Good Distinctions

Good Distinctions is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Our GUEST today was STEPHANIE SALINAS. To learn more about:

* The Well Ministry

* To register for the retreat, please click HERE

* Blessed is She

- - - - SOCIAL MEDIA for Good Distinctions - - - -

- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/gooddistinctions

WHO IS STEPH SALINAS?

Stephanie Salinas is a wife and mama living in the West Valley of Arizona. A California native, she enjoys time with family rooting for the LA sports teams. She holds a Communications degree and her background is in parish and diocesan ministry. Her heart is in planning opportunities of encounter with Christ through Blessed is She events while also facilitating resources for the Hispanic community. Steph also runs a Young Adult Ministry with her husband, Chilo called The Well. Find out more about it here.

Stephanie Salinas es una esposa y madre que vive en el Valle Oeste de Arizona. Originalmente de California, disfruta del tiempo con su familia apoyando a los equipos deportivos de Los Ángeles. Tiene una licenciatura en Comunicaciones y su experiencia es en el ministerio parroquial y diocesano. Su corazón está en la planificación de oportunidades de encuentro con Cristo a través de eventos Blessed is She, al mismo tiempo facilitando recursos para la comunidad hispana. Steph también ofrece un ministerio para jóvenes adultos con su esposo, Chilo llamado The Well. Encuentra mas información aqui.

Episode hosted Will Wright and Teresa Morris.

Will holds a dual-course of study Master's Degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville in Theology & Christian Ministry and Catechetics & Evangelization.

Teresa holds a Bachelor of Philosophy from The Catholic University of America and a Masters Degree in Bioethics and Health Leadership from The University of Loyola Chicago.

Good Distinctions is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The following transcript was generated by Riverside.fm. Please forgive any typos or other mistakes contained therein:

Hi everyone, welcome back to Good Distinctions. My name is Teresa Morris. This week we remember the September 11th, 2001 attacks where 19 members of Al-Qaeda hijacked four planes and killed about 3,000 Americans that day. So in light of this anniversary, I just have a couple quick thoughts and reflections to carry throughout our week. It often happens that in the aftermath of some type of tragedy, whether that be a national disaster, whether that be war, whether that be sickness, there tends to be a collective sense that this suffering, this common suffering brings people together. And that can be a really beautiful result of something that is very horrible and very difficult and very heartbreaking.

Dorothy Day, who is a servant of God in the Catholic Church, lived in the 1900s, and when she was eight years old, she had this profound experience living through the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. And after the earthquakes, she walked outside with her family, who was very lucky to be rather unaffected by this event, and she watched how people were caring for each other. And she was very struck at such a young age at the difference in posture that human beings had towards one another in the aftermath of this earthquake. And she wrote about this later. And she said that while the crisis lasted, people loved each other. It was as though they were united in Christian solidarity. It makes one think of how people could, if they would, care for each other in times of stress. unjudgingly in pity and love.

That thought that she had, her quote, her response to this, her realization that people kind of act differently in the wake of tragedy, often comes to mind any time that there is some form of collective suffering in our country and in our world. And I think that it's important to note that the trend often goes. immediately after, people really have this posture of caring for one another as they should, and that's a beautiful response.

It's one of the things that makes suffering, brings some beauty out of suffering. However, that sense of responsibility for our fellow man, that sense of care for another person, that sense of prioritizing the needs of other people beyond our own, should be our response and our posture every single day of our lives. That's the call of the Christian life, that we should have a posture of responsibility for others. We should be moving beyond ourselves. We should be seeking to care for and suffer with and suffer for other people. So that's the first thought that I have. It does often happen. as anniversaries of really difficult events come up, that latent feelings of anger arise, or the day can be a time when we might realize that we still have some type of active anger lingering in our hearts.

Thomas Aquinas says that righteous anger is a legitimate response to injustice, in which case we should have righteous anger towards actions and moments of injustice. So the attacks on September 11th is an event in which we should have an appropriate response of anger. And it would actually be more problematic if we did not have that experience because there was a grave act of injustice done and it would be a legitimate response to be angry in response to it. That anger comes from a good desire to set things right. It comes from our capacity to see what is good, to see how things should be, and desire to properly order things towards that good.

This is why the God of the Old Testament experienced anger as well. He didn't experience anger in the sense that he wanted to punish or harm humanity. He experienced anger from a desire for things to be set right. And that desire comes from a love of what is good and an acknowledgement of what is good. Anger becomes really problematic and it becomes one of the seven deadly sins when that anger turns into an irrational and a disproportionate quest for vengeance. So in one sense, it can be a healthy, appropriate, legitimate response to injustice. And in another, when we dwell on it or we act out of it correctly or inappropriately, it can turn into something that is no longer rational and therefore can no longer be rightly ordered.

It can no longer see and view the good and desire to bring everyone into the fold and towards the good. And that then develops into this quest for vengeance, which leads to a desire to harm other people. So when we notice in ourselves an appropriate response to anger, we can hope that comes from a place of love and of acknowledging what is right and true and good and seek to order that anger towards bringing people back into the fold, loving them well by bringing people back into community and orienting them towards the good. and we should be very careful to move away from the type of anger that leads to vengeance.

So when it comes to really difficult calls to love our enemies and to look at situations where our enemies have broken our hearts and broken the hearts of our fellow man and have committed catastrophic harm, our call is not to look at these events and brush them under the rug or look at these events. and pretend that they're not as serious as they are, or look at these events and have no response. The call to love our enemies in this type of situation is to take righteous anger and orient that by drawing our enemies back into what is good, that we don't seek to alienate them, but we should acknowledge that this righteous anger comes from an ability to name what is good. and seek to draw our enemies back into the fold and orient them back towards the good and bring them back into right order.

That doesn't always happen, but that is the way that we should orient and move our anger towards a genuine charity, towards our enemies. It's a really difficult call. It's very demanding. But I think that it's helpful as... as we look at really, really difficult memories and really difficult events that have happened in our lifetime and to know that we're not called to take things lying down, we're not called to not acknowledge how awful things are. But the Christian call is one where we should name injustices done, we should experience anger at them as a healthy response, and then we should desire to bring. people who have committed those actions back into the fold and back into the right order. Because every single person, no matter what anyone has done, no matter what anyone will do, is made for goodness and truth.

And at every single moment of their lives has the capacity to still choose that. And we should do everything that we can to assist them in that. So just to recap. The three main things are one, that we should seek to always view people as sacred. We should always view life as sacred and good and have that be our norm. And that these moments of tragedy should be a reminder that should be our norm, because we naturally enter into that as our response to tragedy, but then eventually kind of go back to our daily lives of being more self-interested, self-oriented, but that... The way that we are as a collective whole after tragedy should be the way that we are every single day of our lives.

And so some of the good that can come out of this is a reminder that that's the way that we should live our lives every single day. So that's the first step. The second is that experiencing anger is a good thing. It's righteous, but we also aren't meant to stay there. We're not meant to camp out there. We're supposed to move our anger towards charitable forgiveness. And then the third thing that I would just invite you to this week is to remember to pray for all of those who lost their lives this day. Um, all of their families, all first responders, and everyone who has lost their lives since then defending our country and all of the families of those who have lost their lives. And then also to pray for the souls of all of those who were involved in planning and executing the attacks. and for greater tenderness in our hearts and areas where it's difficult to do that. And that we would have hearts that seek to move from anger to forgiveness and hearts that truly desire goodness for every single human being.

That is all that we have for you this week. We look forward to chatting with you next week. Have a blessed day.

From the archives:

Introduction

Welcome back to Good Distinctions! Before we begin, I want to invite you to consider contributing financially to Good Distinctions. Good distinctions are the spice of life, and Teresa and I are enjoying producing content, finding good distinctions, igniting conversation, and inviting you all to do likewise! In order to continue, we need your help. Consider becoming a paid subscriber and show your support for as little as $5/month by clicking subscribe at gooddistinctions.com

In today’s episode, we will take a quick walk through the Nicene Creed to examine what Catholics believe! Of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does a much better job than I will do here. And there are books that provide an even deeper dive. My goal here is to provide a 30,000 foot view of the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Faith. 

The Creed has been referred to from ancient times as a Symbolon. The Greek word Symbolon means to “throw together” - the Creeds, as Symbols of Faith - draw the followers of Christ together in like belief. Scott Hahn, in his book on the Creed, refers to the recitation of the Nicene Creed at Holy Mass during the Liturgy of the Word as analogous to receiving Holy Communion during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In our public recitation of belief, we identify ourselves boldly as Christians in union with those around us and all those who have come before. 

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

The Nicene Creed, technically called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, is professed every Sunday at Mass in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and in our separated Orthodox brethren, this same Creed is professed in its original formulation.

The only difference between the Creed of the East and West is the later addition of the phrase “and the Son” to the paragraph on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, this disagreement has caused great difficulty and division between Eastern and Western Christianity.

The Nicene Creed arose from the first two ecumenical councils of the Church. The first ecumenical council is the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and the second is the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This Creed is ancient and it has preserved the faithful from a variety of heresies for over 1,600 years. To understand it is to understand what we believe as Catholics.

Walking through the Creed

Let’s take a quick walk through the Creed and try to understand it a bit more in depth. Of course, each word in the phrase is packed with meaning and endless depth. Truly, the reality of our Faith is that we are diving into the mysteries of an infinite God. So, there is always more to learn.

Paragraph 1 – God the Father

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

We believe in one God in three Persons. We do not believe in three gods. Our one God is not only our king and Lord, He is our Heavenly Father. We are His adopted son or daughter through Baptism. He created everything that we can see, but He also created all the things that we cannot see. For example, we believe in the angels, in our own souls, and in demons. God is Lord over all of it and has all might. 

Even though He is tremendously powerful, our God and Father draws us into a relationship with Him and invites us to share eternal blessedness in another invisible reality: Heaven.

Paragraph 2 – The Lord Jesus

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,

The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word of God, the Son of God. This Word of God, Jesus Christ, proceeds from the Father. He was “born” and “begotten” but not made. This is a mystery that is very difficult to understand. Much ink has been spilled in theology on how Jesus can be both God and man. 

In other words, Jesus is fully God and He is eternal, just as the Father is eternal. This paragraph emphasizes that there is one God but the Father is nonetheless distinct as a Person from the Person of the Son. Though distinct Persons, these Persons share in the one metaphysical “substance” of the Godhead. This is what the word “consubstantial” means - the Son being of one substance with the Father. In others, the Person of the Son and the Person of the Father share in the one, same Divine Nature. 

The Council Fathers went to great lengths to combat the Arian heresy which claimed that Jesus was created and was not truly God. We believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. As the Word of God, He has existed forever and will always exist. He proceeds from the Father as God from God and Light from Light, true God from true God. I will go into more detail on this in the fifth paragraph on the Holy Spirit.

There is also the realization that it is through the Word of God that all things were made. God reveals to us in Genesis God speaks in order to create. He says, “Let there be light.” And there was light. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was sent on a mission by the Father to come down from heaven in order to redeem humanity and offer us salvation.

Paragraph 3 – The Incarnation and The Virgin Mary

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

By the free choice of Mary, our Mother, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God took on flesh. Jesus Christ, the uncreated Word through which all things were made, condescended to share in our humanity. The almighty God emptied Himself and took on the form of a slave, to use the language of St. Paul.

In the Latin Rite, there is a tradition of bowing during this paragraph in honor of the Incarnation. During the Liturgies for Christmas and the Feast of the Annunciation, we kneel down during this phrase when we recite the Creed. In the Roman Missal of 1962 and before, this practice of kneeling happens at every single Mass during the Last Gospel when the phrase “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” from John chapter 1 is uttered. If you have attended the Latin Mass, then you will be familiar with hearing the words “et Verbum caro factum est” and genuflecting.  The Incarnation is literally the “enfleshment” of Jesus; it is what we celebrate at Christmas. This paragraph marks one of the most important moments in human history. Our God became one of us.

Paragraph 4 – The Paschal Mystery

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven  and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

This paragraph is directly connected to the previous. Jesus became man in order to accomplish the work of our salvation. It was for each of us that Jesus was crucified. The Council Fathers include “under Pontius Pilate” to show that this was an historical reality. It really happened. So too, Jesus truly rose from the dead on the third day after being buried.

Forty days after rising from the dead, He lifted Himself up into Heaven in a mysterious fashion and He now reigns in Heaven as King at the right hand of the Father. We believe that He will come again in glory. This is what we call the Second Coming. At the second coming of Christ, we will all be judged; everything we have done will be laid bare and true justice will be accomplished. 

This second coming will result in the passing away of the old Heaven and the old Earth and the establishing of Jesus’ everlasting kingdom.

Paragraph 5 – The Holy Spirit

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one God in three Persons. The third Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, who we also rightly call Lord and the giver of life. God breathed life into the first man, after all. This holy breath of God is the Spirit which gives life and sustains life. He is glorified and loved as God, along with the Father and the Son. We believe that the Holy Spirit, before the Incarnation as well as after, inspired the prophets.

The Trinity is the mystery of God, as He is. It is difficult to wrap our minds around this mystery in any meaningful way. Our metaphors are usually material, like a three-leaf clover or the states of water as ice, liquid, or vapor, and because they are material, they always fall short. God is spiritual, not material. The best explanation I have heard of the Blessed Trinity is from St. Augustine’s Analogy of the Mind. I will try my best to offer a simplified version. Though, it is far from simple. And remember, this is an analogy. 

In our own minds, we have intellect and will. We know things and act freely. When we learn or know things, we have a procession of the intellect. When we act freely upon ourselves or the world, we have a procession of the will. If we analogously apply this understanding to the “mind of God,” we see a procession of the intellect and a procession of the will. God is perfect and so these processions must be infinite and perfect. 

The procession of the intellect, within the mind of God, is God the Father’s perfect knowledge of Himself. This perfect image of Himself is the Son. The Son, in return, perfectly loves the Father. God is love. Therefore, the procession of His will is perfect love which proceeds as the love shared between the Father and the Son. This is the Holy Spirit. However, we must understand that He does not proceed in time, as He is as eternal as the Father and the Son. 

Paragraph 6 – The Church

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

The Church of Jesus Christ is His Mystical Body. Before being an institution of human beings, the Church is divinely constituted. In other words, the Church was begun by the action of the Holy Trinity, is sustained by the Holy Trinity, and is ordered towards the Holy Trinity. Therefore the Church is holy, even if the human beings who compromise it are not always holy. The Church is one because Christ is one. She is also one in her teaching, preaching, governance, and means of sanctification. The Church is catholic because the Church is “universal.” Catholic means universal - the Greek is kata holon which means “according to the whole.” And the Church is apostolic because Christ founded it upon the Apostles and apostolic teaching and continued in governance and preaching by their successors. 

We enter into this Church through the one Baptism of Christ, by which we are cleansed of original sin, are grafted into Christ, and become adopted sons and daughters of God.

We believe that when Christ comes again, we will be reunited with our bodies in a glorified way, similar to Christ’s resurrected Body. We do not know exactly what this will look like. 

And we look forward to the life of the world to come which is eternal blessedness in the company of the angels and the saints in constant praise and love of God. We will want for nothing and all suffering will be no more.

Paragraph 7 - Amen

Amen.

And finally… amen! Amen means “yes,” “so be it,” and “I believe.” It is the only ending to the Creed that we can offer as human beings. God has revealed all He is and all that He has done for us, and our confident and faithful “Amen” is the response of our heart. We should also keep in mind that the Creed does not exist apart from the Sacred Liturgy. The entire Liturgy of the Word, and especially the Creed, is preparing us for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. 

In the Second Century, St. Justin Martyr writes in his Apologia that after the prayers of thanksgiving and consecration were finished by the priest, all responded by saying “Amen.” This is not simply a word found at the end of a conversation. It is not like saying, “Ok. Goodbye, God,” after a prayer is finished. St. Paul writes, “Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?” So, it would seem that the word Amen packs a punch. But what does it mean?

Amen is a Hebrew word which means “so be it.” St. Augustine translated it as “it is true (Latin: verum est).” In  a tract explaining the Mass from the Middle Ages, we read, “Amen is a ratification by the people of what has been spoken, and it may be interpreted in our language as if they all said: May it so be done as the priest has prayed (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907).”

It is custom in most of the Rites of the Catholic Church, both East and West, to say “Amen” after receiving Holy Communion. In the Missale Romanum of 1962, the priest says, “Corpus Domini Nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam, Amen (May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen).” So, even though the communicant does not say “Amen” like in the Missale Romanum of 1970, the priest has said “Amen” for them. 

The language of “Amen” seems to be like a contract. When two people enter into an agreement with one another, they may mark it with a handshake and say, “so be it” or “I agree.” Is that what is happening at Mass? Certainly, what we are entering into at Mass is far more important, meaningful, lasting, and beautiful. Perhaps more than a contract, the “Amen” shows us that the language of the Mass is that of a covenant. A contract can be broken. A covenant cannot be broken.

When we approach our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, we are approaching the Bridegroom as the Bride. We are uttering our wedding vows to the King of Heaven each time we receive Holy Communion. We are saying, “I do” when we say “Amen.” The meaning of the word is very close to this understanding. We are using the language of marriage to show that we are accepting the Bridegroom into our body and soul to remain with us always. As husband and wife become one flesh in marriage, the communicant and our Lord become one in the Eucharist. “Communion” means “one with.” We are becoming more closely joined to the Lord in reception of Holy Communion. 

Every time we say “Amen” we should clearly state what we are doing. We are giving our assent of Faith. We are not saying “Okay” or “Sure”, we are saying “so be it.” Do we know what we are saying “yes” to? Do we know what we are entering into? Our “yes” to God cannot be half-hearted or wishy-washy. It must be sure and resolute, by His grace. Our Lord Jesus is a strong proponent of authenticity and resolution. We hear in the Book of Revelation: “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth (Rev. 3:16).” And in the Gospel of St. Matthew: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil (Mt. 5:37).” Let our Amen mean Amen. 

Conclusion

I hope this brief reflection has been a help to you. Ideally, we will all continue to grow in our knowledge, love, and service of the Lord until the glorious day when we will see Him face to face in Paradise, God willing.

Having the right belief on matters of doctrine is not a matter of triumphalism that we should lord over others. In humility and gratitude, we should accept this ancient formulation and symbolon and allow Jesus to enter us ever more fully into the heart and mind of the Church. 

If you have enjoyed this episode and feel that it has been a help to you, please share it on your own personal social media. And more importantly than that, please consider sharing Good Distinctions with 2-3 people at church or at work in person this week. The sort of topics that we are dealing with are universally applicable and should be of benefit to anyone and everyone. Also, if you are listening to this episode on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, please follow the show and leave a rating and review, that tells the algorithm that more people should listen to Good Distinctions. On YouTube, the best thing you can do is subscribe to the channel, like the episode, and leave a comment. If you are listening natively on Substack and you use Notes, please consider restacking this episode, liking it, or sharing it on your social media. 

Just a note on Substack - if you have not subscribed at gooddistinctions.com, please consider doing so. Besides the weekly video and audio episodes, we will be releasing quite a bit more written content (short Scripture reflections, commentaries on current events, or little reflections on various topics). You won’t want to miss out on that. And as I said at the top of the show, if you believe in what Teresa and I are doing here at Good Distinctions, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for as little as $5/month to support our mission. We believe that good distinctions are the spice of life, of course. But our mission is this: to seek out the best distinctions, to reignite good conversations, and inspire others to do the same. 

Thanks for listening, reading, and watching. Good Distinctions are the Spice of Life! To end today, please join me in praying through the Nicene Creed. 

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

If you enjoyed this episode, please consider becoming a paid subscriber here on Substack to help us sustain Good Distinctions!

Sins Against the Respect for the Reputation of Persons

Statements made about public figures are a dime a dozen. Individuals like Pope Francis who are known throughout the world garner certain reputations. Often, these reputations are an amalgamation of rash judgment, detraction, or calumny. In today’s examination, I want to investigate the rather loaded question: is Pope Francis in favor of socialism and/or globalism? For some, this seems like a forgone conclusion and for others the sentiment is preposterous. 

I hope to shed a bit of light on the subject by sifting through the defining socialism and globalism, looking at Church teaching on the subject, and reviewing some statements by Pope Francis. Maybe then we will get a bit closer to understanding the mind of the Roman Pontiff on the topic.

However, first I want to look briefly at these three sins against respect for the reputation of persons. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury (CCC 2477).” So, what are rash judgments, detraction, and calumny?

Rash Judgments

If we call into question the moral standing of another without sufficient foundation, we are guilty of the sin of rash judgment. We do not even have to be fully convinced of our neighbor’s fault for the sin of rash judgment to be present. Avoiding rash judgment requires care and practice. When we encounter the thoughts, words, and deeds of another, we should attempt to interpret them in a favorable way. St. Ignatius of Loyola writes:

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved (St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22).”

Detraction

Detraction is the sin of disclosing another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them without an objectively valid reason for doing so, to use the wording of the Catechism (cf. CCC 2477). Notice here that detraction seems to presume that the faults of failings of the other person are actually present. However, we need to take care not to share these faults and failings with an objectively valid reason. 

Calumny

Finally, calumny is the sin of harming the reputation of another by providing remarks which are contrary to the truth. When this happens, it invites others to make false judgments about the person being discussed. 

The problem with both detraction and calumny is that they “destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor (CCC 2479).” Actions like these are vices opposed to the virtues of justice and charity.

Why Bring Up These Three Sins?

There is no shortage of armchair theologians interpreting the thoughts, words, and deeds of Pope Francis in an unfavorable way. This is the sin of rash judgment. I myself have been guilty of this sin in regards to the pope several years ago, and I repent of it. 

Likewise, there are things which are sincerely problematic surrounding the Francis pontificate and the person of Pope Francis in the past ten years. Not all of these personal conversations needed to be brought out to the public forum, especially not in the way that they were. For example, the many letters of Archbishop Vigano would constitute, in my mind, consistent detraction against the Holy Father. Many of these letters also seem to fit the bill for calumny as well. 

And, of course, there is widespread calumny against the pope, as I am sure there has been against every pope in history. Folks do love to gossip. It is an unfortunate side effect of the Fall and our concupiscence. So, how does this apply to today’s topic? I am going to try to avoid rash judgment, detraction, and calumny as I investigate the subject matter today. I hope by giving a model for reading the Pontiff charitably, all of us will be inspired to do likewise in the future. With that all being said, let us now turn our attention to socialism and globalism.

What are Socialism and Globalism? Are they Related?

When you say the word “socialism,” most people immediately think of economics. Really, socialism is more broadly a political ideology with implications in both economic and sociological structures. These structures or systems are predominantly centered around the means of production being controlled socially, rather than privately. The means of production are the land, labor, and capital which are used to produce products (in the form of goods or services). If the land, labor, or capital in a given locale are owned by the government, by a co-op, by employees, or the like, this is an indication that socialist mechanisms are in play. After the introduction of the thought of Marx and Engels in the 19th Century, a category of socialism was born which was called Communism. While there have been many iterations of socialism and communism, the key distinction is that communism is not concerned with social ownership of the means of production only but also with socially designed means of consumption of products. At any rate, both socialism and communism are opposed to capitalism, which desires to keep the means of production owned by private firms and individuals. 

Globalism is an interesting term without a set definition. It is usually used by right-leaning capitalists in a pejorative sense. In the 17th Century, the Peace of Westphalia led to a world-system in which several nation-states and independent nations created an interconnected economic system. These world-systems were not global as much as very large regional systems. Many of these world-systems did not interact with one another. Then, over the next two centuries, these world-systems came into ever-increasing contact in a process known as globalization. Due to transportation and communications advancements, this process took off at a feverish pace after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. Goods, services, technology, capital, data, people, and the like move relatively freely across borders throughout the world. As a result, global markets continued to expand. In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) described four main aspects of globalization: 1) trade, 2) capital movements, 3) movement of people, and 4) the spread of knowledge and technology (Globalization: Threat or Opportunity?). 

Globalism is really the expression of globalization, just as nationalism is an expression of nationality. Here lies one danger: just as nationalism can go off the rails towards a well-intentioned but ultimately overzealous approach, so too can globalism devolve into an attempt to control uncontrollable mechanisms. When governments and key global leaders in politics, business, and entertainment attempt to control global markets, the outcome leads to remarkable inefficiencies which sadly lead to human suffering. This is because a society which is not founded on the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are doomed to radically disordered structures and systems. For more on solidarity and subsidiarity, check out a previous episode on the topic. 

So, are socialism and globalism related? To an extent: yes! Many of the early socialists dreamed of a utopian world in which everyone had what they needed and suffering was minimized. Then, when Marx and Engels began writing the Communist Manifesto, they did so in a world which was already experiencing the nascent groans of globalization, with all its accompanying problems. Their response was to instantiate a radical form of socialism. Planned socialist economies have been tried numerous times in the 20th Century and the result has always been widespread death, suffering, and even genocide. Globalism is more or less an attempt to understand the mechanism and intricacies of globalization. This is nothing more than a desire for more knowledge about how the structures which exist in the world actually work. The problem is when globalism takes on a more “intentional” twinge and admixes socialist policies. The socialist or the globalist could dream of a world in which social structures control land, labor, and capital in order to produce goods and services for a global market. These social structures could be the United Nations, the European Union, or even the neoliberal and neoconservative efforts of nation building seen after the Cold War. 

What does the Church Teach About Socialism and Globalism?

Socialism

Pope Pius XI, in his work Quadragesimo Anno, writes: 

“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the supreme pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Quadragesimo Anno, 120).”

Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:

“The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism”  (Catechism, 2425).”

Pope Leo XIII in his masterwork Rerum Novarum wrote in 1891 that:

“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community (Rerum Novarum, 4).”

One of the key tenets of socialist ideology is contempt for private property, which is something that the Catholic Church ardently defends. Pope Leo XIII even speaks of the “inviolability” of private property, as a principle. Likewise, Pope Leo XIII speaks of socialists setting up “a State supervision” at the expense of parents, which he calls an “act against natural justice” which would “destroy the structure of the home (ibid., 14).”

Globalism

Because globalism is so ill-defined, we will be hard pressed to find many denunciations or affirmations of it. However, we can see fairly clearly that the Catholic Church is not opposed to a transnationalism corporate approach, given that it is the oldest and most interconnected organization in the world! 

Where the rubber meets the road on this question is between progressives in favor of an international and anti-nationalist view of global structures and a conservative and isolationist view. Between these two views is a wide diversity of ideologies of varying degrees. So, we do not want to fall into a trap of extremism. 

From my perspective, I think both extremes have something to offer. 

On the side of the internationalist progressives, I think there is value to their critique that there is an American, exceptionalist version of Catholicism which reads into everything the Vatican does as pertaining exclusively and directly to the United States. This sort of nationalism might be appropriate for navigating diplomatic relations between nations. But it is prideful and ridiculous on the global, Catholic front. I do not doubt that Pope Francis has spoken vaguely about the Western world and the United States, in particular, with negative overtones. But his critiques are centered around an observation of rampant materialism and individualism which devalues certain communities and the marginalized. And fair enough.

On the side of the isolationist conservatives, there is a desire to get one’s house in order before reaching out to others in assistance. The world is full of different problems, but we need to fix the problems in our own house and in our own backyard before we can be of use to anyone else. I am deeply sympathetic to this approach due to my abiding love of the principle of subsidiarity. But we have to balance this approach with solidarity, which shows how intensely interconnected the human family is. And what is more, the baptized are supernaturally brothers and sisters in an even more pronounced way than a mere natural association. 

The problem with globalism which is the most pronounced is the lens of seeing the world in material terms to the neglect of the spiritual. I wrote about this extensively in my part two summary of Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI. We have a responsibility to provide for the material necessities of those in need (preferential option for the poor), but we cannot fulfill this due to the neglect of the spiritual needs of persons. Rising alongside globalization was an insidious secularism which attempted to remove God from society.

Material, at the Expense of the Spiritual

Riding the wave of the Enlightenment, Frederich Neitzsche famously wrote “God is dead,” but most people do not understand the point he is making. He is not simply announcing his own growing personal atheism. The quote continues:

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? (Neitzsche)”

The Enlightenment was deeply disorienting because Christendom cannot exist apart from a Christian worldview and Christian societal ordering. When the Enlightenment thinkers and actors unmoored society from these deep roots and outstretched arms to Heaven, the response was the dramatic collapse of the moral value structure of Christian society. With continued globalization, this secularism continued to creep along the globe. Now, it is counter-cultural and an oddity to be a believer, much less a Christian. The nihilism of Nietzsche saw that society was shaking off the temporal influence of Christianity, but he also remarked that the “shadows” of God would still need to be vanquished, the vestiges of the Christian worldview. In our current postmodern world, this is certainly coming true pragmatically. The main problem with this - and thus with what globalism is effectively importing and exporting ideologically these days - is that God is not dead and never will be. Human nature does not change just because some European narcissists of the last centuries say so.

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Marx, in various iterations refer to the offers of Christian religion as the comfort of certainty. Marx, in particular, refers to religion as the opiate of the masses. I think this shows just how twisted the notions of Christianity were at the time. Jesus did not come to bring us comfort, He told us to pick up our cross and follow Him. The Christian life is hard. Yes, the promise of Heaven is a comfort, but it also happens to be true because the Source is trustworthy.

Unfortunately, globalism has led to a bland approach to religious truths - and especially moral prescripts - which has devolved into moral relativism, subjectivism, and indifferentism. Even within the Church, we can sense the effects of these trends. Many Catholics - lay, religious, and clergy alike - are awash in the cultural cocktail of crappy creeds being advanced by every human source with no reference to transcendent, objective truth and the Source of Truth, God Himself. 

All of that being said, moored in good philosophical and theological convictions, globalism can be a great force for good. Humanity is interconnected. Through mass communication, we can reach out to those around us and those halfway across the globe in an instant. If those using these modern technologies are virtuous and ordered towards God, then the Holy Spirit can bear fruit in these interactions! So, while it is healthy to critique what is morally ambiguous or evil, it is important to see things as they currently are and then help order our society back towards God. Lest we think this is an impossible task, remember charity begins at home. Start there.

Where Does Pope Francis Come From and Does it Matter?

Before we get into Pope Francis’ comments relating to socialism and globalism, it is worth looking at his own upbringing and cultural context. We are the product of nature and nurture, in many real and lasting ways. Pope Francis is no different.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1936 to Italian parents. His family left Italy to escape the fascist oppression of Benito Mussolini in 1929. Communism sought to abolish private property. Socialism advocated government ownership of the means of production. Fascism left the means of production in private hands but through government and corporate collusion directed every economic decision.

He worked as a bouncer and a janitor before training as a chemist and working as a technician in a food science laboratory. At the age of 22, he discerned a vocation to the priesthood in the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). 

As we grow up, our thoughts and opinions on matters change, politically, socially, economically, and even religiously. These changes might be a deepening and maturing, a complete break for something new, or an exploration which eventually comes full circle. What is consistent is that our cultural experiences and upbringing color our approaches. In the case of Jorge Bergoglio in Argentina, Juan Perón took power in 1946 after World War Two and held power until he was overthrown in 1955.

I think that Juan Perón is the key to understanding Pope Francis’ approach to society and politics. Peronism is a form of corporate socialism but is seen by many as “right wing.” Confused yet?  Juan Perón was an Argentine nationalist and populist. Populism is not right or left wing; it is a way to stir up public support amongst the working class.

Juan Perón harbored former Nazi officials. He was fairly isolationist. He was anti-clerical and got on the bad side of the Church when he worked to legalize divorce. He supported labor unions and corporatized them. He used violence and dictatorial rule to maintain power, but all the while styled himself as a man of the people. Though a socialist in practice, Juan Perón had a well documented respect for Benito Mussolini. I think it is fair to say that Juan Perón was willing to support any policy which helped him retain power - a hallmark of populists. 

Juan Perón is key to Pope Francis' approach because this is the society which Jorge Bergoglio grappled with from ten years old and forward. And even after Juan Perón was removed, his policies and ideas remained prevalent in Argentine politics into the 21st Century.  So, keep that in mind as we look at what Pope Francis has to say about socialism and globalism. Americans, especially, are notorious for reading everything in light of American politics and economic ideologies. Argentina is vastly different from the United States politically, socially, and economically. If we approach Pope Francis’ writings on social and economic structuring with narrow vision, then we will miss the forest for the trees. 

Is Pope Francis a Socialist or Globalist?

Now, finally, we can turn our attention to the question: is Pope Francis a socialist or a globalist? I am going to focus on looking at the three most authoritative documents from Pope Francis, his encyclicals: Lumen Fidei (2013), Laudato si’ (2015), and Fratelli Tutti (2020). I will also touch on his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. 

I am not writing a book on the man, nor am I claiming to exhaustively treat this question. But the conversation I want to start here is: what does he actually promulgate in his ordinary and universal magisterium, as the Pope. Popes are free to hold private opinions and even express them publicly, but they do not hold the weight of an encyclical letter. So, we will stick to these three documents. If you want to sort through the ambiguous statements the Pope has made or dive into his airplane interviews, go for it!

Lumen Fidei (2013)

Lumen Fidei was released shortly after Pope Francis was elected and was actually written by Pope Benedict XVI. Nonetheless, being promulgated by Francis, we should charitably assume that he is asserting what is therein contained. This encyclical is in the same vein as Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi on Charity and Hope and is about Faith. This is a largely theological text without much discussion of politics or economics. But there is one pertinent idea that is repeated twice: 

“The individual’s act of faith finds its place within a community, within the common ‘we’ of the people who, in faith, are like a single person - ‘my first-born son,’ as God would describe all of Israel (Lumen Fidei, 14).”

Likewise, in par. 43, we hear: 

“Since faith is a reality lived within the community of the Church, part of a common ‘We,’ children can be supported by others, their parents and godparents, and welcomed into their faith, which is the faith of the Church (ibid., 43).”

I think these two paragraphs, when taken as one idea, are a concrete expression of solidarity and subsidiarity in the life of the Church. The corporate “We” of the Church stretches across the entire globe (and in Purgatory and Heaven!!) but the instantiation is in the local, the family, the cell of society. As far as globalism is concerned, this seems like a perfectly balanced approach.

The understanding that the integrity of the Faith is vital is beautifully expounded here:

“Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity. Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole. Each period of history can find this or that point of faith easier or harder to accept: hence the need for vigilance in ensuring that the deposit of faith is passed on in its entirety (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) and that all aspects of the profession of faith are duly emphasized. Indeed, inasmuch as the unity of faith is the unity of the Church, to subtract something from the faith is to subtract something from the veracity of communion (ibid., 48).”

The unity of faith is the unity of the Church. So, if the Pope takes a global view of the Church - which he should - then the accompanying principle is unity of belief. From the beginning, this has been one of the unambiguous guiding principles of the Church: there is a unity of governance, teaching, preaching, and means of sanctification. 

It is only in Jesus that we are united. This is the light of life for society. The Pope writes:

“Modernity sought to build a universal brotherhood based on equality, yet we gradually came to realize that this brotherhood, lacking a reference to a common Father as its ultimate foundation, cannot endure (ibid., 54).”

It is abundantly clear that Pope Benedict XVI wrote these words. But Pope Francis promulgated them. This is what he believes.

By living the faith in integrity, locally and based in subsidiarity, is ordered to the common good of society. 

“Faith does not merely grant interior firmness, a steadfast conviction on the part of the believer; it also sheds light on every human relationship because it is born of love and reflects God’s own love (ibid., 50).”

In this first encyclical of the Francis pontificate, there can be no doubt that any sense of a globalized reality is tempered with subsidiarity and a unity of faith, and a bold proclamation of that Faith. This is all the more clarified by Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, released in November of 2013, Evangelii Gaudium. 

Evangelii Gaudium (2013)

Pope Francis condemns a “throw away” culture which treats human beings like consumer goods. In this context, the Pope decries “trickle-down theories” of economics which:

“…assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us (EG, 54).”

Clearly, the Pope is condemning a form of capitalism which relies on fallen human beings to do the right thing for the poor and marginalized. It does not seem to me that he is condemning free markets or capitalism, per se. Rather, he is condemning passive indifferentism. He also rightly says that this indifferentism has been globalized. Thus, in the same paragraph, we seem to have a condemnation of a certain kind of free market capitalism and a suspicion of globalist trends.

He says that money has become an idol and imbalances in financial markets are caused by a dehumanizing effect which sees human persons only as a consumer. 

He goes on to say:

“While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power (EG, 56).”

Now, we are getting into a condemnation not just of trickle-down systems but of unfettered and unregulated free markets which he calls a “deified market.” What is interesting is his reasons why. He condemns unfettered free markets because he says that they reject God and seek to rule rather than serve. Further, it is not the markets which are problematic so much as the people pulling the levers. They lack a non-ideological ethics which seeks to serve human persons.

He quotes someone saying: 

“Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs (EG, 57).” 

Golly! Who said that? Karl Marx?! Some dirty communist or socialist? No. Actually it was St. John Chrysostom, the great Church Father of Eastern antiquity. 

Pope Francis ends this subsection by saying:

“Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings (EG, 58).”

What the Pope is talking about here is principles of ethics and social life, not economic and societal structures, as such. Reading him uncharitably, I remember hearing - mostly American - conservatives mouth off that the Pope is anti-capitalist and therefore a SOCIALIST! Well, it seems more likely from Evangelii Gaudium that the Pope is lamenting any system which is based on greedy materialism which dehumanizes people. 

The Pope then turns his attention to secularization which he says “tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of the private and the personal (EG, 64).” It rejects the transcendent, deteriorates ethics, weakens a sense of sin, and increases relativism. Further, he mentions that: 

“The individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favours a lifestyle which weakens the development and stability of personal relationships and distorts family bonds (EG, 67).”

I think that this is a fruitful approach because he is describing the problems he is seeing and then proposing the principles to deal with them effectively, from the mind and heart of the Church. This is not a support or condemnation of globalism, so much as a sober look at where we are currently. I highly recommend reading this document in its entirety to get the full picture. Suffice it to say, there is nothing in Evangelii Gaudium which supports the hypothesis that Pope Francis is a socialist or a globalist.

Laudato Si (2015)

Laudato Si was written about the care of our common home. It is an encyclical about environmental stewardship, but Pope Francis touches on several economic issues.

The Pope is skeptical of international political responses to the protection of marginalized people and ecosystems. He says that too many special interests can “end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected (LS, 54).” He says that the consequence of this is that:

“… the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented (LS, 54).”

This is the same skepticism about international rule which he expressed in 2013. 

Quoting from St. John Paul II, Pope Francis defends the universal destination of goods, developmental policies which focus on human rights, and a defense of legitimate right to private property. His critique here is that God’s gifts are being used for the benefit of only a few and that unjust habits need to be reexamined. 

Further, Pope Francis puts globalization in his crosshairs again when he investigates the creativity and power of technology. He writes: “​​The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings (LS, 109).” However, he then repeats the same concern of free market trickle-down economic approaches that he brought forth in Evangelii Gaudium. He says:

“Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of the economy (LS, 109).” 

He admits that those who espouse such views do not always do so in words, but he says their deeds run contrary to the items he thinks are important. Namely, these priorities are “more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations (LS, 109).” 

Pope Francis does not then offer tangible steps of what more balanced levels of production would entail, but a charitable read would suggest that he is referring back to materialism and people being treated as commodities. He does not seem to be referring to who should own the means of production. He calls for a better distribution of wealth, but he clarifies this earlier in the text. There are those who are destitute and do not have their basic needs covered, while a small percentage of people have more resources than they could ever use or even effectively manage. But he does not suggest that wealth be redistributed in a socialist way. 

As far as Laudato Si is concerned, there is a lot more to say related to a skepticism on the Pope’s part regarding global and international approaches to the issue of environmental care. But I want to share one final passage on employment. The view of Pope Francis here is as far from Socialism and Globalism as one could possibly get. And yet, many more conservative readers bristle at any possible critique of the free market and are uncharitable in the rest of their reading. It is longer, but well worth reading carefully, especially if you are prone to saying unequivocally in a kneejerk way that Pope Francis is a socialist; here is the passage:

“In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world’s peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good (LS, 129).”

Fratelli Tutti (2020)

Pope Francis’ 2020 document on fraternity and social friendship is excellent. It contains a lot of real gems. My favorite quotation, which I think shows Pope Francis’ mind on the interconnectedness of man is: “We gorged ourselves on networking, and lost the taste of fraternity (FT, 33).” This is a fabulous turn of phrase that hearkens back to the Pope’s desire to see people viewed as persons rather than commodities.

As a social encyclical, Fratelli Tutti touches on society, persons, economics, and politics throughout. It is also quite long, in terms of encyclicals. As a social encyclical, it contains several prudential judgments, opinions, and non-definitive ideas; so, it is a bit different from the norm as far as encyclicals go. However, it is highly worth reading, in its entirety. I want to just touch on a few main points here.

He begins the document taking swings against globalism, saying:

“As I was writing this letter, the Covid-19 pandemic unexpectedly erupted, exposing our false securities. Aside from the different ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident. For all our hyper-connectivity, we witnessed a fragmentation that made it more difficult to resolve problems that affect us all. Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality (FT, 7).”

The Pope seems to come down squarely against what globalism is doing. He says, in part quoting Pope Benedict XVI:

“Local conflicts and disregard for the common good are exploited by the global economy in order to impose a single cultural model. This culture unifies the world, but divides persons and nations, for ‘as society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours, but does not make us brothers’ (FT, 12).”

He then proceeds to provide a blistering critique of globalism and attributes to it the growing problem of loneliness. He writes:

“We are more alone than ever in an increasingly massified world that promotes individual interests and weakens the communitarian dimension of life. Indeed, there are markets where individuals become mere consumers or bystanders. As a rule, the advance of this kind of globalism strengthens the identity of the more powerful, who can protect themselves, but it tends to diminish the identity of the weaker and poorer regions, making them more vulnerable and dependent. In this way, political life becomes increasingly fragile in the face of transnational economic powers that operate with the principle of ‘divide and conquer’ (FT, 12).”

The weak and the poor are the object of the Pope’s concern, because they are precisely those with the quietest voice in society. And there are those who claim to speak for the poor for their own gain. As we look at the next quote, remember Juan Perón and the Pope’s early experiences. He writes:

“Lack of concern for the vulnerable can hide behind a populism that exploits them demagogically for its own purposes, or a liberalism that serves the economic interests of the powerful. In both cases, it becomes difficult to envisage an open world that makes room for everyone, including the most vulnerable, and shows respect for different cultures (FT, 155).”

The Pope goes on to critique liberal approaches which speak of a respect for freedom without the roots of shared narrative. He says that leftist ideologies linked to individualistic ways of acting are ineffective and leave people in need. He calls for a greater spirit of fraternity as well as a “more efficient worldwide organization to help resolve the problems plaguing the abandoned who are suffering and dying in poor countries (FT, 165).” On first blush, this seems like an endorsement of a form of globalism. But what I think he is saying is that a more global pool of resources is needed to help the poorest nations move into a post-industrial phase. 

Rather than proposing socialism or a concrete form of globalism, the Pope rightly says:

“It also shows that there is no one solution, no single acceptable methodology, no economic recipe that can be applied indiscriminately to all. Even the most rigorous scientific studies can propose different courses of action (FT, 165).”

As the document progresses, there are more of the same critiques of trick-down economics, populism, and a materialism which diminishes the dignity of persons. 

Then, in paragraph 172 and following, Pope Francis enters into the few paragraphs with which I take most issue. He calls for agreements among national governments to form a “world authority regulated by law” which ought to “at least to promote more effective world organizations, equipped with the power to provide for the common good, the elimination of hunger and poverty and the sure defence of fundamental human rights (FT, 172).” I find this problematic because it seems to conflict with the principle of subsidiarity. But then the Pope takes things a step further into waters which I dare not wade. He says:

“In this regard, I would also note the need for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth’ (FT, 173).” 

The thought of the U.N. with “real teeth” is the stuff of nightmares. Globalist governments do not seem efficient or helpful. To give teeth to an organization which can so easily be ruled by only a few countries with real sway is a recipe for disaster. I think that the U.N. should continue to arbitrate disputes and be a diplomatic force for good, but I am inclined to let their power end there.

Comments on the United Nations notwithstanding, Fratelli Tutti brings up a lot of great points worth contemplating. There are several other points with which I would like to have a productive conversation with the Holy Father. But these items do not fall under the category of Faith and Moral teachings of the Church; they are almost completely prudential matters. So, disagreement, within reason and in charity, is perfectly acceptable. 

Bottom Line: Is Pope Francis a Socialist or a Globalist?

Here is my bottom line. Based on what he has taught in his ordinary and universal magisterium, Pope Francis is not a socialist or a globalist. His critics pick up on some sincerely problematic phrasings but are largely uncharitable in their approach. 

As a private individual, I know that Pope Francis has condemned socialism and communism, but is very sympathetic to those ideas and what they are trying to accomplish. But this does not mean that he is firmly in that camp. He is a harsh critic of capitalism, but he does not seem to be endorsing socialism as a viable alternative.

As far as globalism goes, the Pope speaks to the need for adherence to subsidiarity and solidarity, but he also espouses certainly pointedly globalist views, especially regarding international organizations and interreligious cooperation. In my opinion, these actions and especially joint-statements with non-Christian religious leaders are often misleading and imprudent. But the course of this exploration has been his ordinary and universal magisterial teachings. 

In all things, we must read what people say with charity and an open-mind. Of course, we must do so within reason. As G.K. Chesterton said: 

“The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

For a further look at what we here at Good Distinctions mean by being open-minded, check out Episode 3! Until next time: have a great week! And remember: Good Distinctions are the spice of life!

If you enjoyed this episode, please consider becoming a paid subscriber here on Substack to help us sustain Good Distinctions!

The Long Nineteenth Century

The long nineteenth century really began in 1789 with the French Revolution and ending with World War One. This phrase was coined by the British historian Eric Hogsbawm to describe a series of events that made speaking of 1789 to 1914 make more sense historically speaking than 1800 to 1900. He categorized this long nineteenth century into three connected but distinct eras: the Age of Revolution from 1789 to 1848, the Age of Capital from 1848 to 1875, and the Age of Empire from 1875 to 1914. Hogsbawm was a committed Communist throughout most of his life, and so, he sees History in terms of the Marxist lens of power struggles. 

In the midst of this time period, there were certainly struggles. The Enlightenment ideals came to a head with the French Revolution’s cries of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The absolute monarchies and conservatism were being challenged and the revolution was willing to use violence, if necessary, to change the dynamic of power and secure liberal values for the common man. At the time, there were three classes in society, known as estates: the first estate was the clergy, the second estate was the nobility, and the third estate were the commoners. And, of course, the king enjoyed absolute power over the whole polity. Once this hierarchical structure was deposed and democracy was awoken, the revolutionary spirit spread throughout Europe. By 1848, only Russia and Britain remained largely untouched, in terms of the monarchy. 

The Industrial Revolution was in full swing by the middle of the long nineteenth century. Factories were rising up throughout the United States and Europe. These factories often had horrific conditions, but they led to the concentration of wealth among the owners and operators of private enterprises. The tycoons of various enterprises became obscenely wealthy, but with the overturning of the feudal system, the common man was finding it difficult to earn a decent wage. The conditions in factories and mills led to men in their mid-thirties retiring because they were physically no longer able to work. Child labor was common. The work week consisted of six days and the work day was sometimes sixteen hours long. In some factories, tired workers would endure burns, cuts, scrapes, lost fingers, hair getting caught in machinery, or even death. 

Admittedly the imperial system exported European culture and organizational strategies and structures to locales throughout the world. However, the subjection to hard labor, low pay, and widespread corruption made it hard for locals to see colonization as a good thing. Especially in Africa, the lines drawn on maps by the Europeans created conflict between various tribes which up to that point were at relative peace with one another. 

The long nineteenth century undoubtedly led to the world in which we now find ourselves. The progress of man in terms of technology, communication, and global interconnection was epoch-defining. However, as we can see from the 20th Century, the abandoning of conservatism, traditional morality, solidarity among people, and Neitzche’s “death of God” led to death, genocide, destruction, and a refusal to recognize the dignity fo the human person that the world had never seen on such a large scale. The same Communism that rose to prominence in the long nineteenth century and promised utopia ultimately was the direct cause of the negative effects and human death in the twentieth century. 

In the nineteenth century, Communism was on the rise, social change was rapidly reordering Europe, industrialization was in full swing and capitalism was becoming the dominant economic system. The working man was mistreated egregiously in many places and communism became more and more appealing. It also should not be forgotten that the aristocracy stood to gain the most from the new capitalist systems. Workers were unambiguously exploited and impoverished. 

Rerum Novarum

It is in this context, in 1891, that Pope Leo XIII wrote and released Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor. This letter is the first of his social encyclicals and begins the development of what is now called Catholic Social Teaching (CST). CST is nothing other than an application of perennial Church teaching to the modern developments of capitalism, liberalism, socialism, materialism, and the like. So, CST is not new, but the world’s ideologies and systems are. How does the Church speak truth to the world and ensure that people are being approached with true dignity? This is what CST aims to do. It is not a social justice warrior ideology. It is not an endorsement of capitalism or communism.

The three major themes of Rerum Novarum are:

* The balancing of labor and capital

* The common good and 

* The role of the state

Pope Leo XIII also recognized the special status of the poor in social issues and especially God’s love, compassion, and favor for the poor. This would later be called the preferential option for the poor. 

Balancing Labor and Capital

Pope Leo XIII says early on in the document that:

“It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to revolt (RN, 2).”

In this, the Pope is acknowledging why workers are upset. They are being mistreated. He does not deny the good that the capitalist system can bring, but throughout Rerum Novarum he offers a helpful and important critique. He is likewise wary of liberalism and socialism. Without denying the reality of the world around him, the Pope is able to offer a balanced take on the situation. This is why Rerum Novarum continues to be so important throughout the ensuing 132 years. The good distinctions the Pope is making are timeless!

Speaking of these rights and duties and offering a critique of the Marxist view of class struggle, the Pope says:

“The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice (RN, 19).”

Workers have duties towards their employers, the Pope says. They are to perform their work conscientiously which they have freely agreed to undertake. They should not settle issues with violence nor should they damage the property of their employer. Further they are “to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss (RN, 20).”

On the other hand, employers have duties as well. They should respect the dignity of their workers. There is a contract between employer and worker; they are not indentured servants, nor should they be seen as a factor in production. The employer needs to remember that working for a living is an honorable thing. They are not to overtax their workers by giving them work that is beyond their physical or mental capability. Employers must not defraud their employees into reducing their wages or create undue pressure. He says, “To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven (RN, 20).”

One of the most important items that Pope Leo writes about is the idea of what we now call a “living wage.” He says: 

“Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice (RN, 45).”

These free agreements duly honor the dignity of man and also lead to the flourishing of the worker, the employer, and the State. So, the Pope argues, the State should ensure that the interests of the working class are “carefully watched over” because it will be a benefit to the whole community that “being housed, clothed, and bodily fit, they may find their life less hard and more endurable (RN, 34).”

The Common Good

Let us now briefly examine the second main theme: the common good. In a critique of socialism, the Pope says that people have a right to private ownership. However, this right must be balanced against the notion of the common good. He says:

“The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men's minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary (RN, 22).”

He goes on to say, though, that:

“Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others (RN, 22).”

So, there is nothing wrong with having material wealth. But these gifts need to be used well and properly ordered for the good of all, in common. The Pope makes this point explicitly when he says, “all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves… (RN, 34).” There must, of course, be a special concern in weighing the good of all in society towards the poor and marginalized, precisely because they are powerless, in many concerns, to advocate for themselves. 

The Role of the State

The role of the state is the third main theme. And it is fairly simple. The State exists to ensure the wellbeing for all in society, that the common good is served. And the state must support individuals and families to grow and develop. He writes:

“Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them (RN, 32).”

Besides ensuring the dignity of the human person, this advice is so practical. If workers are benefited from the outset, then the needs of special programs will be lessened and perhaps eliminated. Can you imagine, for example, a society which takes the needs of the lower and middle classes seriously in a preemptive sense rather than pouring money into social welfare programs that address needs after the fact? What would need to change in society for this to be a reality? It is something which I think current and future generations must contend with. And, frankly, the Catholic Church is the only institution which can lead the way, as we always have. The balance needed, especially in our broad and globalized society, comes from the life-giving saving Gospel of Jesus Christ instantiated through the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

The State should not subsume the place of individuals and families. It should be at the service of them and no more. As the Pope says,

“We have said that the State must not absorb the individual or the family; both should be allowed free and untrammelled action so far as is consistent with the common good and the interest of others (RN, 35).”

Human beings have dignity and worth, and the human family is the fundamental cell of society. If the State overwhelms this reality then society falls apart. If you are interested in more of an analysis on this, please go listen to my episode on Solidarity and Subsidiarity. In Rerum Novarum, the Pope teaches clearly that an important key to human dignity is the availability of fulfilling work, with pay and working conditions that show care and concern for the needs of the worker. Further, families have tangible needs and communities need to benefit from private enterprise. 

Conclusion

I have not even scratched the surface of the masterpiece that is Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII. I highly recommend giving the whole thing a read through, especially if you are engaged in private enterprise, government work, or are a worker or employer. So, what I’m saying, really, is that everyone should read this document! 

If you would like a walk through the seven main themes of Catholic Social Teaching, please go listen to the episode entitled: “Does Jesus Want us to be Social Justice Warriors?” Admittedly, the title is a bit clickbaity but I basically just explain the broad movements of Catholic Social Teaching. I hope today’s article and episode has been worthwhile to you! If you haven’t yet subscribed here on Substack, please consider doing so. That way you will never miss a thing that Teresa and I put out. 

We are grateful to have you with us in the Good Distinctions community. As always, if you have questions, comments, episode ideas, or want to chat, please reply to this post or send us an email at [email protected]. We’d love to hear from you! And please, if you would, like this article, share it with your friends and family, and leave a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and like, subscribe, and share on YouTube. You can also follow us on Instagram at @goodistinctions. 

See you next week!

In episode 5, Teresa Morris and Will Wright discuss how virtue is the mean between excess and deficiency. They talk about how virtue relates to spiritual life. Teresa explains Plato’s analogy of the Cave, Mumford and Sons, G.K. Chesterton, and Dr. Peter Kreeft are brought up. This conversation has a few tangents, but all of them are worthwhile. Give it a listen! Listen to episode 5 and then join us as a free or paid subscriber here at https://gooddistinctions.com/

Rough TRANSCRIPT of the Video:

Will Wright:

Welcome back to Good Distinctions. I'm Will Wright.

Teresa Morris:

and I'm Teresa Morris.

Will Wright:

And good distinctions are...

Teresa Morris:

the spice of life.

Will Wright:

So today, Teresa, we are talking about virtue. I'm glad that you're with me because I don't have a lot of it. I'm working on it, but I would like to grow in virtue. So hopefully this conversation will be helpful to everyone that's watching. So let's dive right into it. First of all, let's define what is a virtue.

Teresa Morris:

Hmm. I wish the answer was as simple as just being able to give what is a particular virtue or what is the overall definition of virtue. I will give the definition of virtue that I tend to think is maybe the best one. And then perhaps we can kind of talk about why people have different opinions on why that may or may not be a good definition. So virtue was initially proposed by Aristotle and Aristotle essentially said that virtue is a habit of excellence and that it's a mean between two extremes of excess and deficiency. So his proposal was that people should be trying to live a virtuous life and where virtue falls, if you think about kind of like a line, virtue falls right in the middle. and you want to be oriented towards this kind of middle ground and you're not trying to fall to one of the other sides of excess or deficiency. So you don't want to be too much of something but you also don't want to be lacking in something or deficient in something. So virtue is kind of that middle ground of excellence that we're trying to cultivate.

Will Wright:

So we could say in Medio stat Virtus, which is Latin. I don't know why I know the phrase in Latin. Aristotle spoke Greek. Anyway, it means in the middle stands the virtue, right? And so that's what we're getting at. I think it's hilarious when asking a philosopher anything because you're gonna get a very philosophical answer. No, it was very beautiful. And I'm excited to unpack that. I would just like to offer. I guess the theological answer would be what's in the catechism, right? So the virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to the good.

So I'm not thrilled with that definition as like the end all be all. I don't think it includes exactly what you mentioned of excellence as being the mean between excess and deficiency. But I think we should start by unpacking that real quick. So It's habitual, which means it's a habit.

It's something that we have to do. And it's something that we have to habituate and make part of our routine, something that we need to practice. Later, I think we'll definitely talk about the difference between the theological virtues and the cardinal virtues and moral virtues, because there's a huge distinction to be made there. But putting a pin in that, habitual. So it needs to be habitual, but it also needs to be firm. Right, it's not wishy washy. You can't just... You know, you're walking down the road and you see a kid walking towards the street and there's a car coming and you go and you reach out your hand half-heartedly, grab the back of their shirt and say, hey, don't do that. That doesn't make you a brave person. That doesn't make you courageous. That makes you basic borderline minimum human.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

You're not a monster.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, right.

Will Wright:

So good for you. You know, everybody's, well, I didn't kill anybody. Like that's not a very good metric for whether you're a good person or not. But anyway, so it needs to be firm. It needs to be something that you practice every day. You wake up and you say, I'm gonna be courageous today. If there's an opportunity where I need to practice courage, I'm going to. And then disposition, so disposing ourselves towards the good, which ultimately is God, and being in accordance with natural law and the eternal law.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, I think something that is is helpful about the concept of virtue is, you know, what you're saying is that it's a habit. It's a really hopeful view of morality. It's a really hopeful view of building character because it's saying that we have the capacity to improve upon ourselves. So sometimes people are like, well, I'm just not built that way. Or I'm just like not a good person. Or I'm not given when other people are given, which may or may not be true, right? Like we're all given different gifts. We're all given different upbringings that can dispose us to different virtues or not. but the proposal that virtue is a habit inherent in that idea is that you have this capacity to work on yourself and build up this habit. So it's not something that you're just gonna wake up and you're like yeah today I'm gonna be courageous and you're just gonna automatically be that way. It takes practice and it's something that requires intentionality and eventually it becomes our natural mode of being. So spoiler alert for Nicomachean ethics at the end of Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle is asking this question of like, well, how do we even get here, right? That if we can say, here's this list of virtues that we have determined are important to strive for. How do we get from point A to point B? Point A saying, I see that this is a good thing. Point B being this is integrated into my life. And what he says is you have to surround yourself with virtuous people and learn through imitations. So if I find in myself a lack of something where I'm like, I just wish that I was more honest, or I wish that I was more courageous, or I wish I understood chastity better. It's not that I have to white-knuckle my life and just force myself into those things.

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

What I should do is I should say, who do I know that lives these well. Who do I know who's really courageous? Who do I know who's really honest? Who do I know who lives chastity beautifully? And I look at how they're living and I just kind of imitate them. It's kind of like how children learn, right? It's like when we're teaching children how to speak, we're like, say, da-da, and then we're trying to get them to imitate it. That's how humans just naturally learn is we're given a model for something and we kind of like act it out until we can do that. So It's, I love the concept of building virtue as a habit because it connects us to community and it says you're not supposed to do this on your own. This idea of becoming a good person isn't solitary. You're not doing this in isolation. You do this by imitating the people around you. And it takes time because habits take time to build and that's okay. It's not something that we should feel discouraged about which I think sometimes in ethics or in just the process of becoming a good person. it's easy to get discouraged because it's like, oh my gosh, I failed again. I woke up and I made this decision to be this way and I missed the mark and virtue ethic says that's okay. Habits take time to build just like anything.

Will Wright:

And we will mess up. And it's not just about aiming for the good, it's about the reality that God is the greatest good and that we're in a relationship with Him. And so, when we encounter good, whether it's in ourselves or in someone else, we're encountering the spark of the divine, we're encountering the image of God in that. And so, it's not... Like you say, it's not just picking ourselves up by our bootstraps and white-knuckling it. We're not Pelagians. The Pelagian heresy is that we can will ourselves to heaven, that we don't need grace. Well, that's a huge lie. Of course we need grace. But grace builds on nature. It perfects nature, as St. Thomas says. So if that's true, and it is, then by surrounding ourselves with good people, good friends and allowing God to show us to those people. Right? Saying like, Lord, I need better friends. Like lead me to them.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

And then allowing him to sort of put these people in our lives. At least that's been my experiences. I have these people come into my life that I never would have gone out of my way to find. And I mean, even I know we talked about this in Episode One, but like how I met, how I found myself moving from North Carolina to Phoenix was very unexpected. Well, now I know all these wonderful people. And I have a bunch of wonderful friends in North Carolina as well. And it's just beautiful. The Lord has led me through this different pathway and journey. And I know these people have made me better. But in the past, when I've had some friends who didn't always live up to virtue, didn't always have the same orientation as me towards the good and towards what is true and beautiful, I felt myself sliding backwards because I really believe that we can't be stagnant. There is no stagnation. We're either moving forward or we're moving backwards. And that's just a function of the fact that we're alive and in time. Right.

Teresa Morris:

Right.

Will Wright:

Right, the good, the virtue. So, right, if we have good friends, they will lift us up, which is what you were saying. And I think there's... lot to be said about grace building on nature and allowing God into that mix. So it's not all or nothing. I think that's kind of what I wanted to get at is for anyone listening who's thinking, okay, well, it's a habit that I need to firmly dispose myself towards. So it seems like I need to put forth effort. But then you're saying, well, it's not something that you just white-knuckle. Well, okay, then how do I do it?

Well, I think it's this mystery of synergy. Between God acting and giving us grace and us cooperating and responding to that grace.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm, definitely. And I really like what you said about how the people that you surround yourself with really affect us and that. one of the prayers that we can pray is, Lord, give me people in my life who are going to aid in my flourishing because he wants that for us. And that flourishing is something that was really important for the Greeks, this concept of eudaimonia, which is virtue is oriented towards that, that it's not existing for its own sake, it's not even existing for this consequence in society, it's existing for our own flourishing. And... that we do become like the people we surround ourselves with. Even in social psychology, people talk about how you become like the five people you spend the most amount of time with, which is why it really matters who you choose as friends. It matters who you choose to marry because you're going to become like those people. It's why I love teaching because I want to be like my students. I think that they're wonderful and I want to be more like them for the most part. And so we can't let ourselves be unaffected by the people that we are surrounded by and so that it's possible to change and to become like the people that were surrounded by. I

Will Wright:

It reminds me that there's a narrative to our lives that God is writing ultimately. And then there's a meta-narrative that we all fit into. There's one true story. One of my friends is a filmmaker and he talks about this a lot, that all good stories exist within the one true story, the story that God is writing, this meta-narrative, which is exactly the opposite of postmodernism. that there actually is meaning and that we can plug ourselves into that. But I've also heard, especially those who follow Carl Jung, especially like Jordan Peterson, for example, talks a lot about how we play this set of games over time. And it's really a rehearsing of behaviors to play the meta game or the meta narrative. And that's how, like what you were talking about with the kids watching. other people and figuring out how to play the game, so to speak. And he doesn't mean that in a cynical way. It's just how do I navigate my life? How do I navigate interpersonal relationships with others in an effective way where I will be flourishing?

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

And that idea of you eudaenomia that you brought up, would it be would it be acceptable in your mind to equate that? And I've made this I'll go ahead and say I've made this case. So feel free to push back. that eudaenomia, that true real blessedness, that true lasting happiness is synonymous with what Jesus is talking about in the Beatitudes.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm. I would say so. And I think ultimately that concept, I mean like everything is fulfilled in the beatific vision, right? That like all of these ideas of happiness, flourishing, excellence are ultimately fulfilled in our experience of an encounter with Christ. And that helps us then having this sense of, oh, this is the ultimate vision for our lives. This is where ultimate fulfillment is coming from. Helps us then. orient all our other actions towards that type of excellence to say like this is this is the primary goal and So it helps order all those other things. So I would say that the Beatitudes are an orientation towards virtue and excellence because it's not just Here's here are the things that you can't do. It's not just a list of behaviors It's an orientation towards goodness and an orientation towards excellence. And I think that's what You can say this about virtue from a philosophical sense, or you could say this about virtue in a theological sense, which I think could be attributed to the Beatitudes, like you're saying, that it's not this question of what should I do, which can be a really stark view of doing ethics or just living your life, of what should I do or what should I avoid? And here's this list of things that I can and can't do, but it's who do I want to be? What type of person do I want to be?

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

And I think that's what. eudaenomia offers, I think that's what the Beatitudes offers, it's this proposal for what type of person do you want to be and it's an orientation of the heart and it's an integrated vision of how to act. It's not just I'm going to will this thing and just you know do this because I feel like I have to but it's a movement of the heart towards something good and something excellent.

Will Wright:

Dr. Peter Kreeft has a brilliant lecture on this, where he talks about the Beatitudes and he brings up the concept of eudaenomia, but he also brings up GK Chesterton's biography of St. Francis of Assisi. And he says that it's the line about coming out of the cave, walking on your hands, seeing the world hanging upside down and understanding dependence when we know the maker's hand, comes from an encounter with God in which we turn all of our expectations on our on its head, which is really what Jesus is saying in the Beatitudes. These are these are nuts, really. first look at them they go, what are you talking about, blessed are to the poor in spirit? I don't want to be poor in spirit, I want to be rich in spirit.

Teresa Morris:

Right.

Will Wright:

But what it's saying is no you need to be humble, you need to empty yourself in order to be filled with God. And then he walks through Peter Crave walks through the rest of the Beatitudes and shows how it's an inversion of a lot of the things that we think we want, like conquest

Teresa Morris:

Right.

Will Wright:

of nature, freedom from pain,

Teresa Morris:

Yeah.

Will Wright:

et cetera. So it's really fascinating. Incidentally,

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

Mumford and Sons the Cave is, you know, that exact line from the Chesterton biography of St. Francis of Assisi, and it's awesome. So go listen to the Cave, everyone.

Teresa Morris:

it's such a good song. I also thought for the longest time before I read that work by GK Chesterton, that he was talking about Plato's cave, which is my heathen philosophical viewpoint of the world,

Will Wright:

Ha

Teresa Morris:

Which you can kind of say that it's both, but it really is much more the sense of Christ turns everything upside down and has, you know, this proposal of paradox for the way that Christians should live their life.

Will Wright:

But why couldn't it be Plato's cave?

Teresa Morris:

It could be. It can be both, I think. I think they're really, yeah, I mean, you walk out of the cave and you're shocked at how the world looks. You're like, oh my gosh, all these things that I thought were just shadow, like there's actually a real flower. There's a real this. And it feels like the world is upside down because it's not shadow, it's real.

Will Wright:

Alright, professor, I think it's time. I think we need to take the time rather to explain the cave analogy. Just a little bit, just a little bit, because people listening, I'm sure not everyone has been exposed to this. Not everybody's read the Republic. So what have you got?

Teresa Morris:

Okay, yeah, so there's this famous analogy in Plato's Republic where the Plato's Republic is trying to determine what it means to be a just person and it's doing that by giving this analogy of what it means to have a just city and a just city is this analogy for a person and in that he talks about uh he gives this analogy of what it means to to live a good life and what it looks like to finally understand what a good life is and to experience it. So that everyone is born into this cave and they're facing the back wall of the cave. So you're just looking at this blank wall and you're in chains and the sun is behind you on the outside of the cave. So everything that you're seeing is just a shadow. So like a dog walks by and you see a shadow of a dog or a tree is growing, you see a shadow of a tree. A bird flies by, you see a shadow of a bird. And that's what you think the world is, because that's all you're ever exposed to. And then at a certain point, someone breaks out and they leave the cave and they go outside and the sun is illuminating everything and they realize, oh my gosh, this thing that I thought was a dog, this shadow is actually a dog, this tree is actually a tree and this bird is actually a bird. And you're experiencing everything in reality and it's so much better and so much more intense than what the shadows were. And that's kind of the experience of doing philosophy is your... experiencing the really real. And so then that person goes back into the cave and they're trying to tell everyone about it and they're like, oh my gosh it's so much better out there, I promise. And you would think everyone would be like, yeah, that sounds great. Let's go. And what they actually do is they say, no, you're crazy. I don't actually want to experience that. And they stay in the cave and they actually end up killing the philosopher. So it's really not a great look for philosophers because it's sort of a sad ending. But it's this idea that reality is worth experiencing, that truth is worth experiencing and encountering, even if you're kind of put to death for it, that it's worth standing for truth, even if everyone around you doesn't think that that's worthwhile. So in the song, the reason when I was first listening to Mumford was actually my freshman year of college when I was first studying philosophy and I heard that song and I was like, this is Plato's cave. It's this experience of walking out of this cave and the world is opposite of what you thought it was. It's so different than what you had thought and it's so much better. than what you had ever dreamed it could be. And that's, I think, life of virtue and truth that can be experienced just through kind of morality and philosophy, but even more so, exponentially more so, is that experience of a life with Christ, where all of these natural inclinations or desires that I have that I could make an argument for justifying and saying, well, I can reason my way to that, this is how I should act. Christ says, sure, but I'm actually going to propose something that might maybe even seem unreasonable to you. That is really crazy. That is, you know, you should totally humble yourself and you, you know, so all these things Christ proposes is this world flipped upside down.

Will Wright:

Well, and how prophetic in a sense when I'd never thought about it in this context, but Jesus is wisdom incarnate. He is the word. He is the logo. So of course he was put to death, right?

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

He is like, he's coming into the cave and saying, yeah, all those shadows aren't real. Let's have the real thing, which I think you're reading of the cave. The song is very much in line with what St. Augustine would have thought. I mean, he was a big fan of Plato. He saw the world of forms as heaven as being in the mind of God and So How does that this might be a little bit tangential, but I think it's worthwhile How does that transition from that transcendence of Plato to the more eminent philosophy of Aristotle? How do you get from Plato who's the teacher to Aristotle who's the student because there's usually In the sense that you have that famous painting of Plato pointing up and Aristotle pointing down. So what's that about?

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, I think that Aristotle, you know, Aristotle kind of rejected this concept of the forms that were just participating in these ultimates that Plato really was proposing. And that I think upon an initial reading, in a lot of ways can sound like Christianity in some senses, which is why I think Augustine really took to that. Aristotle was a bit more focused on what does this mean for human behavior. and that he saw a tension between a proposal of absolutes and forms, and that there's a bit of a disconnect between saying here's just these objectives that we're looking at, and he was struggling to find the in-between, this kind of virtuous mean between well you can say that you know there's a there's an objective virtue or there's objective goodness, but what that looks like for an individual person might be different from person to person. So for example, he thought that there was a truth in saying, there's objective goodness, there's objective beauty, but the way that you and I are going to engage with those things is going to be different. So what it looks like for you to be courageous, we can say courageous or being courageous is a mean between. the excess of recklessness and the deficiency of cowardice. But how that's lived out in my life and your life might be different or how you might be courageous in a particular situation is going to need to be different from me. So an example of this is like, if I need to talk to, if I need to be courageous to a boss and I need to stand up for myself in a work setting, what courage might look like for me is going to be different than what it would look like for you in a work setting standing up to a boss. So it might be courageous for me to write an email standing up for myself, whereas for you, that might not be courageous. The courageous thing would be to walk into someone's office and have a conversation. So Aristotle

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

saw more of a nuance, whereas Plato was much more hard-lined in these forms and were just participating in these objectives. And Aristotle kind of saw that there was a difference in how those things were lived out from person to person. So I think his sense of human behavior. and looking at individual human behavior and the cultivation of virtue in the individual, kind of accounted for, yeah, the distinct way that people can live their lives in accordance with these objective truths.

Will Wright:

which we would see as being in accordance with the natural law, which is our participation in the eternal law in reality as it is. So

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

I don't, I don't see a huge gap in retrospect. Like obviously if you're thinking through it as Aristotle, without the light of Christ to fill in the gaps.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

I mean, I could see the, the world of forms, for example, as being in the mind of God, but

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

God is simple, like divine simplicity, that he doesn't have parts and pieces and attributes. He is. Period. Right? He is, He exists as essence is existence. So if that's the case, then our participation in those perfections is a participation in reality as God made it. And ultimately in him, because in him, we live and move and have our being. So I think ultimately there their views are reconcilable, at least in my mind, to a large extent, because they show us that there is a standard, there is an objective reality. But then, I don't know, I'm kinda like, I'm thinking through this as we go, but it seems like the way that you explained Aristotle seems very subjective or relativistic. And I know that that's not true. So how would you respond to somebody who maybe is moral relativist at heart, who's who hears what you say and say, see, it's different, it's completely different. So stop trying to compare me to you and there is no standard.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah.

Will Wright:

So how would you respond to that?

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, I would say that there's a difference between when we're talking about goodness in a metaphysical sense, which I think you could say that Plato is kind of, when he's talking about the forms, he's kind of talking more about metaphysics and, you know, what is goodness itself, whereas Aristotle is focused on the cultivation of goodness within a person and that he thinks those two things are distinct and that they're not opposed to each other, but what it looks like to choose the good in terms of action is different than what goodness is. in this metaphysical sense. So he does think that virtue is more than just fulfilling certain roles, or it's just doing what I personally think is good. He does think that it's the acquiescence of a person towards something objective, that there is something outside of myself that I'm trying to achieve. I'm trying to be. courageous or I'm trying to be honest or whatever. And it's something beyond myself that I'm trying to then orient myself towards. So he doesn't think that the individual gets to decide what the virtue is, but that the individual gets to decide how to get there. And so he is in no way saying that society should be composed of individuals who get to determine. what is good or what virtue is because the consequence of that is just moral and coherence in society

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

that we can't have that and Aristotle is not proposing that. But what he is proposing is that it's not insignificant how an individual's heart and will is formed to be a good person in society. That it really does matter who the individuals are. It's not just follow these set of rules. that it's a transformation of the person. So in that sense, it's subjective because it's a subjective way of living out these objective virtues. But it's not subjective or relative in the sense that you get to determine what that is. It's just that for you, how you're living it out is subjective because you personally have free will and you personally have to choose it.

Will Wright:

because it pertains to you as the subject. So what's the difference between subjective and relative? Because I feel like these are often conflated,

Teresa Morris:

they are.

Will Wright:

usually by people who are not moral relativists, usually people who say there is only objective truth.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

And I met more than one person who claims this. And at first I thought to myself, well, that's absurd. Of course there's subjective truth. But then as we got talking more, I was more and more confused and I wasn't sure of myself and I was like, well, maybe it is just objective truth, but it's objective for you. Like preferences, for example, like is it true that I like pepperoni and bacon pizza? Yes. Is it true that is the only pizza to like? No. So it doesn't matter because for me, I love pepperoni and bacon pizza. And so that seems subjective in that I, the subject like this certain type of pizza. But if somebody else is looking at that and whether they know it or not, if they make that claim, you know, Will likes pepperoni and bacon pizzaObjectively, are they correct? Yes.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

So that seems like an objective truth.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

So I thought that was a pretty darn good argument. I didn't have a response to it. So I'd love to know.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah.

Will Wright:

I'm not a philosopher. I'm not an ethicist. So...

Teresa Morris:

Yeah,

Will Wright:

what do you say?

Teresa Morris:

I think that we use the term objective truth way too freely. And I think that there are objective truths and personal preferences being true in the moment isn't an objective truth. We can say right now it is objectively true. that you like your pizza however you like it. But that's not an objective truth because objective truth is unchanging. So

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

something that is in this moment objectively true isn't an objective truth because that could change. Whereas objective truths are unchanging. So I think we

Will Wright:

I love that.

Teresa Morris:

Use that term way too freely. And I think that if we just say, we're going to reserve the term objective truth for things that are unchanging, it actually frees us to then distinguish between things that are. subjective and they can be subjectively true and something can be true and not be an objective truth. So I think that the difference between, so I think that's important. And then the difference between subjective versus relative. Subjective just means it pertains to the subject. So things that pertain to the subject can change, right? My preferences can change. But that's different than saying something is relative. Something is relative just means like It's just relative to the person and there's nothing objective that will ever be responded to. So it's just what's true for you and that's different than what's true for me or what you think is good is fine. You know, what makes you happy or what you think is beautiful or whatever is totally different. It's relative. We don't need to agree. There's no common ground. When we're talking about subjective, I really think that when we speak about the subject, it's a really sacred thing. And this is the philosophy of personalists, the philosophy of JP2. which is that the subject matters, and the subject really matters to God, that it's not just, I'm just an iteration of a human, and I just am

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

an iteration of flesh and blood, and I'm just equally loved and here I am existing, it's that God uniquely loves each of us as subjects. And Augustine actually, I think in some ways, is the first personalist in this sense because he talks about the subjective nature of the mind. that when we recognize in ourselves a desire to know other things, it leads us towards something objective, right? That I crave beauty or I crave truth, and that leads me to something objective. I go towards something else. But when the mind begins to think of itself, it's already arrived at the answer. So there's something subjective there. Nothing else can touch my mind. It's my own. And so the subject just refers to the person, the subject. and the subject can encounter something objective. The subject could choose to be relative, but those two things are totally distinct. That relative is more a concept, if you would think of like relative in relation to other people, that

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

it's just something I think about in terms of society. Things are relative, we can't agree on anything, and there's no common ground, there's no foundation, where a subject is personal. It's what is my experience. of being oriented towards objective truths.

Will Wright:

I think a lot of the times we use the term relative in directly when we're talking about morality, that it's moral relativism. So one of the things that you mentioned was that objective truth doesn't change ever. I love that, it's very helpful. So how does that square up? And again, maybe this is tangential to our virtue conversation, but I think, I like it, we're gonna keep going. So how does that square up with like scientific truths? things that are observable in nature. For example, the acceleration due to gravity is such here on earth because of the mass of the earth and yada, right?

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

If we go to a different planet, gravity is gonna be a little different.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

But those are still scientifically observable things if the mass, and really what we're saying is that the force exerted because of mass and the electromagnetic. field and all the other things that go into the, I am not a scientist, so I'm way out of my depth here, but my understanding is that the coefficients related to physics exist in such a way as to hold all things together here, but that in some far-flung part of the universe, those coefficients might be totally different, and they might even change. So it seems like a lot of the things that we observe in nature are subject to change. And of course they are because of like entropy and matter being created, not created, it's neither created nor destroyed, but it's changed. So with all of that change, of course there's gonna be a change in composition and like eventually everything's gonna, I guess explode, I don't know, or just drift further apart and go and be frozen. There's all kinds of different theories, but how do we square objective truth when we're not talking about morality with something like a scientific fact because it seems like a lot of people today being scientific See, you know all these things that we learn by science that's truth that's fact But it based on what you said about objective reality not changing that seems to not mesh up at all if that makes sense

Teresa Morris:

Hmm. I guess I just would not, maybe this is too simple or reductionistic of an answer, but I just don't have a problem in saying that scientific facts don't need to be categorized as objective truths. And I think it goes back to, I really tend to lean towards saying something is objectively true versus an objective truth. And I just think that perhaps they're just far fewer objective truths than maybe we think that there are. And perhaps all of those things just are things that are true in relation to God, right? That like who he is and who we are in front of him. I am a created being. That's an objective truth. That's never going to change. I am loved by my creator. That's an objective truth. That's never going to change. My creator is love itself. That's never going to change. So I think that objective truths have to do more with the nature of God and who we are in relation to him, whereas scientific facts, we can say, are facts that are currently objectively true. And that leaves room for those things to change. And I think that the tendency to identify those as objective truths is a product of the enlightenment, that the enlightenment really pushes us to only trust things that are proven and to say that something that is proven is an objective truth. And I think you can say, yeah, I can prove that this is objectively true, but that might not be true in 200 years, or it might not be true on Mars. And we can alter those things, right? What has been considered true in science 500 years ago, we're like, oh, shoot, that's not actually true. Or it's true in one circumstance and not in another. Or even just saying, you know, 50 years ago, humans can't survive on Mars. That was an objective truth. And that is going to change where it will be true to say that humans can survive on Mars. And so there's that area of scientific fact. I just don't think that we need to say that those are objective truths. I think we can say some things are objectively true and that leaves room for that to change, but we don't need to make them harden fast eternal truths.

Will Wright:

No, absolutely. And the reason I brought it up is because I have met so many people who are so entrenched in scientific thought, that they think there really is no other source of truth,

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

which is perhaps a product of the Enlightenment. I think it's even further back than that. But it seems like there's this deep sort of abiding sense that philosophy doesn't matter. And especially metaphysics. I mean, I've spoken to people who I went to college with, for example, who call themselves moral relativists, accept that label. One has a PhD in public health, which I think, you know, like, it would be really important for you to understand philosophy or metaphysics, but he rejects metaphysics. Like he said that in a conversation one day, he said, I don't believe that metaphysics exists.

Teresa Morris:

Hmm

Will Wright:

I said, well, I don't believe that you exist. Conversation over. No, just kidding. No,

Teresa Morris:

This is all fake

Will Wright:

it was just really hard to wrap my head around that because if we don't have good first principles, if we don't have good philosophical groundings, then there's gonna be things that we see in science where science just becomes completely relative. And I will use that

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

word relative because it says, well, this is what I think. And so I'm just sort of gonna manifest the simulation of that. It's

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

like looking at the wall of the cave and saying there's the reality and the shadows. So these things, like you said, that were created beings that were loved by our creator, those are unchanging

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

objective facts. The fact that I'm a man and you're a woman, for example, never going to change. We can try to change it. We can scientifically make all these things. This is why I think that the transgender ideology is so insidious. Is not because. of individual people sort of trying to hoodwink someone. I don't think that's the case at all. I think that they've lost the mooring of philosophy so long ago, I guess not that long ago, 10 years maybe, five, 10 years. But without that philosophical foundation, what's to stop somebody from saying, well, I feel like this, so I'm going to be it. And so I have a lot of compassion for that. I don't have a lot of compassion when it comes to some of the practical concerns that come from, especially related to children, but also adults when it comes to cross-sex hormones and genital mutilation and all these other horrible things that are happening, I think that's inexcusable. But I wonder, because I think this all pertains when we talk about virtue is, how do we approach something like that and push back in a way that's not horribly rude. We don't want to be rude, right? But we also can't back down from something that's important because I've heard a lot of people put it this way. I've heard a lot of people say, well, why do you care so much? You know, it's not it's not you. So what does it matter? And then the other person generally will respond in some iteration of, well, because I care about truth. I just feel like there's something seriously missing from that conversation. There's a huge disconnect between the two.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

So anyway, we're probably gonna get this video pulled off of YouTube, but continue.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, well I think that the one of the big pieces that's missing from all of these conversations, whether it's a conversation about morality or scientific advancement or any type of medical intervention or whatever, or just the lack of virtue in general in society, is that we've lost a sense of looking to the telos of a thing. So we have removed this teleological view of the world, which is this question of what is something made for? What is it oriented towards? And when we take that away, then really you do provide this permission to do whatever you want, because you're not oriented towards anything, and you don't know what you're made for. So if we are able to return to this teleological vision of humanity, where we recognize where we are. So even just saying, you know, here we are in 2023, what has worked for morality in the past isn't going to necessarily work today. Like it is okay to say we do need a new vision for how to integrate these objective truths. But the truth of what it means to be human has not changed and what human beings are oriented towards has not changed. But I think we've really lost that. And I think

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

I think that was something that the Enlightenment really just rejected was this sense of teleology and you know we're not really oriented towards anything so as long as I can prove that it exists in this moment then that's all that really matters. So this question of what is the goal and what is the purpose of every human being that exists and even to go further and to say that there is a goal and a purpose of every person because some people don't even believe that. And so asking that question first and foremost. And then when it comes to these questions of, you know, medical interventions and transitioning and whatnot, I think it's, you know, some people really are, they really care about truth and the integration of truth in society and the capacity for society to take truth seriously, even just to, you know, be able to put something in front of another person and trust that they're gonna acknowledge that that's there, right, that we've kind of lost this sense of, are we even looking at the same thing? It

Will Wright:

Yeah.

Teresa Morris:

seems like we're not even able to acknowledge that. And that's an important, that's really important to return to a society that can acknowledge that truth exists and that we can agree on it. But also I think perhaps the part that's missing that I think this concept of virtue gives is this sense of, yeah, I care about truth, but I care about my fellow man because we belong to one another. That I'm not an isolated person, I'm made for community, I'm made for relationship. So what is causing an ache in another person, this question of, you know, Who am I? Right? Which is this

Will Wright:

Hmm. Fundamental.

Teresa Morris:

any struggle, right? Yeah, that all of us have this question of gosh, who am I? Am I made for something? What am I made for? I want to know it. And there are all these horrible answers that society gives of, oh, well, maybe if you change this, you'll have this answer and you'll know who you are then. And so I, yes, I care about truth, but I think the deeper response is I really care about the integration of truth in the hearts of my fellow man.

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

And I want them to have an answer to this question of who am I and an answer to these struggles. And there is an answer, but what's being proposed to them is so flawed. And if we're able to say, actually this answer is present in your being, that

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

it's ingrained in your being, you don't need to alter who you are to find this answer that it's already ingrained in your existence. which is a return to metaphysics, I think we would maybe get farther in society because just saying we care about truth, that's good, but it doesn't then look to, okay, but there's still all these people struggling to integrate it. So I think that when we really care about truth, we're also caring about the people who are hearing the truth and able to integrate it into their lives.

Will Wright:

Well, in a postmodern world where words only have meaning in relation to the words around them, to say, well, I care about what's true, you can have so many providers, whether it's through cowardice or through actually believing this stuff, to say, well, when I have a patient come to me who says that they are actually in point of fact, a man, even though they are biologically a woman, I have to affirm that that's truth. That's their truth. That's what they believe. And so I take them at their word. Now, nowhere in medicine or psychology since its inception have we ever accepted only what the patient says as the criteria for diagnosis, but leaving that aside, and that's a huge problem, but leaving that aside, it's so easy to sort of play this word game. So I think everything you say, I'd absolutely... excuse the pun, I would affirm that. But how do we reintroduce metaphysics into the conversation? Cause I think that's the crux of what you're saying. And I agree. That's what's missing is how do we help people see that there is an objective reality and that things do have an ontological basis in the world. I guess I should, okay, what's ontology? Let's start there. What

Teresa Morris:

Yeah.

Will Wright:

is an ontological reality? Ontology is one of my favorite words and it's like a will write drinking game with my friends.

Teresa Morris:

How many? Take a shot every time. Yeah, ontology refers to being. So an ontological view of the world is referring to the being of things. And so the fact that humans are a different type of being than God is, I have a different ontology.

Will Wright:

and fun words like quiddity.

Teresa Morris:

so, look at you.

Will Wright:

I love, I love, I love scholastic terminology. It's fun. Just means..

Teresa Morris:

It is fun.

Will Wright:

.. whatness, right? Like what is it? Anyway.

Teresa Morris:

Yep.

Will Wright:

Yeah. Super important though. It's cause if we don't know what a thing is, how can we even talk about it? So in a world where the majority, not even the majority, I won't make that claim where a lot of people are rejecting philosophical principles and metaphysics. How can we talk about anything in an intelligent way? So anyway, sorry for that digression, so going back to that first question I asked, how do we reinsert metaphysics back into the conversation in an intelligible way?

Teresa Morris:

Yeah. Well, what's interesting is like I kind of think metaphysics is sneaking into Social consciousness a little bit if you look at this movement of spirituality You know even just like new age things people are recognizing that there's something beyond the physical going on Even though their answer to that, you know, like astrology or whatever is incorrect There is this desire that people are recognizing in themselves that they're more than just the physical world and that there's something to being human beyond just my physical reality. And I think that's a really beautiful and a really hopeful thing that people are kind of getting into these, really spiritual views of the world. Even if you just look at psychology, psychology is so big right now on how the body retains memories of our experiences. There's something metaphysical to that. where there's something beyond what I'm currently experiencing that my body might be remembering and physically encountering that isn't actually happening to me right now. That's a crazy proposal, but that's in a lot of modern psychology, which just brings us back to this idea that there's something beyond myself. There's something beyond just the fact that I have a body. So I think that... that desire to understand the world in a metaphysical sense, that desire to know that there's something beyond just this is already really present in social consciousness. And I think that's very hopeful. So I think taking that desire, helping people name what that is, right? It's not just like, oh, I want to be able to predict my life three months from now, or I think it's fun to ask people what sign you are. but that there's actually a true desire where that's coming from and saying, name that desire. What is it? What are you really seeking? And once people can name it, then we can kind of start proposing a true response to it. But I think that metaphysics, that view of reality is already sneaking back in. I think you can only stay stuck in a purely materialistic viewpoint for so long before the human... gets tired of it and says, I know there's something more. And so that knowledge and that seeking is already present. And I think that we can just say, okay, yeah, cool. That's great. You're there. You're recognizing this desire. Let's name that and let's orient ourselves to perhaps a more fulfilling answer.

Will Wright:

Well, even the new atheists who were so popular in the late 90s, early 2000s, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have gone completely relativistic at this point. I mean, Richard Dawkins being a quite adept biologist, a horrible philosopher. I mean, the God delusion is full of ridiculous things.

Teresa Morris:

Oh yeah, it's so bad.

Will Wright:

My favorite one in that is when he says that, I mean, because I mentioned divine simplicity earlier. He gets God completely wrong because he says, look at all the biodiversity. So God must be the most complex being there is. And it's like, no, you're going the wrong way, homie. You go the other direction. He's the most simple being. And that's just basic metaphysics, but he can't wrap his head around it. But now a lot of the things he's putting out there are just completely relativistic. And so I think you're dead right on that. Like you can't live in that materialist naturalist view without doing severe harm to your mind. And I mean that in a very real sense, I mean that literally. Because if we look, like you were saying with the psychological research recently, there's been a lot of work in neuroscience towards what is consciousness.

Teresa Morris:

Right?

Will Wright:

And they've made little to no headway over decades because they never will, because the mind is bigger than the brain, come to find out. So it's fascinating that from a scientific standpoint, it's sort of affirming what we've always held. Like for example, the hylomorphic reality of body and soul, that we are more than just our bodies and that our mind is more than just our brains. It's more than just chemicals firing. Cause with the new age things, I have some students who would wear crystals and things like this. And I had a conversation with one girl one day, If you're listening to this, you know who you are and you know, I love you She was like, well, you know, they give off energy.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

And the girl next to her goes, that's b******t. You know what she said? Anyway, she was like, that's ridiculous. No way. Come on, the rocks. And I'm like, Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing. And she was like, well, I feel different when I'm, I feel like there's forces around me that are working on me and doing different things in my life. I'm like, yeah, those might be demons. So can you be careful?

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, be careful.

Will Wright:

It's not always demons, but there are supernatural forces at work. Angels and demons do exist.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

Um, you know, God is real and actually trying to reach her heart. Um, so I told her, I said to her that night, uh, I said that night, I want you to go home and I want you to take off the crystals and just ask God to be present to you in a way that you'll understand that's it. And then just, just maybe lie in bed and just be ready to, to listen. And, uh, she came back a couple of days later and, um, We're back in class in his guitar class, so we weren't doing much of anything. And whatever. Anyway, we were

Teresa Morris:

Shout out to Guitar Class.

Will Wright:

it's a great class. They learned so many things about guitar, but it afforded us time to talk. Anyway, so she didn't have all of her crystal stuff on, and

Teresa Morris:

Hmm.

Will Wright:

I was like, what? What's going on with that? And she said, well, God talked to me, so I... I think I shouldn't wear these crystal things anymore because they're

Teresa Morris:

I guess.

Will Wright:

probably not good for me and they're probably just rocks. And I said, that's

Teresa Morris:

Aw.

Will Wright:

awesome. But then that led to another conversation about, you know, the Catholic church teaches what is true. And then the girl who was saying that it's ridiculous that rocks have energy was saying, well, I'm only really Catholic because my parents are Catholic. And how do I know that any of this is true? Everybody else has different religious beliefs. But anyway, all of that to say.

Teresa Morris:

Good question.

Will Wright:

in these great conversations, what never came up was the idea that God did not exist. What never came up was the idea that the supernatural didn't exist. Well, that's huge. And so, just to affirm what you were saying, I'm seeing that as well, especially with the teens, is that the idea of atheism is just completely foreign to them. Now, whether that's a pseudo-like neo-paganism, or new age stuff, whatever. I find that very optimistic and heartening as well, because the Catholic Church is really good at evangelizing pagans.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah,

Will Wright:

It's kind of our thing, it's

Teresa Morris:

historically,

Will Wright:

what we do. So

Teresa Morris:

yeah.

Will Wright:

I think we need to step it up on that. And like you say,

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm.

Will Wright:

propose the truth, give words to what people are already experiencing. I love that approach. Because if we just keep fighting... I mean, basically we'd be fighting the culture war until we die.

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm. Right.

Will Wright:

Um, which I'm not sure what you think about this, but I, I find the culture war to be completely tedious.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, and largely unaffected. Like

Will Wright:

Hmm.

Teresa Morris:

I think that we're not really making a ton of headway on it. And it's also, it can I think lead to a lot of naval gazing. We can talk about this at a different time, but I think it can become,

Will Wright:

No,

Teresa Morris:

we've become out own gods. I think, if we just are like, yeah, our mission in life is to engage in the culture war, it's like, well then that's about me and how I'm. I'm changing the culture and it's not about, am I actually trusting that Christ can transform someone's heart and actually propose Christ to them and not just constantly be battling sets of ideas and whatnot. But yeah, I think it's so true, I found this as well in teaching younger generations that it's so fascinating because I feel like when I was being taught in high school, there was this huge battle against atheistic ideas. And it's just, we don't really have that now. That there really is, they have this sense of there's something beyond themselves and they are very spiritual. And I think that that's, yeah, it's super hopeful. And even the idea that, you know, like she has these rocks, like she wants something. physical like Catholicism understands that too. That's why we have the Eucharist because Christ is like I get that you guys need physical things like you guys really thrive being able to touch something like you're embodied persons and you know God knows that and he doesn't discount that and how he encounters us so even that you know I think there's something sweet in you know people who want to you know be touching crystals and stuff that there's this sense of yeah I'm embodied and my connection to the divine is somehow through something physical too. And the Eucharist gives that response that, yeah, that's okay. That's actually a really beautiful desire and Christ meets that desire. Yeah,

Will Wright:

The Catholic, uh, thinker, Louis Bouyer, I paraphrasing him because I don't remember the exact quote, but he said that if the church is only invisible, then that's not the church. And I, I love that because it shows just how embodied Catholicism is, whether it's the Eucharist or whether it's sacramentals or beautiful churches, uh, or God awful modernist concrete buildings that still have the mass offered in them. Um, you know, that's showing that embodiment can go both ways, but it's, it's so utterly true that we are body and soul, uh, like Peter Kreeft says, we're in sold bodies or we're embodied souls. Either way you slice it. We have both. Right. Um, he also makes the interesting, uh, sort of a realization that if we are bodies without souls, then we're zombies. And if we're souls without bodies, then we're ghosts.

Teresa Morris:

It does, yeah.

Will Wright:

So, you know, I don't want to be a zombie or a ghost. I'd prefer to be a full real life human being.

Teresa Morris:

Person, yeah.

Will Wright:

So practically, tangibly living this out, just kind of returning to this idea of virtue as the mean between two extremes. Let's, because we're nearing around an hour. So let's end by walking through practically with a couple of examples, what this would look like. But before we do that, I just want to make one caveat on the theological virtues, because I think that's really, really important distinction for us and a lot of people don't understand this. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are God's life dwelling within us. We receive them as an indwelling in baptism. Before baptism, they're working around us because God is wooing us to the sacraments. He's drawing us to himself, but we receive them in our soul. as an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in baptism and then amplified and elevated in confirmation But those gifts of faith to know the faith to know the things of God what is revealed hope to the sure and certain hope of heaven if we are Friends of God and doing what he says following his commandments as Jesus says and then charity Which is the only one that will remain in the end is the very love of God the glue that holds all things together the ground of being itself Faith, hope and charity are not something that you and I can grow in on our own. We cannot practice them like we do the rest of the virtues. They are a gift to be used or squandered. And the way that we increase in them is by asking for more of them. So if we use those gifts that we've been given of faith, hope and charity well, and we ask God for a greater share in His divine life, and we're living life for virtue, then He'll give us more faith, hope and charity. And this can keep going forever. And this is the growth in holiness. But the other virtues, the cardinal virtues so-called, because cardine means hinge in Latin, so all the other virtues hinge on temperance, justice, fortitude, and prudence. And those four cardinal virtues sort of are something that we can work on. We are able to intentionally enter into them daily, habitually, firmly. Disposing ourselves to the good and working on them and all of the moral virtues Sort of come underneath those. So like for example justice has a sub virtue, which is piety which has another sub virtue, which is patriotism or Love of father and mother so like the cardinal virtues are here and then all the moral virtues sort of branch off from those So I feel like that's super important to just at least mention is the theological virtues. We can't grow in them on our own We receive more of them, we ask for more of them. But when it comes to the cardinal virtues and the moral virtues, let's just walk through a couple of examples of those. So generosity, for example, what would the excess and deficiency of generosity be?

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm. Yeah, so again, like generosity is this mean between two extremes. So it's like this middle ground. So the access of generosity would be, you know, giving way too much of your time, having no boundaries, giving, giving too much of your time or your belongings or whatever. And, and, and yeah, being overly giving the deficiency would be like scrupulosity, like you're not giving anything, you're being stingy. And so you want this middle ground of an adequate understanding of what you can give and giving adequately from that place. One thing I do want to mention, even as I'm talking about this, it's easy to talk about excess and deficiency by saying an excess is too much of something, a deficiency is not enough. But when we're looking at virtue as a mean between these extremes, the mean, it's the same concept as in math where it's an average of something. And if something's an average, you cannot max it out. So you can't actually have too much of an average. That doesn't make sense. So I'm using these terms of like, you're being too generous, you're not being generous enough. But if you're actually virtuous, it's not possible to be too virtuous because you're already in the realm of a mean. So it's actually not possible to be too generous or too courageous or too kind that if you actually are in a place where it's no longer generosity, it's not actually that it's too generous, it's something else entirely.

Will Wright:

Well, and that goes back to what you were saying about it being a subjective instantiation of virtue, right? That it's going to depend on the circumstances. So to give a little bit more flesh to the generosity thing, if I have $10 that I'm making on a given day and I owe $5 to pay my bills and house my family and I have to pay $2 for food, obviously this is like pre-Biden's America. Um, sorry, was that too political? Anyway. let's say inflation

Teresa Morris:

Timestamp.

Will Wright:

before terrible inflation anyway. So $5 for housing, $2 for food, and then I've got $3 leftover and say I give $2 of that to the church for tithing and $1 to feed a homeless person who I see on the way home. That would be well ordered because I'm paying my bills. I'm fulfilling my duties as afather and husband, right? Now, if I'm going home and I, take my $10 and I give all of it to that homeless person I encountered on the way home, that's not generosity. That's that'sfoolish. Thatwould be the deficient. That would be the excess, right? It's nolonger generosity, because I'm actually not fulfilling my duty to my family.

Teresa Morris:

Right.

Will Wright:

I'm not paying my bills, which are just I'm not feeding my family, which is my obligation. So I think that that's theright way to look at it is what you're saying is that That's no longer generosity. That's something else entirely.

Teresa Morris:

Right.

Will Wright:

That's extravagance in a sense.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah, which then goes back to this point about what type of person do I want to be? It's not just this set of rules of this is what I should do in these circumstances. It's who am I, right? So if someone is a father and a husband, there are certain duties that come with that. And so it's not just, you know, whereas if that was me, you know, if as a single person, I have more capacity to, you know, give to people in need because I don't have these corresponding duties to the type person that I'm currently called to be. So again, it is the subjective sense of things, but when you're subjectively living it, you have to look at who am I called to be in this moment or in this season of my life and what are the duties that come with that. I think another example that I love giving, which I think is kind of fun is, I think it's Aquinas talks about pleasantness being the virtue corresponding to like playing games. or sports, which I think could also be sportsman-like conduct is sort of the virtue. And so if you have too much of that, if you're in excess, that would be something like being a pushover. You're not actually competing and it's not really fun because you're just letting people walk all over you and you're not really being competitive, you're not trying. The deficiency of that would be something like unsportsman-like conduct or being a bully and your entire goal is just to dominate. and to win and you're not actually engaging in healthy competition. So that's a fun one too if you just think about playing a sport or being in competitions at work or whatever that's fun and you know when it's pleasant and you know when you're like I just don't want to be around this person. This has become something else entirely. We're not actually engaging as persons andit's no longer pleasant because people aren't being, aren't conducting themselves well. So that's also a fun one.

Will Wright:

Yeah, there's a lot of moral virtues. There's actually quite a few. So we can go through 18 of these and still not be done. So I think we've kind of hit the main points. But as a kind of final thought, I would just say, you know, because there's so many, we can't intentionally focus on all of them.So what's the best strategy to grow in virtue? Because it needs to be something that's intentional. We're striving for excellence. But we also don't want to go to the access of even that, right? Of wanting to grow in virtue. This idea of, I guess that would be fortitude, maybe even prudence, temperance. Really it's all of them, justice.

Teresa Morris:

Two million.

Will Wright:

I mean, all the cardinal virtues come into play in what I'm suggesting here. So what's a, what's a practical way that we can move forward in a life of virtue?

Teresa Morris:

Mm-hmm. One of the things I always talk to my students about when I'm first introducing this idea because it can it can seem either overwhelming or super exciting where you're like, oh my gosh Yeah, I really want to be a virtuous person and then it can become sort of a self-help thing where it's like I got to change my whole life and you know, I'm gonna be I'm gonna dominate I'm gonna be like the best virtuous person

Will Wright:

Be the best version of yourself... Sorry... Hate that phrase. Anyway, we're not talking about that right now. I feel like every conversation video I'm dunking on some famous Catholic person. I'm sorry, Matthew Kelly

Teresa Morris:

We love him, we love him. Thank you for all your free books. We really appreciate that as a church.

Will Wright:

Of course, they're not very good, but. Sorry, I don't like them. I think they're terrible. I think the first couple were great. Rediscovering Catholicism

Teresa Morris:

Oh man...

Will Wright:

has a lot of merit. The most recent ones were clearly not even written by him. He maybe edited them from like five different sources. I read them in like one sitting and just thought it was trash, which is probably uncharitable of me to say publicly. But you know what? We're about being authentic here on Good Distinctions.

Teresa Morris:

They might be for people in different places in their faith.

Will Wright:

Super helpful for some people. And you know what? God bless them.

Teresa Morris:

Yeah. We're happy about that. Yeah. You never know what's going to hit for someone, but, anyways, be the best version of yourself. Yeah. It can kind of become our own God instead of God being our God.

Will Wright:

I'm a jerk. Sorry, continue. Yes, that's my issue with it. It's very self-help-y, which there's nothing wrong with self-help. I mean, Jordan Peterson was talking about this on a podcast not long ago. He goes, well, what's wrong with, I'm not gonna do the impression because I'm terrible at it, but what's wrong with self-help? What's wrong with helping yourself? You can't do everything by yourself, but there's nothing wrong with a little bit of that. It's. Not. Nothing.

Teresa Morris:

Which is true. It's not nothing.

Will Wright:

That's my favorite Jordan Peterson-ism. Anyway, I'm gonna stop. I'm gonna stop cutting you off.

Teresa Morris:

Bring on the accents. This is good. So yeah, I mean, I think that the way that it's it doesn't just become yeah, this sense of I need to dominate myself and I just become this self-help obsessed person is by really said, I think this is where the examination of conscience can come in, where you're actually looking at where you are, like taking a true honest stock of where you're at in your life and what you're genuinely struggling with and picking one thing. And so for me, that always comes with like, what do I keep confessing that I just am like, this is just part of my confession and saying, Oh, I sometimes I forget I can actually eradicate that from my life and that comes both with the help of my own Cultivation of virtue the way that I choose to live my life saying I'm not gonna put myself in positions where This is gonna be a temptation and being intentional about that but also trusting that grace is efficacious and it is going to help and so The way is a Catholic. I think we have this You know kind of easier route to virtue because it's my own my own striving with grace right that grace is building on nature so i would say just yeah taking an honest stock of your life looking at you know if you go to confession what are you consistently confessing and what is bothering you the most about what you're consistently confessing what would you really if you could say i could just be done with this thing in my life that this could be gone what would you what's the one thing you would hope would be gone and working on that. And again, we learn virtue through imitation. So seeking people out, if you don't have people in your circle, right? Like you're in college or whatever, and you're just like, oh my gosh, I'm just surrounded by a bunch of other 19 year olds and they're also struggling with this. So like, what do I do? Be in contact with people, even if you're not physically around them who have that, or consume things that... are from people who cultivate this virtue. So, you know, watching YouTube, reading books, whatever, so that what is entering your being is at least coming from places that are cultivating this virtue that you're trying to cultivate within yourself. What would you say?

Will Wright:

And the examination of conscience is a great place to start because it lets God set the tone. It lets Him lead. Because if we try to see ourselves, we're never going to get it right. Not completely. We're actually really horrible at seeing ourselves. It's usually in retrospect and it's usually with the help of friends that we can see ourselves more clearly. But if we're seeking to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to see as God sees, to really have the gift of wisdom to see the world as God sees it and the gift of understanding to understand how God sees us. If we use those gifts, combine it with everything you've said about virtue and growth, I think a daily examination of conscience is huge. It's a game changer for sure. And I would also recommend, I don't know what your thoughts are on this, but I try to go to confession at least once every two weeks. because that seems to be what the saints by and large did. And it seems like a really good practice. And frankly, I can't remember anything past two weeks. So it's practically good as well. And they say confession is good for the soul, yes. But the sacrament of penance especially is this channel of grace. It's this communion with the cross of Jesus Christ in a very real sense. where we can enter into the reality of the cross, give everything over to our crucified Lord and say, I'm broken, I can't do this on my own, but I trust that you can. So just to piggyback on what you said, not only should we work towards eradicating sin in our lives, especially mortal sins, but we should believe and trust that Jesus can do it. And I feel like that's so hard for people sometimes. I know it's been hard for me in my own life. It's like, man, I'm confessing the same sin every single time I go to confession. Well, yeah, that seems to be a pretty, after I've talked to more people, it's a pretty darn universal thing. So we generally fall into the same sins. That doesn't mean that we're beyond redemption. It doesn't mean that we're extra broken. But I also don't like it when people say, well, we're only human. It's like, no, shush. The most perfect human is Jesus and he didn't

Teresa Morris:

right.

Will Wright:

... sin at all and Mary didn't sin at all. So it's perfectly possible. So stop saying that. But, you know, our feelings are there, but if we trust that Jesus can free us, uh, and wants to, it's just a matter of when, and that's not up to us. So we move forward and we trust in him and we say, yes, Lord, I know that you will free me of this. I'm going to do my part. I'm going to cooperate with grace. I'm going to continue to grow in virtue as I am able with your grace, because as soon as we eradicate that one sin, another one will pop up until we die. And that's just the way it goes.

Teresa Morris:

It's a journey of being human. Yeah. I will also, I'll say two things just because confession came up, because I know confession can be something that's really terrifying for a lot of people. And it's helpful to remember that the church is really rooting for you, that confession can sometimes feel like this is just a place of judgment and you know I'm upset with myself, I'm beating myself up and then I feel like a priest is going to beat me up and really that it's a place where the church is rooting for you and rooting for your soul, rooting for your redemption and it's a place of hope and if you've had a bad experience in confession I'm so sorry but the grace of the sacrament remains no matter what and that It should not be a place where you're experiencing judgment. It should be a place of healing and hope. And that the church isn't just saying, we don't want you to be a bad person. The church is saying, I want you to be free. And so it's a place of freedom for you. The other point in that is that when you're looking at the things that you consistently struggle with, so your vices, the places that are hard, and that's gonna be different for everyone, the things that we consistently fall into. What is so hopeful and beautiful about that is that often the places that we struggle the most, the place of our vice is also the place where Christ can do the most work in our life. And it's the flip of that is gonna be the virtue sometimes that you will excel the most in. So for example, if someone really falls into gossip often, their virtue perhaps, like the virtue that they might really thrive in is speaking truth because there's something about their temperament that's oriented towards towards speaking and that vices don't just eradicate in our lives, but Christ transforms those places. Christ doesn't just knock things out. He actually like turns the place of death into something more beautiful. So these places where you're struggling can actually be the exact place that your virtue can come from. So there's something really hopeful.

Will Wright:

Amen. Well, that's good note to end on, because it's all about Jesus and it's all about what He can do in our lives.

Teresa Morris:

It is. He's great.

Will Wright:

So Teresa, it's been a great conversation on virtue. And for everyone listening, if you haven't yet subscribed to us on YouTube, please do so at Good Distinctions. You can like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram. We post reels and shorts occasionally. We plan on doing a few more things like Instagram live or perhaps a monthly zoom call more on that to come. So just to peak your interest and then leave you hanging. But we'll see more about that. To do that, please sign up with your email on Substack. You can do that by going to gooddistinctions.com. That's where we post absolutely everything. So if you don't wanna miss everything or anything rather, go to gooddistinctions.com and sign up for free. where there's also a paid subscription option. We're formulating kind of what you might get for that, but at the moment it's sort of just to support us and help us keep going. So gooddistinctions.com, please sign up there. You can also follow us on Instagram and YouTube.

Teresa Morris:

We appreciate it.

Will Wright:

Today we talked about virtue as being the mean between an excess and efficiency. We talked about some practical matters, how we can grow in virtue, and we took a lot of tangents along the way, which all led us back to the end and very St. John Paul the second fashion, I'd say, of kind of going all the way around something to get back to the heart

Teresa Morris:

Yeah.

Will Wright:

of it. So it's been a wonderful conversation. Thanks for joining us and we'll see you next week on Good Distinctions because good distinctions are

Teresa Morris:

The Spice of Life. We'll see you next time.

In episode 4, Teresa Morris and Will Wright discuss the new movie Oppenheimer, but, more importantly, get right into the nitty gritty of the morality of atomic weaponry and later developments during the Cold War. This is a significant conversation about a lot of aspects of Catholic teaching that you will not want to miss! Give it a listen! Listen to episode 4 and then come join us as a free or paid subscriber here at https://gooddistinctions.com/

If you find this content helpful, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is what will allow us to continue to produce more episodes on topics that will benefit you and your friends and family in practical and fruitful ways, God willing!

NOTE: This article from May 2023 was fairly popular, so I decided to record it for YouTube and for the Podcast streams. Enjoy, and please comment, like, and share!

Introduction

This is not an article refuting various theological points of the Society of St. Pius X. It is not an extensive refutation of the pernicious errors of sedevacantism. What it aims to be is a reiteration of what the Church Herself is, who we are in relationship to Her, and a warning to avoid the grave sin of schism.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. This Church is visible and clearly manifest. Jesus is not trying to trick us. God, our Father, desires our salvation. The Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church. Our Blessed Mother never ceases to intercede for us. No matter how bleak things seem, staying in the Barque of Peter is always the best option. 

What is the Church of Jesus Christ?

During the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, the Council Fathers took up the task of writing a Dogmatic Constitution (the highest magisterial level of a Church document) on the Church Herself. The Mystery of the Church is expounded in this constitution: Lumen Gentium. Promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI in November 1964, the Council Fathers provided a clear and beautiful description of Holy Mother Church.

Found in paragraph 8 of Lumen Gentium, in particular, is a nuanced and gorgeous explication of the Church. Passages such as these must be read in continuity with everything that came before this moment in the Church or we run the risk of reading it outside of the heart and mind of the Church. One word, especially, provides difficulty for some readers of Lumen Gentium: “subsists.” However, I hope to show, in short order, that this word is inspired. The paragraph begins: 

“Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (LG, 8; emphasis added).”

Let us pause here for a moment. To summarize: Christ is the one Mediator between God and man and the Church which He established and continually sustains is His Church. In a strongly analogous sense, the Church is both human and divine because there is a visible structure but an internal cohesion as well. 

The passage continues:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth.’ This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

If we understand that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, founded a Church two thousand years ago, then we can acclaim rightly that this Church is divinely constituted. As the Church has always affirmed, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This Church is visible. As Lumen Gentium, this Church IS the one Church of Christ professed in the Creed. So, why do folks have a problem with the phrase “subsists in?” Generally, it is due to a suspicion of the Second Vatican Council that sees the modernist boogeyman in every page of the documents of this Council. 

The Latin phrase used “subsistit in” is actually quite ancient, the meaning going back at least to the terminology of Aristotle. It means to exist as a substance. In other words, the Church was founded by Christ and has been sustained by Him as one, true, substantive thing. This one Church is the Catholic Church. So, why not just say is (est in Latin)? Well, not to belabor the point, but they did! The first part of the paragraph containing “subsistit in” begins: “Haec est unica Christi Ecclesia (this is the one Church of Christ).” The Council Fathers are not disputing the understanding of the Catholic Church as the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Church of Jesus Christ can be encountered as a concrete subject only in the Catholic Church. The “elements of sanctification and of truth” outside the visible structure of the Church are the reality that God is present and operative in the Sacraments, such as Baptism and Matrimony, in Protestant communities and present and operative in all seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Churches. Nonetheless, the Church subsists only in the Catholic Church. These elements of sanctification are not substantial and concrete instantiations of the Church of Jesus Christ apart from the Catholic Church, rather they are an admittance that moves as He wills and is drawing all people to Himself in the Catholic Church. This is true ecumenism: being willing instruments in helping the Holy Spirit guide all persons to the truth and fullness of the Catholic Church, which is visible and concrete. 

To take another approach, we could say that when God effects a Sacrament or moves in grace and power outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church, it is nonetheless a fact that “the one Church of Christ has an operative presence in them (Ut Unum Sint, 8),” as St. John Paul II wrote. So, if someone is saved by sacramental grace, it is still only by the grace flowing from the one true Church of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church, our sacrament of salvation on Earth. 

How Can We Identify the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church has always been visible, though admittedly clandestine in certain circumstances. We can think here of the difficult situation in China today or of the Church in Communist nations in the 20th Century. Or we can look at England under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Or under Roman persecutions or Muslim occupations. Nonetheless, the Church was founded by Christ and continues to be sustained by Him and guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit. 

The four marks of the Church are present in fullness in the Catholic Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Church is one because Christ is one. In the inner life of the Trinity, there is no disunity. Likewise, the Church cannot have disunity, as it is the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church is holy because Christ is holy, though it is composed of sinners. The Church is catholic because it is universal (Greek: katholou - “according to the whole”). God desires the salvation of all and our Blessed Lord commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth. This apostolicity finds fruition not only being built upon the successors of the Apostles, but it is also firmly set on apostolic teaching. As a result, the Church has a true unity of governance, preaching, teaching, and means of sanctification.

The Catholic Church has a visible hierarchical structure. The successors of the Apostles are the bishops of the Catholic Church - this is historically provable. However, apostolic does not only mean the successors of the Apostles exist. If that were the case, then the Orthodox Churches would rightly be considered apostolic. However, apostolicity also requires the recognition that Jesus designated Peter as the Prince of the Apostles. The Papacy is the succession of this Petrine office. The teaching authority of Christ passed on to the Apostles, the Magisterium, is thus the successor of Peter in union with all the successors of the Apostles. In other words, it is the Pope in union with all the bishops of the world. 

The Church of Jesus Christ will thus be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. It will have a visible hierarchy of the Pope, bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and lay people. Just as a body, the Church will have a metabolism, an internal means of sustenance, as well. This is clearly the Holy Eucharist: the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of a sacrament. There will be actual church buildings. There will be assemblies of the faithful. The visible Catholic Church will be manifest and clear to all who seek Her out, because Jesus is not trying to trick us. 

Good Distinctions is free to read and listen, but if you have appreciated the channel, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for as little as $5/month. It would greatly help us continue to produce content - Podcasts and YouTube software and equipment aren’t cheap! Thank you for your consideration and prayers!

What is Radical Traditionalism?

Finally, with a working understanding of what is meant by the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, we can turn our attention to “radical traditionalism.” Granted, this is a term which means as many different things as “conservative” and “liberal” do in American politics. 

My usage of the term is pragmatic, more than descriptive. A Catholic ought to be traditional, in the fullest sense of the term. A Catholic also ought to be radical, in the sense that radical comes from the Latin radix meaning “root.” We are rooted in Jesus Christ, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

The Southern Poverty Law Center associates Radical Traditionalism with white supremacy, anti-immigrant attitudes, and anti-Semitism. Though there is some correlation in reality between radical traditionalist communities and these ideologies, there is no causation. In general Catholic circles, the main characteristic of radical traditionalism is not only a preference for the Latin Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962, but a tacit (if not explicit) rejection of the Roman Missal of 1970 (called the “Novus Ordo”). Further, “radical traditionalists” reject the Second Vatican Council, usually in its entirety. They see it as heretical nonsense, unfaithful, and a divergence from the true Faith. 

The term “radical traditionalist” is often wrongly associated with thrown around against those who attend the Holy Mass with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), and other communities in full and complete union with Rome. This needs to stop. These communities are obedient to the Holy Father and their local ordinary. They do not reject Vatican II or the Novus Ordo. They have a deep love and reverence for the Vetus Ordo (the Old Order of Mass and the Sacraments) and have permission to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy according to that charism. Simply having a preference for the Latin Mass does not make someone a “radical traditionalist.” 

Radical Traditionalism is a rejection of Catholicism, underneath the veneer of a heroic savior-complex of safeguarding Tradition against the Modernists. Now, I want to be clear: Modernism is a serious problem in the Church and the world today. Pope St. Pius X referred to Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. Ultimately, it is a denial of the supernatural and of mediation. This liberalizing tendency should be fought tooth and nail, without doubt! But what we cannot do is reject the Second Vatican Council, deny the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, or choose to be disobedient to the competent authority. 

What is Sedevacantism?

One of the loudest voices within radical traditionalism (at least on Twitter) is sedevacantism. Sede means “seat” in Latin and vacante means “empty.” Sedevacantists believe that due to formal heresy, the sitting pope lost the papacy. Usually, these groups will maintain that Pope Pius XII was the last valid pope, others will make arguments for Pope John XXIII and I have even heard one argument for Pope Paul VI (though this one makes the least sense). 

Mario Derksen of “Novus Ordo Watch” in his talk “Eclipse of the Church: The Case for Sedevacantism” on October 8, 2021 lays out his arguments. I do not intend to litigate them here, but I will share part of the conclusion of his talk: 

“If Francis and his five predecessors of unhappy memory were true Popes, then the forces of darkness would indeed have prevailed. Then the ‘most deadly foes of the Catholic religion,’ as Pope Pius IX called them, would have triumphed, then the ‘proud gates of hell’ would have succeeded in overthrowing the Chair of Truth and turning it into a fount of blasphemy and heresy. Then what had been the ‘citadel and bulwark of the Catholic faith’ would have become the bulldozer of Catholicism.”

So, for the sedevacantist, none of the Popes since Pope Pius XII have been true Popes. For those who are curious, that would be since 1958. For the last 65 years, the Members of the Body of Christ have been misled en masse, according to this view. Further, with virtually all of the cardinals, bishops, and priests complicit in this great apostasy, how are we to restore the Church to its former glory? 

Again, I do not intend to debate sedevacantism here because, frankly, I think the position is so intuitively absurd that it would be a waste of time to do so. If Mario Derksen is being honest about his own conclusions, he would likely agree. In the paragraph directly before what I have already quoted, he says:

“Yes, we are happy to call it ‘Sedevacantism,’ but it really isn’t an ‘-ism’ other than Catholicism during these perplexing times. It is a theological position that ‘creates itself’, as it were, after we’ve ruled out the things we know to be impossible in light of the timeless truths of the Catholic Faith. Sedevacantism is what is left once we have rejected what is clearly false.”

In other words, in the face of the entire Mystical Body of Christ on Earth, including five legitimately elected Popes, the sedevacantist chooses to trust his or her feelings rather than trusting that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church. I cannot think of anything more modernist than that.

However, I will be honest. I am sympathetic to the sedevacantist view. We do live in troubling times. The Popes of recent memory, even the amazing St. John Paul II and the incredible Pope Benedict XVI, have made some strange choices and prudential decisions. Further, many bishops and priests have said and done horrifically scandalous things without any sense of justice of discipline meted out by the Church. But this is not an excuse to abandon reason and play the hero who is “preserving” the Church precisely by leaving it. Because, make no mistake, sedevacantism is formal schism. 

Though there are many independent sedevacantist churches, the most prominent are the Roman Catholic Institute (RCI), Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), St. Gertrude the Great Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI). If you want a more substantive refutation of Sedevacantism, I would recommend this fantastic resource from Noah Perez at Catholicism Coffee entitled “3 New Arguments Against Sedevacantism.”

What is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)? 

In this article I want to outline some of the dangers of radical traditionalism. This article would get far too broad if I began refuting various points or getting into the nitty gritty. Those resources exist. My goal, again, is only to show some of the spiritual dangers posed by sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist radical traditionalists. 

The largest group of “radical traditionalist Catholicism” is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Officially, the SSPX is not sedevacantist. They acknowledge the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff and his predecessors. However, they reject the Second Vatican Council because they believe it contains theological errors and heresy. They reject large parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Over half of priests and most of the original and current leadership of SSPX reject the New Mass as containing elements dangerous for the Faith. 

Since the days of Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre, they have conducted illicit ordinations of bishops and priests and consecrations. The Society has even discouraged its followers from attending the Latin Mass offered by priests in full and manifest union with Rome because of the belief that these ordinations are deficient because they were conducted by a revised rite. 

 The website of the Society of Saint Pius X claims that “no canonical censures against the SSPX have ever existed (SSPX).” They also claim that the “persecution” of the SSPX is political in nature and that any notions of excommunication and schism are “false accusations.” To the contrary, Pope St. John Paul II through the Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops publicly decreed on July 1, 1988 that Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre and the four new bishops he consecrated illicitly had incurred the penalty of excommunication. The legitimacy of these excommunications was further clarified and reiterated by the Vatican in 1996 and 1998. 

More recently, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have made great strides in attempting to normalize the canonical status of the SSPX. Admittedly the level of ambiguity of their current canonical status among informed and very bright Catholics is puzzling to me. What is clear to me, though, is the spirit of disobedience that runs rampant through the SSPX. For example, the SSPX do not believe that they are in Schism (or ever were) nor do they believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated (he was and that excommunication has not been lifted). Their reasoning can be found on their own website archives: 

“No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin (SSPX).”

Archbishop Lefevbre believed, erroneously, that if he did not gravely disobey the Pope, then the Catholic priesthood would not continue. And they say that this was not a mortal sin; actually, they say that it was no sin at all. There are recent books that continue this line of thinking, such as SSPX “apologist” Kennedy Hall’s new defense of the Society. This thinking is ridiculous and insidious. For a more sufficient refutation of this line of reasoning, I would recommend this 2008 article on the excommunications from Cathy Caridi, J.C.L. of Canon Law Made Easy. 

The disobedience of the SSPX is insidious because they believe they are the saviors of Catholicism and that they alone are safeguarding Tradition from the Modernist Church. However, unlike the sedevacantists, they still acknowledge the rightfully elected Pope and his authority. They simply choose to be disobedient. In some regards, this position is even less tenable and less sympathetic than full-blown sedevacantism. 

The SSPX has significantly more faculties under some of the allowances granted by Pope Francis. Pope Francis gave priests of the SSPX faculties to validly and licitly absolve sins; this is a faculty granted by the local ordinary regularly. They were also granted faculties to witness Holy Matrimony validly and licitly. Those within the Society argue that this shows that they are not in schism and they are in union with Rome. I think it says more about Holy Mother Church’s care for souls who are currently under the care of the Society than it does about the priests and leadership of SSPX. These are not canonical changes; they are indults (extension of legal authority in an action that the Church does not sanction). 

The reality is that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they have no canonical status in the Church, and they are in schism (just as the Orthodox Churches are in schism). There is an excellent compilation of references by prominent clergymen about the reality of schism of the SSPX by no less than Cardinals Burke and Mueller here. 

A Schismatic Spirit is Deadly

The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Sedevacantism and positions such as that of the SSPX do harm to each of the four marks of the Church. The clear and manifest schism of sedevacantism is a wound to all four marks of the Church, but so is the ambiguous and insidious schismatic spirit of the SSPX. 

The Church of Jesus Christ is one, with Christ as Head and we as Members of His Mystical Body. This is an invisible reality but it is also clearly visible and hierarchical. As a Catholic, to reject the Vicar of Christ as the head of the Church on Earth is to reject Christ Himself. It is to cut off oneself from the Church. Of course, we pray for reconciliation and unity! As long as someone has breath in their lungs it is not too late to repent and return. However, we need to understand that schism is a grave evil on the same canonical level as formal heresy and apostasy. To leave the Barque of Peter in times of turbulent water is a misguided plan. 

Yes, times are difficult. Yes, the Church is in crisis. But Jesus Christ is not in crisis. He is asleep on the bench as the waves and wind rock and batter the boat. He is with us and all we need to do is call upon Him; He will calm the raging sea. Instead, if we trust in our own power, we will drown. If we make ourselves the authority, we will be doing the will of the Enemy rather than the Holy Will of the Father. If we are to love Christ and His one, true Church then we must avoid radical traditionalism and every sense of a schismatic spirit with a holy fervor. Noone knows better than Holy Mother Church. Times are tough. But the Church of Jesus Christ is the one place to be. A schismatic spirit is deadly to the soul.

As St. Augustine said: “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.”

Good Distinctions is free to read and listen, but if you have appreciated the channel, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for as little as $5/month. It would greatly help us continue to produce content - Podcasts and YouTube software and equipment aren’t cheap! Thank you for your consideration and prayers!

Introduction

Each person has a slightly different perspective, even if the truth remains the same. The reality of the object under observation does not change because someone is viewing it. Instead, we just see it differently. This can result from different individual experiences, genetic predispositions, cultural or religious backgrounds, and even the context of a given moment. Sometimes, making good distinctions is finding the both/and that characterizes the Catholic approach rather than a sterile either/or approach.

Most words have one particular meaning, but there are some words which are packed with multiple meanings. Words which hold the most versatility of meaning are those things that are most fundamental to human existence: water, fire, and the sun. Water is life-giving but it can cause us to drown. Fire gives warmth and cooks our food, but it can easily kill us as well. One of the most vital substances in our life is blood. That is what I want to investigate today, especially the symbolic meaning of blood in Sacred Scripture. 

What is the symbolic meaning of blood? Oftentimes, when we hear the word blood, a few different things might come to mind. One of the first things I think about is vampires, horror movies, and Halloween. A medical professional might immediately think of life and a healthy circulatory system. Most of the time when we see blood, it is associated with injury, bleeding, and the resulting pain, trauma, and potentially medical procedures. Or maybe human blood did not even come to mind, maybe you pictured a nice, juicy ribeye steak.

Whatever the case may be, blood is vital to our being alive. But seeing it outside of our body’s is an indication that something is seriously wrong. The imagery and symbolism of blood in the Bible is no less complicated and really interesting to investigate.

Old Testament

Cain and Abel - Innocent Blood Crying Out to God

In the fourth Chapter of the Book of Genesis, after the Fall of man, we the sons of Adam: Cain and Abel. Abel is a shepherd and Cain works the ground. God was pleased with Abel’s offering but not with Cain’s. The response of Cain was anger and God offered him a warning: “...if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it (Gen. 4:7).”

Cain, in anger and jealousy, committed the first murder. The unity of the family of man was shattered. Not only was it murder, it was fratricide.

“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ He said, ‘I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?’ And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth (Gen. 4:9-12).’” 

We know from the first two chapters of Genesis that God created man in His image and likeness, and we know that He breathed life into the first man. Human life is precious to God. The shedding of innocent human blood, by Cain, is an abomination. The voice of Abel’s blood, the Lord says, is crying out to Him from the ground. This is an odd thing to say. Blood does not usually cry out. God is highlighting that innocent human life and the bodily integrity of that innocent person is important to Him. The shedding of innocent blood cries out for justice. 

The innocent blood of Abel has even cursed the ground, by Cain’s hand. Cain is a worker of the ground and now it bears him nothing, and it is all his doing. Thus, we see the devastating effects of sin. Even once forgiven, some sins, like murder, can never be put right. Though God does not destroy Cain, He rightly demands restitution and even dishes out divine punishment in justice. So far, we see that blood is life and innocent life belongs untouched. Further, when innocent blood is spilled, there are catastrophic consequences. 

Exodus - the Nile Turning to Blood

During the ten plagues of the Lord against Pharaoh in the Book of Exodus and the false Egyptian deities, He turns the Nile River to blood. Pharaoh, yet again, did not let the Israelites go out into the desert to worship God. Like the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, this direct refusal to obey God demands justice and retribution. God demonstrates his power over nature and his power over the Egyptian god Hapi who the Egyptians believed to bring fertility to the land with the annual flooding of the Nile. 

Just as blood is necessary in the human body, water is necessary in the veins of Egypt to sustain and irrigate the crops. By turning the Nile to blood, fish died, the water was non-potable, and the economy of the region took a severe hit. It is interesting that blood, which is so necessary for life, was the cause of so much death and chaos. Though blood in the Nile was death for the Egyptians, it was eventually life and freedom for the Israelites.

Exodus - the Blood of the Passover Lamb

This dual symbolism of blood, of life and death, is exceptionally prominent in the Passover. The Israelites are in bondage to the Egyptians and over the course of nine plagues, Pharaoh refused to let God’s People go into the wilderness to worship Him. In the tenth and final plague, God took the lives of every firstborn in the land. The way that Angel of Death would know to “pass over” the homes of the Israelites, and thus spare the firstborn, was to sacrifice a lamb and mark their doorposts with its blood. The next day, they hastily departed from Egypt and were freed. 

In the Passover, we see the blood of the lamb preserving the Israelites from death. Some time later, we see the Blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God, preserving those in covenant with Him from eternal death. By the death of this sacrificial lamb, the People of God were granted life. Not only were they preserved from life, but the blood of the lamb allowed them to enter into a new life of freedom.  

The Old Law and Animal Sacrifice

In the Old Covenant, animals were offered as sacrifices, first on makeshift altars, then the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and then later in the Temple in Jerusalem. The animal was slaughtered in a particular, ritualistic way and the blood of the animal was offered on the altar. Then, the remaining portions of the animal were consumed. Though, as I mentioned, the blood of animals could not be eaten.

We read in Genesis 9:4: “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood (Gen. 9:4)” and in Leviticus 17:14: 

“For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off (Lev. 17:14).”

This understanding of blood being life does not only apply to animals. The name of Adam, the first man, is derived from two Hebrew words: dam and adamah. Adamah means earth or ground, because God formed him from the dust of the ground. The second word dam means “blood” because he is not a clay sculpture; he is a living man, who has blood coursing through his veins.

Since the first man, blood has been integral to the covenants of God. The covenant with Adam was made in his being given life, by God mixing blood and earth. The covenant with Abraham required animal sacrifice and thus blood was spilled. Further, the sign of the covenant with Abraham was circumcision. The Noahic Covenant likewise has a connection to blood and animal sacrifice. When Noah and his family emerged from the Ark, they took some of every clean animal and bird and offered them upon the altar. We have already spoken on some elements of the Mosaic Covenant. The final Old Covenant is the covenant with David. 

Under David, animal sacrifice continued, but we see a different connection with blood. In this case, the covenant with David refers to establishing his kingdom forever, through his bloodline. The ancient Jewish understanding of bloodlines is quite potent, in no small part because of the division of the twelve tribes of the sons of Jacob.

Sprinkling Blood on the Congregation

Before we move on to the New Covenant, I want to look at one more event that might be peculiar to modern sensibilities. When Moses delivered the Law to the People, they said to him: “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do (Ex. 24:3).” After this, he wrote down all the words of the Lord and got up early to build an altar. He sent off young men of Israel to offer burnt offerings and sacrifice animals to God. Then, he gathered half of the blood and put it in basins and half of the blood was thrown against the altar. 

After this, Moses read the Ten Commandments and the entire Mosaic Law and then he took the blood and threw it on the people! That is not normal and not something that had been done before. So, what is Moses doing? Well, blood is life. This was the confirming of the covenant of Moses between God and His People. Moses said to the people: “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words (Ex. 24:8).” Covenants are more than mere earthly promises because they are based on the steadfast love and fidelity of Almighty God. A covenant made in blood is unbreakable, especially when God is involved. 

Good Distinctions is a reader and listener supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The New Testament

Blood of the New Covenant - the New Passover

Now is a good time to move on to the New Covenant. At the Last Supper, Jesus says that He is establishing a new and everlasting Covenant in His Blood. When blessing the cup of wine, Jesus said: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table (Lk. 22:20-21).” And, of course, Jesus knew what was coming imminently. 

In Catholic understanding, the Last Supper is not just some ritual, it is intimately and metaphysically connected with the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus. So, the cup which Jesus gave to His Apostles on the night before He was to suffer was not a metaphor. Outside of space and time, Jesus held in His holy and venerable Hands His own Blood shed on the Cross for the salvation of man. There is a lot more to say here, but if you want to learn more about the Holy Mass and this subject, in particular, check out Praying the Mass in the back catalog, especially sessions 4 and 5.

Of course the Blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus, is a New Passover. By being covered by the Blood of the Lamb through Baptism, we enter into a covenant relationship with God. We are marked for eternal life and as long as we remain in Christ and He in us, everlasting death will not touch us. 

Blood and Water Pouring from the Side of Christ

The Holy Blood of the God-man is far more precious than anything that came before. If the blood of Abel cried out from the ground for justice, imagine the crying out from the ground of the innocent Blood of the Son of God! Jesus, unlike Abel, went to His death willingly. So, the justice in Christ’s Cross is that His love and mercy be fulfilled and sinful man would be redeemed.

When Jesus breathed His last, the centurion at the foot of the Cross, traditionally known as St. Longinus, thrust his spear into the side of Christ. In a moment which is miraculous and beautiful, blood and water flowed. The life-giving Blood of Jesus Christ, shed on the Cross, began the restoration of all of Creation. In the water, we see the Sacrament of Baptism. In the Blood, we see the Holy Eucharist. By these great Sacraments, we are reconciled with Almighty God. In Baptism, we die with Him and rise with Him; in a real sense, His Blood washes us clean. In the Holy Eucharist, we bring the Body and Blood of Jesus into our own body and soul. Our blood mixes with His. 

The Blood of the Martyrs

The word martyrs means witnesses in Greek. The tradition of the Church, there is white martyrdom and red martyrdom. White martyrdom is where a person lives their life as a shining witness to Christ and the Gospel. Red martyrdom is called this because of the blood of the martyrs being shed. Out of love of Christ, the martyrs face death rather than renounce Christ. Their lives and the shedding of their blood become a testament to their convictions and God’s grace. 

In the Book of Revelation chapter 16, the bowls of wrath are being poured out by seven angels in the vision of St. John. Many of these plagues mirror the plagues of the Exodus. The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and they became blood, exactly like the Nile turning to blood. St. John records the angel saying:

“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve! (Rev. 16:5-6)”

In God’s justice, those who spill innocent blood earn just judgment, just like Cain for killing his brother Abel. But God is teaching us that His justice always triumphs. In the Cross of Jesus, we know that His justice is accompanied by love and mercy. But what do the saints and prophets merit by the shedding of their blood for the love of God? They receive eternal life in Heaven with God forever! And what is more, the Church benefits from their martyrdom in torrents of grace. 

The ecclesial writer Tertullian is often quoted as saying, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” But this quote cannot be sourced effectively. What he says in Apologeticus in Latin is “Plures efficimur, quotiens metimur a vobis: semen est sanguis Christianorum” which more literally translated  it: “When you reap us, we multiply. The blood of Christians is seed.” Both phrases show that when Christians are killed for love of Jesus, the Church abounds in grace all the more. But I love this detail of the more literal translation: “when you reap us, we multiply.” God does not desire the death of the innocent, as we saw with Cain and Abel. But He does allow it and He brings a greater good from it. When we are reaped by God, the chaff of our sinfulness falls away and the grain is all that remains. We enter Heaven in the triumph of Christ’s Cross. All you holy men and women martyrs for Jesus, pray for us!

The Both/And, Meaning, and Good Distinctions

I hope that this little walk through Sacred Scripture has been interesting. It certainly was for me when putting it together! What God has revealed to us is so marvelous. He writes straight with crooked lines over the course of millenia. He is so immensely practical, as well. God knows that we are body and soul, and so he uses symbols like blood to communicate His perfect love, gratuitous mercy, and steadfast justice to us.

But I hope that this conversation about the many meanings of blood shows us that the both/and approach is far more fruitful than a limiting either/or approach. Words have meaning, regardless of what modern society and academia say. But that does not preclude words from having layers of true meaning. It is good to apply this lesson about the multiplicity of meaning to other topics, as they arise. 

So, next time you are talking to someone and they say, “No, no. That only means this!” And you start getting frustrated and you start “seeing red,” think about your blood pressure which is probably rising, take a deep breath, and make some good distinctions!

Thank you for reading and listening to Good Distinctions. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Thank you for listening to Good Distinctions. This post is public so feel free to share it.

EPISODE 3 - BEING JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF OPEN-MINDED

In episode 3, Teresa Morris and Will Wright begin by discussing a quote from G.K. Chesterton: “The object of an open mind is that of an open mouth, to shut it again on something solid.” How can we be open-minded while holding to our convictions? How can we have a fruitful conversation with someone with whom we vehemently disagree about an important matter? Was Abraham Lincoln a good president? Okay… Honest Abe comes up, but it’s tangential… Listen to Episode 3 today!

Good Distinctions is a listener-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube: @gooddistinctions