country. This is externalized by showing honor and respect to the rulers of the State, whoever they may be. To be sure, it is possible and even healthy to honor and respect a leader while also disagreeing on key policies and ideas.

Patriotism means to observe which laws of the State are in accord with Catholic social teaching and the doctrines of faith and morals and to oppose those which are against the truth and the Catholic Faith. Citizens are not compelled by patriotism to follow unjust laws. Rather, it is the patriotic thing to correct error and bring the laws into accord with the fullness of the truth in Jesus Christ, through persuasive argument and example.

Patriotism means a willingness to lay down one’s life for their country. Of course, this literally takes flesh when we understand that the virtue of piety, and therefore justice, refers to our entire family, our friends, and our fellow countrymen and allies. Some pay the greatest price by dying in the service of their country in the military. Others lay down their lives for their country day by day in the normal service of their duty to their family, their work, their community, and the poor and marginalized.

Patriotism has a just consciousness of the past and a balanced pride in national identity. However, we must not conflate the virtue of patriotism with a blind, senseless, and unreasonable form of nationalism. There are those who see their country as having no past sins. This view is unreasonable because the only perfect society is the Church Triumphant in Heaven. However, we must also not go to the other extreme of historical revisionism which seeks to emphasize the injustice of the past while forgetting the good.

Growing in the Virtue of Patriotism

I will leave you with two brief suggestions to grow in the virtue of patriotism.

The next time a national holiday comes around, learn about it. Do not take for granted that you know what is being celebrated. Really dive into the day. When did it begin and why? Is it really what everyone thinks it is? Is it worth remembering? Is it worth celebrating? Know the answers to these questions.

Practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. Seek to serve your fellow countrymen, to the greater glory of God. Christianity and patriotism go hand in hand when it comes to serving our neighbor in love.

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

The Perfect As the Enemy of the Good

The French philosopher Voltaire famously quipped "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" which means "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

It would seem that the great American author John Steinbeck agrees. He wrote: "And now that you don't have to be perfect, you can be good." Confucius is attributed with something similar: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." And Shakespeare wrote in King Lear: "Striving to better, oft we mar what's well." George Orwell more recently wrote: "The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection."

Be Perfect As Your Heavenly Father is Perfect

The greatest human being to ever live is a Divine Person named Jesus called Christ. He said, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48)." So, is the perfect the enemy of the good? Or is perfection the goal?

Interestingly, this passage follows directly after the Christian call to love one's enemies. All cultures say that we must love our neighbor, even as ourself. The Golden Rule is shared by most every culture. However, the call to love even your enemy is impossible. That is, it is impossible without the Divine, who is perfect.

Can, then, the call to perfection be reconciled with the seemingly ubiquitous notion that the perfect is the enemy of the good? Absolutely! The key is in the view of perfection which Jesus gives us.

Christ does not ask us to be perfect on our own accord. He asks us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. It is precisely by participation with the Divine that we can hope to be perfect. And apart from Him we have no hope. Rooted in the humility of knowing that we are not God, we can begin to grow in self-knowledge. This self-knowledge then leads to personal improvement, if we cooperate with grace.

If  you are not a believer, then perhaps what I am saying makes no sense. But, let me put it this way.

You and I are not perfect. If you have any sense of self, you know this is true. In your mind, using your power of abstraction, try to hold in your mind not something that is good or better, but the absolute best. This sheer perfection, the best, is God for whatever quality we are speaking of. This is too simplistic because God is personal, but this might help you contextualize.

So, if God is the absolute best in the virtue in which you are trying to improve, then He is also the goal. And not only that, if He is the Creator and sustainer of all things, then He is the One who moves an act to its completion. To be perfect is to be with He who is perfect, every step of the way. This means that the important thing is not our perfection at any moment, but our striving. By aiming correctly at the goal, and cooperating with the perfect good, then we are on the right track. I would argue that this means more to people, innately, than even achieving a goal. We are more compelled by a hero suffering willingly to overcome an obstacle than we are to even see the hero win.

What is Meant By "The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good"?

The enemy of the Good is not the perfect. For the Perfect One is the Good itself. What is the enemy of the good is perfectionism. Perfectionism is a form of pelagianism, an ancient heresy in which one is to pull themselves up by their spiritual bootstraps and will to be better. Simply by trying harder, the perfectionist believes that they can attain perfection.

Certainly, the perfect ideal must always be taken into account, because it gives us our goal, our terminus, our design. If we do not measure up to this perfection, then we have a few courses of action. We can discern that the path that we are pursuing is not the right one. We can continue to "try, try again." We can despair. We can resolutely continue to strive. With all the many courses of action, how can we know what to do?

We can be sure that we are on the right course only if we are sure of what we are aiming at. In the absence of a target, an arrow flying through the air would only be a hazard. If we are certain that our target is worthwhile, then despair is not an option and quitting is not an option. If the target is worthwhile, then continued striving is the proper course.

Being With the Perfect Rather Than Being the Perfect

Remember, that to be perfect is to be WITH the perfect rather than BEING the perfect. As we seek a goal, no matter how big or small, we need to ensure that it is well ordered to the highest good, who alone is perfect. We should not ask: "what do I want?" Because we will often get the wrong answer. Instead, we should ask "what does God want for me?"

If the notion of God makes you uncomfortable, then ask this subordinate question: "Where does the wisdom of the ages tell me that I should aim?" Human nature does not change and the societies and cultures over many millennia bear with them a great deal of wisdom for us to harvest.

To be with the perfect is to allow ourselves to be given wisdom, accept it, and apply it. Those who attempt to make their own perfection inevitably choose wrongly. The perfect is the enemy of the good, when the perfection comes from within us.

Just Do It

The U.K. author Paul Arden, in his book It's Not How Good You Are, It's How Good You Want to Be writes,

"Too many people spend too much time trying to perfect something before they actually do it. Instead of waiting for perfection, run with what you got, and fix it along the way."

I am certainly not endorsing doing something dangerous without a plan, but there is a lot of truth to what Mr. Arden has written.

This really gets to the heart of what most people mean when they say that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." They mean that an idea can die in committee before it ever gets put into practice. A project might continue to percolate until all of the passion is completely gone from it.

By following in the venerable traditions which came before, we give ourselves valuable guardrails. Morality is objective and the convictions of what has always been true protect us from erring egregiously as we press forward towards the good and perfect. Without these guardrails, we will fall headlong off a cliff of moral relativism and subjective narcissism.

The balance gives us this: we must move forward and act. We cannot be paralyzed by fear and a desire for everything to be perfect before it is actualized. But we must constantly refocus our aim at the highest good. For the Christian, this is where prayer comes in. For those of other faiths and even agnostics, this could be called meditation.

By refocusing our aim and working hard, in humility, we can have hope that we will come to the fullness of perfection. Rest assured, that if you get there one day, it will not be because of your own solo merit; it will be because of your cooperation with the highest good.

NOTE: THIS EPISODE WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE OUR REBOOT. willwrightcatholic.com is now gooddistinctions.com

Does the First Amendment of the Constitution Cover Freedom of Speech?

The United States of America is the freest nation on Earth, for the time being. The Supreme Law of the land continues to be the Constitution. The founding document of our great nation on its own is the crowning achievement of the Founding Fathers, but before its ratification, ten articles were included as amendments.

These ten articles became known as the Bill of Rights. The first of those rights, called the First Amendment, is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Today, we are going to provide Free Speech 101: The Essential Guide. There are many things which ought to be said in the realm of freedom of speech, but these things are the roots, the essence of the topic.

What is Freedom of Speech?

The Constitution's First Amendment protects the nation from Congress attempted to make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. This is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Geoffrey Stone and Eugene Volokh, in conjunction with the National Constitution Center, provide a fantastic layman's version of this freedom:

"Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances."

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as protecting speakers from any and all government agencies and officials. Further, "speech" and "press" refers to talking, writing, printing, broadcasting, the Internet, and other forms of expressing oneself.

Much to the chagrin of some, "freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like (Stone, Volokh)."

What Circumstances Are Not Covered as Free Speech Under the First Amendment?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a reputation as a liberal organization, to put it mildly. However, in an article regarding free speech, the ACLU wrote:

"Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone."

Quite right! So, when is freedom of speech NOT covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution?

First, certain types of speech are considered "low" value to the Supreme Court and thus provide circumstances under which the First Amendment barely applies or does not apply. These are outlined, with references to specific cases by Stone and Volohk:

* Defamation

* True threats

* "Fighting words"

* Hard-core obscenity (such as highly sexually explicit pornography)

* Child pornography

* Commercial Advertising which is misleading

Second, if the speaker is in a special relationship to the government, they are less protected. Government employees, such as public school employees can be restricted, even in the content of their speech.

Third, the government can restrict speech under certain circumstances which are irrespective of content. For example, restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large distracting signs are constitutional, if they are reasonable. However, a law prohibiting demonstrations in public parks or handing out leaflets on public streets would be unconstitutional.

Who was John Stuart Mill and What Did He Believe About Speech?

Where did the American notion of freedom of speech which we possess come from? The lion's share of that work belongs to the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 book, On Liberty, Mill provided a bold argument for freedom of speech.

Mill believed in the freedom of speech to discuss any topic at all, without molestation. The fullest expression of liberty in his mind was following topics of conversation to their logical limits. Social niceties be damned.

He did, however, hold to what is called the "Harm Principle." Writing on this subject, Mill says, "... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mill, J.S., 1978. On Liberty, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing)." Application of this principle is the subject of not a few debates. However, it is important to take note of this principle because it is the default liberal position on almost everything. "Well... I'm not hurting anyone!!!"

To find the most liberal position's boundaries, we need only determine if someone would be harmed by someone's else's free expression. Important to distinguish, however, is that Mill would not have argued that freedom of speech be limited simply because a person was harmed. Only when speech causes direct and clear harm should it be limited.

What are the Critiques of John Stuart Mill? Do They Bear Any Merit?

The extreme liberal position of John Stuart Mill was an important contribution to the debate on freedom of speech. Many topics would have remained undiscussed due to taboos and socially acceptable limits. One important critique comes from an article in the Boston Review by Jacob Stanley in 2018. Stanley rightly points out that, "Disagreement requires a shared set of presuppositions about the world. Even dueling requires agreement about the rules."

In his estimation, John Stuart Mill believed that "true belief becomes knowledge only by emerging victorious from the din of argument and discussion, which must occur either with actual opponents or through internal dialogue." Stanley, therefore, argues that false claims and conspiracy theories must be defended, if we are to have a chance of achieving knowledge. Stanley, however, recognizes the limits of the idea of a "marketplace of ideas" saying that human nature does not really allow for the truth to always prevail.

This pragmatic view seems to provide a tempering of John Stuart Mill's unadulterated view of freedom of speech. We must understand our own limitations, as humanity, if we are to understand what freedom of speech offers us. We also cannot forget what freedom of speech requires of us!

Taking Offense

Presently, hate speech and taking offense are unfortunately conflated. Hate speech is determined based on the intention of the speaker. Whereas, taking offense is based on the decision of the hearer. They are not the same.

In fact, sometimes a person might say something which another person takes as offensive. Let us imagine, though, that the thing which the speaker said is absolutely true and the problem is with the hearer being out of step with the truth. At this point, we can start analyzing whether what was said needed to be said. Did it need to be said in the way that it did? Did it need to be said in the circumstances that it did? Did it need to be said by that speaker to that hearer at that time?

We need to dispel this myth that we have a right to not be offended. Sometimes we need to be offended. We are not perfect, not one of us. And so, if a truth is given to us, we need to be receptive, even if it hurts. That is how we grow.

So, it would seem that freedom of speech extends to being offensive? But what about offensive statements which are not based in reality and actually point to a deeper more problematic issue under the surface? True hate speech causes offense, more often than not. But it is not the offense which is the primary issue. Hate speech can do injustice to privacy, equity, and security. Speech which shows a blatant disregard for the equity of people based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender (biological sex - male or female) which intends harm, cannot be under freedom of speech. No one is free to threaten harm.

The Limits of Freedom of Speech and Our God-Given Rights

I have no desire to opine on every possible aspect of freedom of speech in which limitations might be appropriate. Instead, I want to call us back to seeing freedom of speech as a right which necessarily is accompanied by responsibility. Here I am going to stray into philosophy rather than legality. To be clear, I am not going to be discussing what is constitutional or not, but rather stating what I believe to be right or not.

Rooted in respect for human dignity, all are called to seek the common good. An integral part of securing the common good is protecting the basic and inalienable rights of all people. This begins with the right to life. Mothers and fathers have a responsibility to protect their children (from the first moment of his or her existence) to the best of their ability.

Generally, the best decision is made at the local level. And so, each family must make decisions for themselves and their neighbors. These micro-communities need to serve their macro-communities. Those communities need to serve the common good of the state, then the nation, then the world. Our rights do not come primarily from our government. They begin at home. They begin with life.

Responsibility Accompanies Rights, Always

In justice, as we seek the common good, we exercise these rights, but we must never lose sight of the accompanying responsibilities. Put another way: we are not given rights by the Creator to be kept for our sole use. When it comes to speech, we do not have freedom of speech so much as freedom FOR speech. Our rights are geared towards our duties and responsibilities. We have to use our gifts and powers well. As Pope John XXIII wrote well in his 1963 letter Pacem in Terris:

"... in human society one man's natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men; the duty, that is, of recognizing and respecting that right. Every basic human right draws its authoritative force from the natural law, which confers it and attaches to it its respective duty. Hence, to claim one's rights and ignore one's duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other (30)."

When we speak, we do not have a license to say whatever we would like. Certainly, we have the protected right to do so in the United States, under certain limitations. But I am arguing that we should use our freedom of speech wisely. By using it well, our words will have greater impact. Our well-chosen words will add social value and lift our neighbors up. Let us build up this common house and humanity, rather than tear it down.

Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Sources:

* https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/266

* What is free speech? What is not considered free speech?

* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

* Freedom of Speech entry at Stanford

* https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1258/john-stuart-mill

* 1st Amendment Encyclopedia

* http://bostonreview.net/politics-philosophy-religion/jason-stanley-what-mill-got-wrong-about-freedom-of-speech

* Liberal critique of John Stuart Mill

* https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

* ACLU on Freedom of Speech

* https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

* Text of the 1st Amendment

* https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/

* Free speech and the internet