Good Distinctions

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

If you missed Part 1, please check that out first HERE!

Part II: The Practice of Love by the Church as a “Community of Love” (19 - 39)

Now that the exploration of the concept of love is finished, Pope Benedict turns his attention to the concrete. We have answered what love is, now we see how love is lived. 

The Church’s charitable activity as a manifestation of Trinitarian love (19)

Part II begins by speaking on the Church’s charitable activity as a manifestation of Trinitarian love. Concretely there is nothing more *real* than the Blessed Trinity. The Godhead is a unity of three Divine Persons who are in a community of life and love: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father eternally begets and loves the Son, the perfect self-image of the Father, who eternally reflects that perfect love back to the Father. The love outpoured eternally between Father and Son is the Person of the Holy Spirit, proceeding from each eternally. If nothing I said makes any sense, that is okay! Trinitarian theology is remarkably complicated and nuanced because it is the mystery of God, as He is. 

Mystery though it is, God is the source of all, as Trinity. And so, how can we recognize the Trinity? The Pope quotes St. Augustine in saying: “If you see charity, you see the Trinity (19).”

God created all things, seen and unseen, in a plan of sheer loving goodness. When God sent His Son to assume our humanity, He invited us, in love, to share in His divinity. We can say that the mystery of the Church is the drawing of men into the mystery of God. The Father “wishes to make humanity a single family in his Son (19).” He does this through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit who the Pope speaks of as “the energy which transforms the heart of the ecclesial community, so that it becomes a witness before the world to the love of the Father (19).” 

Gathering all men to Himself as the Church, the Father “seeks the integral good of man (19).” This seeking of our good, the Pope says, is an expression of love in the entire activity of the Church. By His Word and the Sacraments, the Church shares the reality of the Good News of Jesus Christ with the world. What greater love can we share with our fellow man than the work of evangelization?

Charity as a responsibility of the Church (20 - 25)

This outward act of love of evangelization does not end with the spiritual but also includes the corporal. Charity is a responsibility of the whole Church, clergy, religious, and laity.

From the beginning, Jesus Christ established the Church upon four pillars, outlined by Acts 2:42: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” These four pillars give structure to the Church in every age and are reflected in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The apostolic teaching is doctrine. Fellowship, also translated as communal life, is the moral life in Christ. The breaking of the bread is the early term for the Eucharist and for the Sacraments generally. And prayer is Christian prayer, perfectly expressed in the Our Father which our Lord gave us.

Pope Benedict gives attention in paragraph 20 of Deus Caritas Est to this idea of fellowship, communion, or communal life. The Greek word in Acts is koinonia. Koinonia “consists in the fact that believers hold all things in common and that among them, there is no longer any distinction between rich and poor (20).” This sort of radical communal life is part and parcel of early Christianity. But as the Pope remarks:

“As the Church grew, this radical form of material communion could not in fact be preserved. But its essential core remained: within the community of believers there can never be room for a poverty that denies anyone what is needed for a dignified life (20).”

When it became necessary, the Church instituted the clerical office of the Diaconate, the first level of participation in the priesthood of Jesus Christ and the lowest level of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A diakonos was historically a servant of the king. And so, the Deacon, is a servant of Christ the King and his vicar in a particular diocese, the bishop. They were to provide for the spiritual and corporal needs of the people. As Pope Benedict puts it:

“... the social which they were meant to provide was absolutely concrete, yet at the same time it was also a spiritual service; theirs was a truly spiritual office which carried out an essential responsibility of the Church, namely a well-ordered love of neighbour (21).”

This system of charity must have been a formidable force in the ancient world because the Roman leader Julian the Apostate, who rejected Christianity and tried to instantiate Neoplatonic Hellenism, told his pagan priests that they needed to imitate and outdo the Church’s charity. Of course, they failed because imitation can never capture what is authentically of God.

Beyond the diaconate, the proclamation of the Good News, and the liturgy were indispensable to the Church. As the Pope puts it:

“The Church’s deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacraments (leitourgia), and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable (25).”

Though the Church is now worldwide and the radical form of community of the early Church is less possible, the Church is nonetheless responsible for Her Members. The needs of the People of God are not only spiritual. Like any family, the Church is obliged to care for the necessities of those in the Church, in a particular way. As Benedict says:

“The Church is God’s family in the world. In this family no one ought to go without the necessities of life… Without in any way detracting from this commandment of universal love, the Church also has a specific responsibility: within the ecclesial family no member should suffer through being in need (25).”

Justice and Charity (26 - 29)

After concluding the section on the responsibility of charity in the Church, the Pope moves on to a fairly expansive conversation of justice and charity. Rooted deeply in Catholic social teaching, expounded since Pope Leo XIII especially, Pope Benedict begins by addressing the elephant in the room: Karl Marx. Since the nineteenth century, Marxists have critiqued the Church saying that “the poor… do not need charity but justice (26).” Benedict offers a steel-man explanation of the Marxist critique, saying:

“Works of charity—almsgiving—are in effect a way for the rich to shirk their obligation to work for justice and a means of soothing their consciences, while preserving their own status and robbing the poor of their rights. Instead of contributing through individual works of charity to maintaining the status quo, we need to build a just social order in which all receive their share of the world's goods and no longer have to depend on charity (26).”

He admits that there is some merit to the argument, but there is much that is mistaken. Historically, capital became concentrated in the hands of a powerful few and there has been conflict between employer and laborer. But rather than succumbing the Hegelian notion which Marx put forward of class warfare and revolution, the Pope offers that Catholic social teaching is applicable beyond the confines of the Church, saying:

“Marxism had seen world revolution and its preliminaries as the panacea for the social problem: revolution and the subsequent collectivization of the means of production, so it was claimed, would immediately change things for the better. This illusion has vanished. In today's complex situation, not least because of the growth of a globalized economy, the Church's social doctrine has become a set of fundamental guidelines offering approaches that are valid even beyond the confines of the Church: in the face of ongoing development these guidelines need to be addressed in the context of dialogue with all those seriously concerned for humanity and for the world in which we live (27).”

Commitment to Justice and Ministry of Charity

The Church, and the world, has a necessary commitment to justice and the ministry of charity. There is no dichotomy between justice and charity. Both are necessary. First, “the just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics (28),” says the Pope. Quoting St. Augustine, he says: “a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves… (28).”

Venturing into the subject of freedom of religion in a State, Pope Benedict says that,

“The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated (28).”

In other words: the State cannot coerce the Church. Rather the Church is independent of the State but interrelated with the State. What faithful Catholic can switch off their Catholicism when they engage in matters of politics and the State? They cannot. Only unfaithful Catholics attempt this, which results in deadly scandal and sin. Why is this? It is because God is the Lawgiver; He alone created all that is and He alone is the arbiter of morality.

Justice is the aim of politics, properly understood and it is the criteria for good politics. Politics is not merely about rules governing public life: “its origin and its goal,” say the Pope, “are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics (28).”

If justice is the aim and internal criterion of politics, as Benedict says, then why do Catholics need anything beyond reason? Why is faith necessary for true justice? Benedict explains:

“Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly… Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just (28).”

If Faith is necessary, then is the Pope calling on the Church to engage directly in matters of State? Not quite. A just social and civil order is ordered towards each person receiving his or her due, which is an essential task in every generation. But it is a political task and therefore is a human responsibility rather than an ecclesial responsibility. The Church can help to purify our powers of reason and provide ethical formation. Benedict also says clearly, 

“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice (28).”

The clergy are called to sanctify the laity and the laity are sent out into the world to sanctify the temporal order. 

Love is Necessary

Even in the best, most just societies, love will always be necessary. Care and concern for the other will always happen best on the local level. This is the principle of subsidiarity which holds that the best decisions are made on the lowest possible level and the highest level necessary. In fact, injustices stem from a higher level claiming authority over something which in fact belongs naturally to someone personally closer to the situation. Against totalitarianism of this kind, Pope Benedict writes beautifully of the bigger, complicated picture:

“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human (28).”

As I mentioned earlier, the clergy are called to sanctify the laity and the laity are sent out into the world to sanctify the temporal order. In this way, the Pope says:

“The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity… The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility (29).” 

The Church, of course, still sponsors organizations which practice charity. But this is not merely an activity of justice because it is focused on the admixture of the love of God, which is a universal human need. As Benedict says,

“The Church's charitable organizations, on the other hand, constitute an opus proprium, a task agreeable to her, in which she does not cooperate collaterally, but acts as a subject with direct responsibility, doing what corresponds to her nature. The Church can never be exempted from practicing charity as an organized activity of believers, and on the other hand, there will never be a situation where the charity of each individual Christian is unnecessary, because in addition to justice man needs, and will always need, love (29).”

The multiple structures of charitable service in the social context of the present day (30)

Because there is never going to be a situation where individual Christians are unneeded in charitable service, Pope Benedict recognizes the social context of the present day. Long since gone is the time of Christendom when Christian kingdoms ruled. Now, there are many different types of governments, organizations, nonprofits, and social structures. Even our way of communicating is different now. As the Pope says, “Mass communication has narrowed the distance between peoples and cultures (30).” 

Despite the narrowing of the distance, there is still work to be done in making sure that no one is forgotten. These groups are diverse, but they all are marked with the love of God. The Pope remarks that, “Numerous organizations have arisen that are a cooperation of State and Church, but these agencies still have a Christian quality (30).” This Christian quality is not a vague echo of the love of Jesus Christ. Rather, it is a direct result of Church agencies cooperating with State agencies. 

Also, due to the growing amount of leisure time afforded to modern man, especially among the youth, the Pope says, “our time has also seen a growth and spread of different kinds of volunteer work, which assume responsibility for providing a variety of services (30).” What is clear is that there are a myriad of ways to get involved; however, love compels us to leave the sidelines and get in the game.

In non-Catholic Churches and Ecclesial Communities, there has also been a new rising of charitable activity, with new life and energy. The Catholic Church must have a readiness, Pope Benedict says, to:

“cooperate with the charitable agencies of these Churches and Communities, since we all have the same fundamental motivation and look towards the same goal: a true humanism, which acknowledges that man is made in the image of God and wants to help him to live in a way consonant with that dignity (30).”

Ideally, all Christians and all people of good will would work with a united voice to inculcate, as Pope Benedict says, quoting St. John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, “respect for the rights and needs of everyone, especially the poor, the lowly and the defenseless (30).”

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

The distinctiveness of the Church’s charitable activity (31)

After speaking on the interplay of Church and State cooperation, Pope Benedict then turns his attention to the distinctiveness of the Church’s charitable activity. The Pontiff explains that there are a few essential elements of Christian and ecclesial charity.

First, there must be a simple response to immediate needs and specific situations. Second, and related to the first, resources and personnel needed for the work must be provided. Though Pope Benedict does not mention subsidiarity here by name, I think it is worth mentioning. Subsidiarity is the principle of Catholic social teaching which says that the best decision is made at the highest level necessary and the lowest level possible. Why leave a decision best left to the local Parish to the Vatican, for example? The local communities all need to strive to care for those in their immediate vicinity.

The third essential element of Christian and ecclesial charity is that individuals who care for those in need must be professionally competent and properly trained. As the Pope explains:

“We are dealing with human beings, and human beings always need something more than technically proper care. They need humanity. They need heartfelt concern. Those who work for the Church's charitable organizations must be distinguished by the fact that they do not merely meet the needs of the moment, but they dedicate themselves to others with heartfelt concern, enabling them to experience the richness of their humanity… Consequently, in addition to their necessary professional training, these charity workers need a “formation of the heart”: they need to be led to that encounter with God in Christ which awakens their love and opens their spirits to others. As a result, love of neighbor will no longer be for them a commandment imposed, so to speak, from without, but a consequence deriving from their faith, a faith which becomes active through love (cf. Gal 5:6) (31).”

The fourth essential element is that Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. Charitable activity is not a useful means to a longer end goal. It is not done to change the world ideologically, nor is at “at the service of worldly strategems,” says Pope Benedict, “but is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs (31).” As a Church of Christ rather than a ‘church of causes,’ we must follow the “program of Jesus” which is a “a heart which sees (31).” The Pope continues:

“This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly. Obviously when charitable activity is carried out by the Church as a communitarian initiative, the spontaneity of individuals must be combined with planning, foresight and cooperation with other similar institutions (31).”

Fifth and finally, charity cannot be used as a means of engaging in proselytism. Pope Benedict clearly states:

“Love is free; it is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends. But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God… A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak (31).”

Having given these five essential elements of Christian charity, who is responsible for the Church’s charitable activity?

Those responsible for the Church’s charitable activity (32 - 39)

Charity is such a deep action of the Church that it is part of Her identity. So, those responsible for charitable activity are the whole Church: bishops, priests, deacons, lay, and religious. In regard to bishops, Pope Benedict says the following:

“In the rite of episcopal ordination, prior to the act of consecration itself, the candidate must respond to several questions which express the essential elements of his office and recall the duties of his future ministry. He promises expressly to be, in the Lord's name, welcoming and merciful to the poor and to all those in need of consolation and assistance. The Code of Canon Law, in the canons on the ministry of the Bishop, does not expressly mention charity as a specific sector of episcopal activity, but speaks in general terms of the Bishop's responsibility for coordinating the different works of the apostolate with due regard for their proper character (32).”

He goes on to say once again that no one is off the hook from doing charitable work. Okay, he does not put it quite that way. He says this:

“With regard to the personnel who carry out the Church's charitable activity on the practical level, the essential has already been said: they must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world, but should rather be guided by the faith which works through love… Consequently, more than anything, they must be persons moved by Christ's love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening within them a love of neighbor (33).”

Of course it is always the love of Christ which marks our meritorious work. Charity inflames us to do good, in and through Christ, apart from Whom we can do nothing of true merit. Christ came to redeem the whole world and God loves each man and woman. Interior openness to Christ and His love is what makes the service of Christ’s disciples so distinctive. St. Paul’s hymn to charity in 1 Cor. 13 teaches us that service is more than activity alone: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing (1 Cor. 13:3).” Pope Benedict refers to this hymn as the “Magna Carta of all ecclesial service (34)” and the summary of all the reflections on love which he offers in Deus Caritas Est.

He goes on to say:

“Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them: if my gift is not to prove a source of humiliation, I must give to others not only something that is my own, but my very self; I must be personally present in my gift (34).”

When we serve in this self-giving way, we learn humility and grow in humility. As Pope Benedict beautifully reminds us:

“We recognize that we are not acting on the basis of any superiority or greater personal efficiency, but because the Lord has graciously enabled us to do so… We offer him our service only to the extent that we can, and for as long as he grants us the strength. To do all we can with what strength we have, however, is the task which keeps the good servant of Jesus Christ always at work: ‘The love of Christ urges us on’ (2 Cor 5:14) (35).”

Finding the Balance

Urged on by the love of Christ, it is easy to lose balance. “When we consider the immensity of others' needs, we can, on the one hand,” Pope Benedict says, “be driven towards an ideology that would aim at doing what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolving every problem. Or we can be tempted to give in to inertia, since it would seem that in any event nothing can be accomplished (36).”

So, how can we overcome these temptations? How can we find balance and keep the seesaw from tipping completely one way or the other? Pope Benedict continues:

“At such times, a living relationship with Christ is decisive if we are to keep on the right path, without falling into an arrogant contempt for man, something not only unconstructive but actually destructive, or surrendering to a resignation which would prevent us from being guided by love in the service of others. Prayer, as a means of drawing ever new strength from Christ, is concretely and urgently needed. People who pray are not wasting their time, even though the situation appears desperate and seems to call for action alone (36).”

Personal Relationship with God

Prayer is vital if we are to live in and with God. Prayer is our life blood. Our entire life can become a prayer if continually drawn deeply from the well of Christ. With the scourge of secularism prowling and the misguided extreme arm of activism, Christians are engaged in charitable work. Prayer is the antidote to this worldly spirit. A personal relationship with our loving Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit is utterly necessary. Pope Benedict puts it this way:

“Clearly, the Christian who prays does not claim to be able to change God's plans or correct what he has foreseen. Rather, he seeks an encounter with the Father of Jesus Christ, asking God to be present with the consolation of the Spirit to him and his work (37).”

The Problem of Evil

This personal relationship with God is all the more necessary for us in the midst of the problem of evil. We can often experience bewilderment and fail to understand the world around us. In these moments, the Pope says:

“Christians continue to believe in the ‘goodness and loving kindness of God’ (Tit 3:4). Immersed like everyone else in the dramatic complexity of historical events, they remain unshakably certain that God is our Father and loves us, even when his silence remains incomprehensible (38).”

Faith, Hope, and Charity

In the midst of darkness, we trust in the love of God which surpasses all understanding. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, God’s own life, have been instilled in our soul through the gift of Baptism. These theological virtues go together. Pope Benedict teaches us:

“Hope is practiced through the virtue of patience, which continues to do good even in the face of apparent failure, and through the virtue of humility, which accepts God's mystery and trusts him even at times of darkness. Faith tells us that God has given his Son for our sake and gives us the victorious certainty that it is really true: God is love! It thus transforms our impatience and our doubts into the sure hope that God holds the world in his hands and that, as the dramatic imagery of the end of the Book of Revelation points out, in spite of all darkness he ultimately triumphs in glory (39).”

We cannot see the full picture; only God does. And He has revealed so much to us. More than revelation, He has given us Himself. He shares in our humanity that we might share in His divinity. In Baptism, we are given the light and made to be the light to the world, in and through Christ. Pope Benedict sums up his first encyclical this way:

“Faith, which sees the love of God revealed in the pierced heart of Jesus on the Cross, gives rise to love. Love is the light—and in the end, the only light—that can always illuminate a world grown dim and give us the courage needed to keep living and working. Love is possible, and we are able to practice it because we are created in the image of God. To experience love and in this way to cause the light of God to enter into the world—this is the invitation I would like to extend with the present Encyclical (39).”

Conclusion (40 - 42)

As was the practice with his predecessor, Pope Benedict dedicates the conclusion of his document to the Mother of God, Mary most holy. Truly, each of the saints are a beautiful witness to the charity of God in every way imaginable. However, there is a preeminence to the holy charity of our Blessed Mother, the first disciple of her Holy Son, Jesus Christ.

I highly recommend reading the entire Conclusion (and the whole document, really) in full. But I would like to draw what resonated most with me. I simply love the way Pope Benedict speaks about our Blessed Mother. He says:

“Mary’s greatness consists in the fact that she wants to magnify God, not herself. She is lowly: her only desire is to be the handmaid of the Lord (cf. Lk 1:38, 48) She knows that she will only contribute to the salvation of the world if, rather than carrying out her own projects, she places herself completely at the disposal of God’s initiatives (41).” 

How often do you and I carry out our own projects, without putting ourselves at the disposal of God’s initiatives. Mary, form us, teach us! The Pope goes on:

“Mary is a woman who loves. How could it be otherwise? As a believer who in faith thinks with God's thoughts and wills with God's will, she cannot fail to be a woman who loves. We sense this in her quiet gestures, as recounted by the infancy narratives in the Gospel. We see it in the delicacy with which she recognizes the need of the spouses at Cana and makes it known to Jesus. We see it in the humility with which she recedes into the background during Jesus' public life, knowing that the Son must establish a new family and that the Mother's hour will come only with the Cross, which will be Jesus' true hour (cf. Jn 2:4; 13:1). When the disciples flee, Mary will remain beneath the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25-27); later, at the hour of Pentecost, it will be they who gather around her as they wait for the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14) (41).”

Mary was there through it all. By her “yes” the Word of God took flesh, provided by her own body. Even despite her prominence and grandeur, the humility of the Theotokos is led by love. She loves with the love of God flowing through her as a perfect vessel and she loves with a human, motherly love. The Pope goes on:

“Mary, Virgin and Mother, shows us what love is and whence it draws its origin and its constantly renewed power. To her we entrust the Church and her mission in the service of love (42).”

Here Pope Benedict ends with a prayer to the Theotokos, which I would like to end today’s article with as well. Please join me in praying:

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, 

you have given the world its true light, 

Jesus, your Son – the Son of God. 

You abandoned yourself completely 

to God's call 

and thus became a wellspring 

of the goodness which flows forth from him. 

Show us Jesus. Lead us to him. 

Teach us to know and love him, 

so that we too can become 

capable of true love 

and be fountains of living water 

in the midst of a thirsting world (42).”

Amen.

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

Outline of Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI:

* Introduction (1)

* Part I: The Unity of Love in Creation and in Salvation History (2 - 18)

* A problem of language (2)

* “Eros” and “Agape” - Difference in Unity (3 - 8)

* The newness of biblical faith (9 - 11)

* Jesus Christ - the incarnate love of God (12 - 15)

* Love of God and love of neighbour (16 - 18)

* Part II: The Practice of Love by the Church as a “Community of Love” (19 - 39)

* The Church’s charitable activity as a manifestation of Trinitarian love (19)

* Charity as a responsibility of the Church (20 - 25)

* Justice and Charity (26 - 29)

* The multiple structures of charitable service in the social context of the present day (30)

* The distinctiveness of the Church’s charitable activity (31)

* Those responsible for the Church’s charitable activity (32 - 39)

* Conclusion (40 - 42)

Pope Benedict XVI’s First Encyclical

An encyclical is a circular letter that the Pope writes to the whole Church. Pope Benedict XVI released the first encyclical of his pontificate on December 25, 2005. The title is Deus Caritas Est in Latin, which is “God is Love” in English. The official English title of the document is “On Christian Love.” The Pontiff believed that this message was both “timely and significant” in a “world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence (DCE, 1).”

My endeavor in this writing is to give an introduction to this marvelous encyclical from one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century. When this letter came out, I was only fourteen years old and I definitely did not read it. But later on, in college, when I did read it, I was blown away. My love, gratitude, and appreciation for the late pontiff, may he rest in peace, has only continued to grow. I will be using the document itself as the blueprint for this resource. So, we will be touching on each section. This present work is not exhaustive; it will barely scratch the surface. But, hopefully, it will offer you easier access to the writings of Pope Benedict XVI. 

Note: all parenthetical citations are paragraph numbers from Deus Caritas Est unless otherwise stated.

Introduction (1)

The Pope begins his letter on Christian Love with one of the most profound descriptions of Christianity I have ever read. He says, 

“Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction (1).” 

This is the summation of all of the work of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger. Theological clarity was a gift of Josef Ratzinger, who always found a way to bring any conversation crashing back to Jesus Christ and our communion with Him and with others. Truly, this is the decisive direction to which our life is given: heaven, that communion with God and with others. And how do we get there? We encounter the person of Jesus Christ.

This theme of encounter and exchange is part and parcel of the Good News. In a world that associates God with vengeance or a duty of hatred and violence. The pope offers us an important reminder:

“Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere ‘command’; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us (1).”

The document is split into two main parts: The first part is an exploration and the second part is concrete. Both are interconnected.

Part I: The Unity of Love in Creation and in Salvation History (2 - 18)

A problem of language (2)

In Part 1, Pope Benedict speaks to the unity of love in creation and in salvation history. He begins by addressing the problem of language. Anyone who has said the phrase, “I love pizza” can intuit the main problem. The word love, today, is frequently used and misused. As Benedict puts it:

“Let us first of all bring to mind the vast semantic range of the word “love”: we speak of love of country, love of one's profession, love between friends, love of work, love between parents and children, love between family members, love of neighbor and love of God. Amid this multiplicity of meanings, however, one in particular stands out: love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined and human beings glimpse an apparently irresistible promise of happiness. This would seem to be the very epitome of love; all other kinds of love immediately seem to fade in comparison. So we need to ask: are all these forms of love basically one, so that love, in its many and varied manifestations, is ultimately a single reality, or are we merely using the same word to designate totally different realities (2)?”

“Eros” and “Agape” - Difference in Unity (3 - 8)

In the New Testament in the Greek language, there are three main types of love: eros (sexual love between spouses), agape (unconditional love), and philia (fraternal love). Many scholars have drawn a sharp distinction between eros and agape to the point where the two seem mutually exclusive. Pope Benedict gives us a theological masterclass and shows the difference in unity of these two terms. He begins by saying:

“The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a “divine madness” which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness (4).”

For the Ancient Greeks, the “divine madness” of eros needed to be purified. In many ways, it is seen as a corporeal type of love, a bodily passion. However, the Pope teaches that:

“...it is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. Only thus is love —eros—able to mature and attain its authentic grandeur… Christian faith… has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing (5).”

At this juncture we begin to see that the Christian view of eros is less about divine madness and more about ascending to God and allowing Him to purify us. In the poetry of the biblical book of the Song of Songs, Benedict teaches us that two different Hebrew words are used: the first is insecure, indeterminate, and searching love. The other is closer to agape. He writes:

“Love now becomes concern and care for the other. No longer is it self-seeking, a sinking in the intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the good of the beloved: it becomes renunciation and it is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice (6).”

Neither type of love is static. Love embraces the “whole of existence in each of its dimensions, including the dimension of time (6).” The philosophical and theological debate about the nature of eros and agape sees agape as a descending, oblative love and eros as an ascending, possessive or covetous love. Benedict argues that these two cannot be completely separated.

“The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized (7).”

We cannot always give, we must also receive. We can think here of the book of Exodus and of Moses going into the tabernacle time and again to dialogue with God, where only then could he emerge to be of service to the people.

The newness of biblical faith (9 - 11)

If we are to understand love, we have to understand the God of Holy Scriptures. Pope Benedict outlines the biblical faith and remarks on its “newness” as compared to other religions of the time in this next section.

He says:

“There is only one God… all other gods are not God, and the universe in which we live has its source in God and was created by him… Consequently, his creation is dear to him, for it was willed by him and “made” by him. The second important element now emerges: this God loves man (9).” 

So far, thus we have one God who loves man. This is peculiar. The gods of Greek mythology are horrendous and oftentimes downright demonic. Of course, they do not exist, unless they are merely personifications of nature or simply demons tricking men. But the one God is different. He is real. He is sovereign. The ancients began to grasp this first part: that God is the object of desire and love. But the second part, that He loves us, is particular to the Jewish People. As Pope Benedict eloquently explains:

“The divine power that Aristotle at the height of Greek philosophy sought to grasp through reflection, is indeed for every being an object of desire and of love —and as the object of love this divinity moves the world—but in itself it lacks nothing and does not love: it is solely the object of love. The one God in whom Israel believes, on the other hand, loves with a personal love. His love, moreover, is an elective love: among all the nations he chooses Israel and loves her—but he does so precisely with a view to healing the whole human race. God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also totally agape (9).”

The love of God in the Old Testament is boldly erotic, at times, especially in the Prophets. They speak of betrothal and marriage and even see idolatry as adultery or prostitution. And so Benedict rightly points out that God’s love is eros but he shows that it is also agape because it is “bestowed in a completely gratuitous manner, without any previous merit, but also because it is a love which forgives (10).”

Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows well that Israel breaks her covenant with God often. It is only right that God should judge and repudiate her. But what do we see instead of utter annihilation of mankind? Benedict answers:

“God's passionate love for his people—for humanity—is at the same time a forgiving love. It is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice. Here Christians can see a dim prefigurement of the mystery of the Cross: so great is God's love for man that by becoming man he follows him even into death, and so reconciles justice and love… God is the absolute and ultimate source of all being; but this universal principle of creation—the Logos, primordial reason—is at the same time a lover with all the passion of a true love (10).”

God loves us with a perfect passion, from the first moment of creation. In God, the love of eros is “thus supremely ennobled, yet at the same time it is so purified as to become one with agape (10).” In this great mystery of God’s love, we have perfect ascending and descending love. When we enter into this love, we become one with the lover of our soul. “But this union,” Benedict says, “is no mere fusion, a sinking in the nameless ocean of the Divine; it is a unity which creates love, a unity in which both God and man remain themselves and yet become fully one (10).” 

He made us in His image and likeness. As a perfect community of Persons, God is perfect and sufficient in Himself. But we see that Adam, the first man, is alone. In his solitude, God fashions for Adam a helper: the first woman, Eve. Here we hear one of the most romantic lines in the whole Bible: Adam says of his new bride, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man (Gen. 2:23).”

Even in non-Christian religions we see shadows of this “completion” of man. In a myth related to us by the Greek philosopher Plato, man is originally spherical, complete, and self-sufficient. As a punishment for pride, Zeus splits him in two and thus man strives for his other half.

The Bible does not speak of punishment in Genesis chapter 2, but there is clearly the idea that “only in communion with the opposite sex can [man] become ‘complete’ (11).” Therefore, even erotic love, that is, eros, is rooted in man’s nature and it directs man towards marriage. There is no equivalence to this outside of the biblical literature, says Pope Benedict.

Jesus Christ - the incarnate love of God (12 - 15)

The Old Testament faithfully transmits the revelation of God to us, but it is incomplete. In the New Testament, in Jesus Christ, the love of God takes on flesh. As Pope Benedict puts it:

“In the Old Testament, the novelty of the Bible did not consist merely in abstract notions but in God's unpredictable and in some sense unprecedented activity. This divine activity now takes on dramatic form when, in Jesus Christ, it is God himself who goes in search of the “stray sheep”, a suffering and lost humanity (12).”

Jesus speaks in parables, but these are not mere words. He is the proof of God’s love. He literally shows us, in the flesh, the full revelation of God to man. In His death on the Cross, we see, as Benedict puts it, 

“the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form. By contemplating the pierced side of Christ (cf. 19:37), we can understand the starting-point of this Encyclical Letter: ‘God is love’ (1 Jn 4:8) (12).”

Flowing from the pierced side of Christ flows the blood of the Holy Eucharist and the water of Holy Baptism. And so it is the Holy Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian faith which draws us into Jesus’ self offering. In our Holy Communion with Him, “More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving (13).” The ancients perceived to some extent that what really nourishes man is the Logos, eternal wisdom. In the Eucharist, the Logos has truly become our food. Thus, the erotic imagery of marriage between God and Israel is realized in a “way previously inconceivable (13)” in the Holy Eucharist.

The Holy Eucharist also mystically takes on a social character “for in sacramental communion I become one with the Lord, like all the other communicants (14).” Thus, we begin to experience a foretaste of Heaven, which is union with God and union with all those men and women in union with God. Benedict writes:

“Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become ‘one body,’ completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbor are now truly united: God incarnate draws us all to himself (14).”

Love of God and love of neighbor (16 - 18)

“Love of God and love of neighbor,” Benedict says, “have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God (15).” But this nature of love and its meaning in biblical faith lead Pope Benedict to two questions: 1) can we love God without seeing him? And 2) can love be commanded? The objections seem to be that no one has ever seen God, so how could we love Him? And love seems to be a feeling that is there or it is not, so how can it be commanded?

Yet, in answering these two questions, Pope Benedict artfully leads us back to loving our neighbor leads to love of God and vice versa. To the second objection, he says that “love of neighbor is a path that leads to the encounter with God, and that closing our eyes to our neighbor also blinds us to God (16).” He answers the first objection by saying: “True, no one has ever seen God as he is. And yet God is not totally invisible to us; he does not remain completely inaccessible (17).”

Pope Benedict reminds us that God is visible to us in a number of ways. He says,

“In the love-story recounted by the Bible, he comes towards us, he seeks to win our hearts, all the way to the Last Supper, to the piercing of his heart on the Cross, to his appearances after the Resurrection and to the great deeds by which, through the activity of the Apostles, he guided the nascent Church along its path. Nor has the Lord been absent from subsequent Church history: he encounters us ever anew, in the men and women who reflect his presence, in his word, in the sacraments, and especially in the Eucharist. In the Church's Liturgy, in her prayer, in the living community of believers, we experience the love of God, we perceive his presence and we thus learn to recognize that presence in our daily lives (17).” 

These are just a few ways that God makes Himself known to those who seek Him. Benedict does not leave us only with a litany of responses to the objection of an invisible and aloof God. He goes on to say:

“He has loved us first and he continues to do so; we too, then, can respond with love. God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has “loved us first”, love can also blossom as a response within us (17).”

But this love is not merely a sentiment. God loves us and is unchanging. For mankind, love as a sentiment is a marvelous first spark, but it is not the fullness of love (cf. 17). So, what is love? Truly, it is a decision, an act of the will. As Pope Benedict puts it, referencing the Roman Sallust:

“Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought (17).” 

This communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment. So, as we grow in love of God, our will and God’s will will increasingly coincide. In Benedict’s words:

“God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself (17).” 

We need here to take a moment to remember how Benedict begins this letter:

“Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction (1).”

So, what does this encounter with Jesus Christ, our God-man, do? Benedict beautifully paints us a picture:

“Love of neighbor is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look at this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them not only through the organizations intended for such purposes, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave (18).”

More than merely being a more beautiful way of viewing the world, this love must be put into practice if we are to love God. As He has said to us: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me (Mt. 25:40).” Likewise, if we are not seeking to encounter God, we never see anything special in the other. As Benedict teaches:

“If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbor and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbor can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me (18).”

Pope Benedict ends part 1 of the letter by saying:

“Love of God and love of neighbor are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first. No longer is it a question, then, of a “commandment” imposed from without and calling for the impossible, but rather of a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others. Love grows through love. Love is “divine” because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a ‘we’ which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is ‘all in all’ (1 Cor 15:28) (18).”

Conclusion on Part I

In this first part of Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI teaches us about the unity of eros and agape in creation and in salvation history. He speaks of the ambiguity of our modern sense of the word “love.” He outlines the differences between eros and agape and how they become one in God. We see the unique “newness” of the biblical faith - the love of a personal God! We see how Jesus Christ makes the love of God visible and tangible. And we learn more about the double commandment of loving God and loving neighbor, resulting from a transformative encounter with Jesus Christ. In part II, we will continue walking through this masterpiece on Christian Love, which focuses on the Practice of Love by the Church as a “Community of Love.”

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

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

Nota bene: the quote above, though attributed to MLK, is not sourced to him. It is likely something said by those who came after him. But it, nonetheless, captures his approach.

Introduction

With Martin Luther King day approaching, it struck me that a great number of Americans have no idea who Martin Luther King Jr. was or what he did. They are barely familiar with his most famous speech: “I Have a Dream.” And each third Monday of January, most of us take the day off work for the federal holiday, but we do not take time to appreciate the contributions of this great man. So, in a small way, I would like to respond to that vacancy of attention. This short article will look at the life of Dr. King and his role in the Civil Rights Movement. There are many things that I have had to leave out for time’s sake. But may this serve as a primer for further study. I believe that we still have more to learn from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Who was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was born Michael King Jr. on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, GA. He was an American Baptist minister and one of the foremost leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950s and the 1960s. As an African American, Dr. King fought for the rights of people of color through nonviolence and civil disobedience. In this regard, he had been inspired both by our Lord Jesus Christ and the example of Mahatma Gandhi. 

As a Baptist minister, King was steeped in the written word of God. As a young man, he earned a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1951 from Crozer Theological Seminary in Upland, Pennsylvania. He then went on to pursue doctoral studies in systematic theology at Boston University. He received his Ph.D. degree on June 5, 1955. His dissertation was entitled: A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman. 

Before completing his studies, he married Coretta Scott on June 18, 1953 and they became the parents of four children. King was made pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama at the age of 25 in 1954. In December 1959, he moved back to his home city of Atlanta and served as co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church alongside his father, until his death. Sadly, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed while staying at a motel in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. 

The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement began in large measure with the Supreme Court Case Brown v Board of Education in 1954. This ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This overturned the horrendous Plessy v Ferguson (1896) case which allowed Jim Crow laws that mandated separate public facilities for whites and blacks. Beginning with schools, desegregation quickly spread to other public facilities as well. 

On December 1, 1955, African American Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white passenger. She was arrested and a sustained bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama began. The protest began on December 5 with the young local preacher, Martin Luther King, Jr. leading - the boycott continued for more than a year. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that segregated seating was unconstitutional.

In 1957 the Little Rock Nine attempted to attend the central high school whose population had been entirely white. It took an escort of U.S. soldiers to allow these young men to attend school. The Greensboro Four, in 1960, took part in a sit-in at the all-white lunch counter at a F.W. Woolworth department store. The sit-in grew and replacements were brought in to replace those taken off to jail. On November 14, 1960, six-year-old Ruby Bridges was escorted to her first day at the previously all-white William Frantz Elementary school in New Orleans by four armed federal marshals. Many parents marched in to remove their children from the school to protest desegregation. She continued going to school, being escorted, and endured threats. Her teacher, Barbara Henry, continued to teach her (alone in the classroom).

Beginning on May 4, 1961, a group of seven African American and six whites boarded two buses bound for New Orleans. Along the way, the riders tested the Supreme Court ruling of Boynton v Virginia (1960) which extended an earlier ruling banning segregated interstate bus travel to include bus terminals and restrooms. In South Carolina, the bus had a tire slashed, it was firebombed, and the Freedom Riders were beaten. A second group of 10 replaced them until they were arrested or beaten, then another group would take their place. On May 29, U.S. Attorney general Robert F. Kennedy ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce bans on segregation more strictly. This took effect in September 1961.

The Birmingham Demonstrations

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Martin Luther King, Jr. launched a campaign in Birmingham, AL to undermine the city’s system of racial segregation. The campaign included sit-ins, economic boycotts, mass protests, and marches on City Hall. The demonstrations faced challenges: indifferent African Americans, adversarial white and black leaders, and a hostile commissioner of public safety - Eugene “Bull” Connor. 

Dr. King was arrested on April 12 for violating an anti-protest injunction and he was placed in solitary confinement. The demonstrations continued for a month, then the Children’s Crusade was launched. On May 2, 1963, school-aged volunteers skipped school and began to march - the local jails were quickly filled. Bull Connor ordered the police and fire department to set high-pressure water hoses and attack dogs on the youth.

The violent tactics on peaceful demonstrators caused outrage locally and gained national media attention.

President John F. Kennedy proposed a civil rights bill on June 11. The Birmingham campaign was eventually negotiated to an agreement locally but tensions were high. A bomb on September 15 at 16th Street Baptist Church killed four African American girls and injured others. The country was in the midst of the war in Vietnam while determining at home what sort of nation we might be.

The 1963 March on Washington

On August 28, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place to protest civil rights abuses and employment discrimination. A crowd of 250,000 people peacefully gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to listen to speeches, most notably by Martin Luther King, Jr. This is where Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law - a stronger version of legislation that President Kennedy proposed before his assassination. The act authorized the federal government to prevent racial discrimination in employment, voting, and the use of public facilities.

1965: Assassination of Malcolm X

On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated while lecturing at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem, NY. He was a brilliant speaker and demanded that the civil rights movement move beyond civil rights to human rights. He thought that the solution to racial problems was in orthodox Islam. His ideas contributed to the development of the black nationalist ideology and the Black Power movement. 

1965: Selma-Montgomery March

On March 7, 1965, Dr. King organized a march from Selma, AL to Montgomery, AL, to call for a federal voting rights law that provided legal support for disenfranchised African Americans in the South. State troopers sent marchers back with violence and tear gas; television cameras recorded the incident. On March 9, King tried again - more than 2,000 marchers encountered a barricade of state troopers at Pettus Bridge. 

King had his followers kneel in prayer and then they unexpectedly turned back. President Johnson introduced voting rights legislation on March 15, then on March 21, King once again set out from Selma. This time, Alabama National Guardsmen, federal marshals, and FBI agents assisted and King arrived in Montgomery on March 25. 

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law on August 6. This law suspended literacy tests, provided for federal approval of proposed changes to voting laws or procedures, and directed the attorney general of the U.S. to challenge the use of poll taxes for state and local elections.

1965: Watts Riots

Series of violent confrontations between the city police and residence of Watts and other black neighborhoods in L.A. - beginning on August 11, 1965. A white police officer arrested an African American man, Marquette Frye, on suspicion of driving while intoxicated - he likely resisted arrest and the police possibly used excessive force. Violence, fires, and looting broke out over the next six days. The result was 34 deaths, 1,000 injuries, and $40 million in property damage. The McCone Commission later investigated the cause of the riots and concluded that they were the result of economic challenges including poor housing, schools, and job prospects.

1966: Black Panther Party Founded

After Malcom X was assassinated, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party in Oakland, CA to protect black neighborhoods from what they saw as police brutality. The group launched community programs providing tuberculosis testing, legal aid, transportation assistance, and free shoes. They believed that civil rights reforms did not do enough. The Black Panther Party was socialist and, therefore, the target of the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence program - they were accused of being a communist organization and an enemy of the U.S. government. In December 1969, police tried to annihilate the group at their Southern California headquarters and in Illinois. The Party’s operations continued, less actively, into the 1970s.

1967: Loving v Virginia

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Virginia statutes prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, who was mixed black and Native American, left Virginia to be married and then return to the state (this was against the law). Their one year prison sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return for at least 25 years. They filed their suit in 1963 and it took four years to get to the Supreme Court - their conviction was reversed. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous court that freedom to marry was a basic civil right. This ruling invalidated laws against interracial marriage in Virginia and 15 other states. 

1967: Detroit Riot

Series of violent confrontations between African American neighborhoods and police beginning on July 23, 1967 after a raid at an illegal drinking club - 82 African Americans, and others, were arrested. Nearby residents protested and began to vandalize property, loot businesses, and start fires for five days. Police set up blockades but the violence spread - result was 43 deaths, hundreds of injuries, more than 7,000 arrests, and 1,000 burned buildings. President Johnson appointed the National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders - they concluded that racism, discrimination, and poverty were some of the causes of the violence.

1968: Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

While standing on the second-floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN, Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed by a sniper - April 4, 1968. He was staying at the hotel after leading a nonviolent demonstration in support of striking sanitation workers. His murder set off riots in hundreds of cities across the country. Congress passed the Fair Housing act in King’s honor on April 11. The Fair Housing Act made it unlawful for sellers, landlords, and financial institutions to refuse to rent, sell, or provide financing based on factors other than an individual’s finances. The Civil Rights Movement, after King’s death, seemed to be shifting away from the nonviolent tactics and interracial cooperation that had brought about a number of policy changes. Nonetheless, his legacy remains.

What is Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy?

The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. focuses on his ideas on nonviolence, civil disobedience, and peaceful noncooperation. Dr. King had his faults: plagiarism and adultery were accusations levied against him with considerable evidence. But all of us fall short of the glory of God. What I am concerned about is his impact on the country. What was the legacy of his ideas and actions?

Two lines, in particular, of Dr. King’s fantastic “I Have a Dream Speech” in Washington, D.C. are more than noteworthy. In a portion of the speech, which seemed to be ad-libbed rather than scripted, Dr. King said, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” This, I think, reveals the heart of the man. Dr. King marched hand in hand with those of any race and religion. Here he is invoking the long past of American slavery which still haunted the nation under the guise of Jim Crow. Where some, like Malcolm X, were threatening or perpetrating violence, Dr. King was speaking of brotherhood and sharing a common meal. Nothing could be more Christian than this. 

Second, he said the beautiful words that ought to echo down the halls of humanity until we come to our final reward. He says, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Racism is a scourge from the depths of hell. To judge another based on their skin color is reprehensible. I would be remiss to say that this extends also to those progressives today who insist on advancing identity and race politics. Dr. King would certainly be opposed to such racist nonsense. 

In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, written during his incarceration, he begins by outlining the four steps to nonviolent campaign: “1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; 2) negotiation; 3) self-purification [note: how often is this forgotten!]; and 4) direct action.” He saw the heinous reality of the treatment of blacks, especially in the South. And he answered with measured, reasonable action. Much of the rest of the letter then builds off of these four steps. 

However, Dr. King challenges us, even decades later, in his letter. He speaks of those who are a stumbling block to justice. He mentions, of course, the Ku Klux Klan but then lambasts the “white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.” He goes on to say, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” The words of Dr. King would have certainly ruffled feathers back then, but I am certain that many conservatives today would bristle at hearing this challenge. Yet, what Dr. King is saying what Jesus says to us: “Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you from My mouth.” We have to choose a side. There can be no moderation when it comes to toleration of the sin of true racism. 

This brings us back to his legacy. We must act when there is injustice. But how should we act? Should we act out with rioting and violence? Certainly, Dr. King would bellow a resounding “no!” Instead, we are to gather the facts, negotiate, allow God to purify our own hearts, and then act directly. May we have the strength, in God’s grace, to do so whenever we are convicted by justice to do so.

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

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

Introduction

Today, we are diving deeper into the miracle of the Incarnation. What were the effects of the Incarnation on Christ and on us? How did the world fundamentally shift 2,000 years ago?! If you have not yet listened to part 1 of this two-parter, I highly recommend beginning there. I went over some fairly deep theology of what the Incarnation means and what the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures of Christ in one Divine Person is.

The Fittingness of the Incarnation According to Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas asks a series of really cool questions about the Incarnation in question 1 of the third part of the Summa. In this section, he focuses entirely on what he calls the “fittingness” of the Incarnation. When Aquinas speaks of fittingness, he is juxtaposing this term with necessity. In other words, is an event or action in theology strictly necessary or simply fitting? In the first two questions, he explores this query..

Is it fitting for God to become incarnate?

First, Aquinas asks: “Is it fitting for God to become incarnate?” We know that God is good; this is one the realities of His essence. God exists and He is the truth, the good, the beautiful, and the ground of being itself. Aquinas argues that because of His great and perfect goodness, He desired to share His goodness in the highest manner possible to His creature. So, St. Thomas concludes that it is “manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate (ST III, q. 1, a. 1, co.)” 

Was it necessary for the restoration of the human race?

Even though it is a tremendous mystery that God would condescend to become one of us, it was fitting because of His great goodness. But what about necessary? “Was it necessary for the restoration of the human race?” asks Aquinas. He answers that:

“What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: ‘God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.’ Therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate (ST III, q. 1, a. 2, s.c.).”

So, because of the sin of Adam and Eve, it was necessary that God should become incarnate. As God, He can reconcile us to Himself; as Man, He can do so on our behalf!

If there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?

This leads to St. Thomas’ next question: “If there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?” This question is one of my favorites to contemplate. It was actually the topic of a great conversation for me and my coworkers at lunch a couple weeks ago. 

In Romans, St. Paul shows us that all men were made sinners through the disobedience of Adam and it was through the one Man, Jesus Christ, that many will be made righteous. In the first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul says: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).” Jesus Christ is, thus, the “new Adam” or the “second Adam.” As St. John Henry Newman wrote in his hymn “Praise to the Holiest in the height”:

“O loving wisdom of our God!

When all was sin and shame,

A second Adam to the fight

And to the rescue came.”

It is clear that Scripture teaches that the reason for the Incarnation is the sin of Adam. So, how does Aquinas answer this question: “If there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?” He says,

“... the word of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin had not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate (ST III, q. 1, a. 3, co.).”

Whether God became incarnate in order to take away actual sin, rather than to take away original sin?

God could have become incarnate, even in the absence of human sin. But, as it is, Adam did sin and the incarnation allowed for the stain of original sin to be washed away. But what about personal sin, or as the Church calls it: “actual sin.” St. Thomas asks: “Whether God became incarnate in order to take away actual sin, rather than to take away original sin?”

He answers directly that the principle reason for the incarnation was to take away original sin. But he adds:

“It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away that sin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it; not that all are taken away (ST III, q. 1, a. 4, co.).”

Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race?

On the next question: “Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race?” Aquinas has a lot to say, but we can summarize it thusly:

“... God became incarnate at the most fitting time; and it was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race (ST III, q. 1, a. 5, s.c.).” 

Whether Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world?

In God’s timing, the incarnation was unfitting to happen right after the sin of Adam and Eve, but St. Thomas asks “Whether Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world?” He answers:

“It is written (Habakkuk 3:2): ‘In the midst of the years Thou shalt make it known.’ Therefore the mystery of Incarnation which was made known to the world ought not to have been put off till the end of the world (ST III, q. 1, a. 6, s.c.).”

Put simply: the incarnation happened exactly when and where was best, in God’s Providence and with His perfect knowledge and planning.

The Effects of the Incarnation on Christ Himself

The Incarnation of Christ was fitting and necessary for the salvation of man. But what were the effects on Christ Himself? First, we can think of our own body and soul. We are limited and finite. We have inclinations to sin and imperfections. We are sinful and sorrowful. We are intrinsically good and capable of wonderful things, by God’s grace. But we are also capable of great evil. As we discussed last time, the human nature of Jesus Christ is perfect and perfectly subordinate to His Divinity. He is incapable of sin and acts in the perfection for which mankind was originally made. 

What does that look like? Perfection. Living in accord with the Will of the Father, perfectly. What is possible? The great St. Athanasius, discussing the Incarnation, says this: 

“And, in a word, the achievements of the Saviour, resulting from His becoming man, are of such kind and number, that if one should wish to enumerate them, he may be compared to men who gaze at the expanse of the sea and wish to count its waves. For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that attempts it; so for him that would take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than those he thinks he has taken in. Better is it, then, not to aim at speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but, after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For all alike are marvelous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with exceeding great awe (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54.4-5).” 

The Incarnation is a Miracle and our Blessed Lord is the perfect Man. He shows us what God intended from the beginning for mankind. So, let us take a moment to zoom in: what effects did the Incarnation have on the human body and human soul of Christ?

On the Body of Christ

Jesus Christ had a human body, as we do. He knows our human limitations and is like us. In Hebrews 4:15, we hear: “We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” Before His Resurrection from the dead, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses caused by original sin, which we are all subject: He experienced hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and death. These are all natural results of human nature which He assumed. 

There are a couple of things in the body, however, which Christ did not necessarily experience. It is possible that He had no bodily deformities (until His Passion) and never got sick. St. Athanasius persuasively argues this by saying that it would be “unbecoming that He should heal others who was Himself not healed (P.G., XX, 133).”

On the Human Soul of Christ

When speaking of the human soul of Christ, there are a few areas worth mentioning: His intellect, will, sanctity, and likes and dislikes. 

In the Will

Jesus was entirely sinless. Thomists following after St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as Francisco Suarez, and the Society of Jesus all argue that sin is incompatible with the Hypostatic Union. It is safe to assume that this is the case simply on the merits of Dominicans and Jesuits being in agreement (just a joke). Those following the teaching of Duns Scotus say that the sinlessness of Christ is not due to the Hypostatic Union but due to a special Divine Providence similar to the way that it is impossible for the blessed in Heaven to sin.

No matter which theological avenue you take, it is an article of faith, to be held definitively, taught at the Council of Ephesus, that Christ never sinned. Jesus Christ is a Divine Person and God cannot turn away from Himself.

We also want to take great care to acknowledge the total liberty of Christ, in His human will. After the Incarnation, the will of Christ remained. If this were not the case, then in the matter of death, Christ could not have merited nor satisfied the justice of God for us. St. Thomas Aquinas not only believed in the total liberty of the human will of Christ, but he also provided seventeen different explanations for why this is true!

In the Intellect

Let us now turn to the human intellect of Christ. Every time the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord comes around, I brace for the incredibly ridiculous homilies in which the deacon or priest (or God, help us, bishops) explain that it was at this moment that Christ realized His mission. They hold that it was at the Baptism of the Lord, when the Spirit descends like a dove, that Christ receives His anointing, grace, and His mission. I want to say unequivocally that this is heretical and nonsensical garbage. The soul of Christ was endowed with the Beatific Vision from the beginning of its existence. For the first moment in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when the Hypostatic Union came into being, the human soul of Christ beheld the Godhead in its fullness.

Like Adam and Eve, Christ had infused knowledge. God the Father revealed many things to Jesus in His humanity all at once, as needed. He also acquired human knowledge through His senses and imagination. The human soul of Christ had a beginning and is not, therefore, infinite as God is infinite. But by the grace of union, His human soul (intellect and will) was most perfect and embraced the widest range possible. 

Sanctity of Christ 

From the first moment, in the Hypostatic Union, Jesus Christ enjoyed the grace of union. As St. Augustine teaches:

“When the Word was made Flesh then, indeed, He sanctified Himself in Himself, that is, Himself as Man in Himself as Word; for that Christ is One Person, both Word and Man, and renders His human nature holy in the holiness of the Divine nature (Augustine, In Johan. tract. 108, n. 5, in P.L., XXXV, 1916).”

St. John also tells us in the prologue of His Gospel that the Word was “full of grace (Jn. 1:14).” And, so, in the human soul of Christ, there was a fullness of sanctifying grace. This is the same grace of the sacraments that we receive at our Baptism and in each of the seven sacraments. 

Likes and Dislikes 

In the Hypostatic Union, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. This glorious union, however, does not deprive the human soul of Christ of the human reality of likes and dislikes. There were certain foods that Jesus preferred. He likely had a favorite game or sport, a favorite joke or turn of phrase, a favorite way to recline at a table that He found most comfortable, and the list goes on. 

We see in the Gospels that Christ was angry, fearful, sad, happy, and experienced the sensible affections of hope, desire, and joy. After all, He is like us in all things but sin. His likes and dislikes, however, were under complete control by His human will subordinated perfectly to His divine will. 

The God-Man and the “Communication of Idioms”

How we speak about Christ matters, if we are to avoid error. Our words will never fully penetrate the deep mysteries of the Person of Jesus Christ, but there are certain ways of phrasing things that are just plain wrong. In the last part of this two-parter, we discussed a few different Christological heresies that can serve as an illustration of this.

How then can we speak about the interaction of deity and humanity in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ? The Church gives us the concept of the communicatio idiomatum (Latin: communication of properties or communication of idioms). There are difficulties that require such a convention. What properties belong to Jesus in His human nature? What properties belong to His divine nature? Is it possible that these properties are shared or mingled between the two natures?

Jesus did many things physically which are attributed to His divine power. For example, He healed the sick, forgave sins, walked on water, changed water into wine, and rose from the dead. Though Jesus Christ, the God-man did all of these things, because of the communicatio idiomatum, we can safely say that God did all these things. God healed the sick. God walked on water. God changed water into wine. We are not saying that the properties of Christ’s divinity become the properties of His humanity, or vice versa; they are already deeply united by grace. But we rightly say these things because Jesus Christ, even in His humanity, is a Divine Person. 

So, whatever is affirmed of the Divine Person, the Son of God, the Word made Flesh, Jesus Christ, after the incarnation, in His human or divine natures is attributed to the one Person. This is why St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the “blood of God” and the “suffering of God.” God the Father has no blood nor did God the Spirit suffer, but the Eternal Word of God, God the Son, assumed Flesh. This is why we can rightly say that Mary is the Theotokos (the God-bearer) rather than merely the Christotokos (the Christ-bearer).

There is an excellent summary of the “rules” of the communicatio idiomatum on encyclopedia.com, of all places. You can check that our here, if you are interested in reading further. <https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/communication-idioms> 

The Adoration of the Humanity of Christ

The Greek word dulia refers to veneration. This is the type of respect that is due to the saints and angels on account of their holiness and closeness to God. The next step up is hyperdulia; this is the preeminent veneration and devotion due to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven. Finally, we arrive at true worship and adoration, in Greek: latria. Latria is due to God alone. In fact, giving latria to anyone other than God would be the grave sin of blasphemy. 

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

“The human nature of Christ, united hypostatically with the Divine nature, is adored with the same worship as the Divine nature. We adore the Word when we adore Christ the Man; but the Word is God. The human nature of Christ is not at all the reason of our adoration of Him; that reason is only the Divine nature (CE).”

We do not worship the human nature of Jesus Christ. Yet, we affirm that because of the Hypostatic Union, the divinity and humanity of Christ cannot be separated. And, most importantly, there is only one Person in Jesus Christ, which is the Divine Word of God. So, according to the whole Person rather than the parts, we truly adore Jesus Christ, the God-man, with all the devotion, love, and worship due to Almighty God! 

Effects of the Incarnation on Us

Finally, we come to the big question, for us: why did the Word of God become Flesh? How did the Incarnation affect us? 

In Order to Save Us

First, as we acclaim in the Nicene Creed: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he came incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” The Word became Flesh for us “in order to save us by reconciling us with God (CCC 456).” Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world, both original and personal, though He Himself was without sin. He did this in our place as the Son of Man and He did this perfectly as the Son of God.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Eastern Church Fathers, explains:

“Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. catech 15: PG 45, 48B.)?”

That We Might Know God’s Love

Second, the Son of God incarnated that we might know God’s love. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught, it was fitting that God should become man in order to show us the depths of His love and the heights of His goodness. The Incarnation is a tremendous miracle and mystery. The fact that Almighty God, containing all things and yet uncontained Himself, became a baby. He depended on the love and care of His Holy Mother and St. Joseph. In His unfathomable humility, the Lord shows us the lengths God was willing to go to in order to bring us back from sin and death. Of course, we see His loving action on full display, bearing the Cross for our sakes. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).”

To Be Our Model for Holiness

Third, Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, shows us the model for holiness. By His holy example, we can follow Him in all things, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There is an old blessing that speaks of discipleship: “May you be covered in the dust of the Master.” By following so near to Jesus, we are covered in the dust which His holy feet kick up as He leads us. If we listen to His holy words and holy example, we will be beckoned closer to sharing eternal life with Him in Heaven. 

To Make Us Partakers of the Divine Nature

St. Peter begins his second letter in this way:

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire (2 Peter 1:3-4).”

The chief of the Apostles reveals to us another reason why the Word became Flesh. He came to make us “partakers of the divine nature.” As St. Irenaeus said,

“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.).”

The great St. Athanasius put it even more succinctly: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God (St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.).” And lest we think that this notion is peculiar to the first millennium, St. Thomas Aquinas said, 

“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods (St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.).”

Receiving Sanctifying Grace

The primary means of receiving sanctifying grace in our soul and sharing in the divine nature is through the Sacrament of Baptism. We enter the sacramental life through the door of Baptism and God comes to dwell within us as in a Temple. We receive an infusion of the divine life and have the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity operative in our soul. This initiation, begun in Baptism, is perfected and strengthened in the Sacrament of Confirmation. 

Our initiation is complete when we receive the Lord’s own Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament of sacraments. The same Flesh born of Mary, the Word of God Incarnate, comes to us under the veil of a sacrament at Holy Mass in what looks like bread and looks like wine. But this is no ordinary food. It is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ who desires to make Himself our supersubstantial bread and come into intimate communion with us. This foretaste of Heaven leads us as a pledge of future glory to our eternal home. 

The Incarnation goes beyond the cave in Bethlehem, beyond the home in Nazareth, beyond the Temple in Jerusalem, beyond the wood of the Cross, and beyond the empty grave. In the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, the Incarnation is extended. Just as we are body and soul, the Lord commanded that His Church should be visible and invisible. Our invisible God has taken on visible Flesh. So too, the Church celebrates in sensible signs the invisible wonders of God’s overwhelming grace. The most amazing part of all of this is that He invites us to respond and take part in these saving mysteries and realities. Praise be to God for such a gift!

I will end with the words of Pope St. Leo the Great:

Christian, remember your dignity, and now that you share in God's own nature, do not return by sin to your former base condition. Bear in mind who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Do not forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of God's kingdom.

If you have enjoyed this post in the slightest, please consider sharing it with your friends and family on social media, text, or email! Thank you!

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

Introduction

Today we are exploring one of the most important topics in human history: the Incarnation of the Word of God. What we celebrate on the Solemnity of the Annunciation and then nine months later on December 25th is the most marvelous of mysterious miracles. What does the Church definitively teach about the Incarnation? What is the Hypostatic Union? Is Jesus half-God and half-man or fully God and fully man? How does that work? What are some of the heresies about Christ?

This week’s episode will exclusively focus on the fact, nature, and truth of the Incarnation. There is far more to say about the nature of Christ than I can cover in one short episode. So, know that there is more to say, more distinctions to draw, and more fruitful reflection to be had! Next week, in a second part, we will explore the effects of the Incarnation on Christ Himself as well as the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the fittingness of the Incarnation. As well, we will look at the effects of the Incarnation on humanity and the world. In other words, what is the significance of Christmas for you and I personally? 

The Marvelous Fact of the Incarnation

Two thousand years ago, the Eternal Word of God took on Flesh. In the Nicene Creed, Christians acclaim that: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” Belief in the Incarnation of the Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is distinctively Christian. 

No other religion claims something so seemingly outlandish: that the Almighty God would condescend to share in His creation. Yet, this is the truth. The Incarnation is a marvelous fact, a “unique and altogether singular event (CCC 464)” to borrow the language of the Catechism. 

This marvelous reality is not simple to understand, nor is it something intuitively grasped by our feeble human intellect. However, there is much that God has revealed to us and unpacked through the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the centuries. The “Incarnation is… the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word (CCC 483).” We will walk through the Divinity of Jesus Christ then His human nature, and then we will be able to talk with some level of clarity on the Hypostatic Union. 

I am going to try hard to keep this simple without watering anything down. I will also try to define any technical terms that I use. My hope is that this will remain accessible while faithful and accurately explaining the Church’s perennial teachings on the nature of the Incarnation. 

The Divinity of Jesus Christ

Two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth was conceived and born, a real person of history. Historical consensus confirms this reality. We also have the faithful witness of the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Wisdom Literature, and the Prophets all speak of the coming Messiah. The Jewish people at the time of Jesus were waiting for the Messiah, an anointed one, who would take the throne of King David and rule as a militaristic warrior to expel the Romans from the Holy Land. 

In the New Testament, St. Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam and St. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to God Himself. St. Matthew’s genealogy also particularly centers Jesus as the expected heir of David’s throne. From the perspective of today, we, of course, know that Jesus did not come as a militaristic warrior-king. But, how do we know that Jesus Christ is God, that He is Divine?

In the beginning of the Holy Gospel according to St. John, there is no genealogy. Instead, the prologue of John identifies Jesus with the uncreated Word of God through which all things were made: the Logos. The Word of God has become man and pitched His tent among us. He is the Emmanuel foretold by the Prophet Isaiah. The Gospels firmly show that Jesus is not merely another anointed one (messias), He is the Divine Messiah (cf. Mt. 1:23, 2:6; Mk. 1:2, Lk. 7:27). He is God’s own Son (cf. Mt. 16:13; Jn. 10:36; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 1:35). And, finally, He is God. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… (cf. Jn. 1:1).” 

There is a phenomenal exploration of the claim to divinity of Jesus in the New Testament by Dr. Brant Pitre entitled: The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. I highly recommend reading that book, if you are interested!

The remainder of the New Testament further solidifies the Divinity of Jesus Christ and this fact is upheld by the Fathers of the Church in the first millennium of the Church as well. By a singular miracle, the uncreated Son of God, consubstantial with the Father was made man and dwelt among us. He is, thus, truly and appropriately called a Divine Person. As the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. put it: 

“We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-Begotten Son and Word of God (Chalcedon, Part ii, act. 5).”

Modern academics of all stripes will try to poke holes in the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. This makes sense for those who wish to conform God to their viewpoint rather than be conformed by Him. If Jesus Christ is God, then everything He said carries the full authority of Almighty God.

The Human Nature of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is fully God. But Jesus Christ is fully man, with flesh supplied from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is a Divine Person, not a human person. However, He possesses a full and complete human nature: body and soul. As St. Thomas Aquinas puts it: “Although Christ is not the human nature, He has human nature (ST III, q. 10, a. 10, ad. 1).”

The human nature of Christ is difficult to wrap our minds around. Some in the history of the Church, for example, have tried to claim that Jesus’ human body was an illusion. To this, St. Augustine answers: 

"If the Body of Christ was a fancy, then Christ erred; and if Christ erred, then He is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth; hence His Body was not a fancy' (Augustine, QQ. lxxxiii, q. 14; P.L., XL, 14).”

Just as we acknowledge wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ is truly God, we also acknowledge that a true human soul animates the truly human body of Jesus. St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

“The body is not said to be animated save from its union with the soul. Now the body of Christ is said to be animated, as the Church chants: ‘Taking an animate body, He deigned to be born of a Virgin’ [Feast of the Circumcision, Ant. ii, Lauds]. Therefore in Christ there was a union of soul and body (cf. ST III, q. 2, a. 5, s.c.).”

The Hypostatic Union

Fully God and fully man, Jesus Christ is the God-Man. The central mystery within the mystery of the Incarnation is how the divinity and humanity of Jesus interact. This mystery is called the hypostatic union. Hypostasis is the Greek word for person. St. John Damascene teaches that “In our Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures, but one hypostasis composed from both (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4, 5). The Catholic Encyclopedia explains of this union:

“We speak here of no moral union, no union in a figurative sense of the word; but a union that is physical, a union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person, a union which means that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ (CE).”

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks at length about the nature of the hypostatic union, but one insight that I find most helpful is the difference between assumption and uniting. He speaks of assumption as an action - the Word of God assumed human flesh. This is not wrong to say, but St. Thomas prefers the idea of uniting or becoming. The Word of God became flesh or united with the human flesh of Jesus at His first moment of existence. 

Here we can already run into problems if we are not careful. Did Jesus have a beginning? Yes! Did the Son of God have a beginning? No! He is begotten, not made, eternal and consubstantial with God the Father. As St. Thomas concisely explains: 

“Whatever has a beginning in time is created. Now this union was not from eternity, but began in time. Therefore the union is something created (ST III, q. 2, a. 7, s.c.).”

There is a true union of divinity and humanity in Christ. But we should not think that the divinity of Christ overpowers and consumes the humanity of Christ. Pope Alexander III, in the 12th Century, quipped: “Since Christ is perfect God and perfect man, what foolhardiness have some to dare to affirm that Christ as man is not a substance?" In other words, the metaphysical substance of the human nature of Christ is real and persists, completely and perfectly united to His divine nature.

How did this happen? How were the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ united, in time? It is by God’s grace! It is a true miracle, a unique and singular event. St. Thomas Aquinas echoes St. Augustine when he teaches: 

“Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): ‘By the same grace every man is made a Christian, from the beginning of his faith, as this man from His beginning was made Christ.’ But this man became Christ by union with the Divine Nature. Therefore this union was by grace (ST III, q. 2, a. 10, s.c.).”

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

False Natures of the Incarnation - Heresies about Christ

There is no shortage of false teachings about Jesus Christ. Catholic orthodoxy is a thin line which has been guarded as a precious jewel from apostolic times. Without the authentic measure of orthodoxy provided by the Catholic Church, then any opinion would be fair game. In fact, this is unfortunately the state of affairs in many Protestant communions. 

Before we further clarify what the Catholic Church teaches truly about Jesus Christ, it is helpful to look at some of the heresies about Christ in the early Church. By looking at what the incarnation is not, we can come to a better understanding of what it is. There is a lot to be said about these heretics and heresies, but I am going to try to keep it brief.

Arianism

Arius was a priest in Constantinople in the late 3rd Century and early 4th Century. He believed that God the Father was uniquely God and Christ was subordinate in every way to the Father. He denied the hypostatic union and believed that Christ was the highest of the creatures of God. No small historical issue, there was a time when the majority of the Church’s episcopacy was Arian in belief. 

Suffice it to say, Catholic orthodoxy was victorious. The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., led by the great Saint Athanasius formulated the first version of the Nicene Creed that is professed on Sundays. We believe in “one Lord Jesus Christ… true God of true God… Who took Flesh, became Man and suffered.”

Nestorianism

In 428 A.D. the Patriarch of Constantinople was a man named Nestorius. He called the union of the two natures a mysterious and an inseparable joining, but would admit no unity in the strict sense of the word to be the result of this joining. The union of the two natures, to Nestorius, is not physical but moral. As he put it “the Word indwells in Jesus like as God indwells in the just.” There is not a true, physical and lasting union of divinity and humanity. To explain his view he said that Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos) but not the Mother of God (Theotokos)

Nestorius denied the hypostatic union but, unlike Arius before him, did acknowledge the divinity of Christ. He just did not believe that there was a physical union or substantial union of humanity and divinity. So, to Nestorius, when Christ suffered, He did so in His humanity, not in His divinity. 

On the contrary, Saint Athansius taught (against Apollinarius) that: 

“They err who say that it is one person who is the Son that suffered, and another person who did not suffer ...; the Flesh became God's own by nature [kata physin], not that it became consubstantial with the Divinity of the Logos as if coeternal therewith, but that it became God's own Flesh by its very nature [kata physin] (Contra Apollinarium, I, 12, in P.G., XXVI, 1113).”

The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. condemned Nestorius as a heretic and defined that Mary was mother in the flesh of God’s Word made Flesh. In this way, it is right to call her Theotokos or God-bearer. The specific anathema against Nestorianism was written by St. Cyril of Alexandria who wrote extensively on the nature of Christ. He said:

“If in the one Christ anyone divides the substances, after they have been once united, and joins them together merely by a juxtaposition [mone symapton autas synapheia] of honour or of authority or of power and not rather by a union into a physical unity [synode te kath henosin physiken], let him be accursed (can. iii).”

Monophysitism

The Christological heresies, so-called, did not end with the Council of Ephesus. Eutyches took part in that Council of Ephesus and was fiercely opposed to the teachings of Nestorius. However, he went too far in the other direction. He developed the heresy of Monophysitism which held that there was only one Person in Christ (which is true) but he only held one nature in Christ (which is heretical). His denial was that Christ was “consubstantial with us men” as St. Cyril of Alexandria held. Eutyches was stressing Christ’s uniqueness, not intended to deny Christ’s full manhood. The error of Eutyches is the cautionary tale of not swinging too far in our refutations.

This heresy was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. It was formulated in this way:

Jesus Christ remained, after the Incarnation, “perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity… consubstantial with the Father according to His Divinity, consubstantial with us according to His humanity… one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures not intermingled, not changed, not divisible, not separable (cf. Denzinger, n. 148).”

Monothelitism

The next heresy of monothelitism began orthodox enough. The monothelitists defended the union of two natures in one Divine Person. They went off the rails in saying that this Divine Person only had one divine will - they denied the human will of Jesus.

Sacred Scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ has a human will. He performed acts of adoration, humility, and reverence. In the Garden of Gethsemane, He prayed to the Father that the “cup” of His sacrifice and death pass without His drinking it. Praying to the Father in this way, He showed His human aversion to death but also the human act of the will of obedience in saying: “not my will, but thine be done.”

Monothelitism was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A.D. They defined that in Christ there were two natural wills and two natural activities, the Divine and the human, and that the human will was not at all contrary to the Divine, but rather perfectly subject thereto (cf. Denzinger, n. 291).

The Truth About the Incarnation - Catholic Teaching

By way of summary, what then does the Church authentically teach about the nature of Christ and the hypostatic union? Jesus Christ is a Divine Hypostasis - a Divine Person. The unique hypostatic union of Jesus Christ is the complete union of two natures, one divine and one human, in one Divine Person without change, division, separation, or the like. 

When the Eternal Word of God took Flesh, there was no change in the Word. All the change that took place was in the Holy Flesh of Christ. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God’s activity, the human soul of Christ was created and the Word became the man that was conceived. 

Next Time on WWC

Next time on WWC, we will explore the second part of this series on the incarnation. Namely, we will be looking at the effects of the Incarnation on Christ Himself, on the world, and on us! We will also look briefly at what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say on the fittingness of the Incarnation. For example, if mankind had not sinned, would God have still become incarnate?! Stop on by next time and see what the Angelic Doctor had to say. The next part of the series should also be a fruitful reflection for us entering into Christmas! Thanks for reading. See you next time on Will Wright Catholic!

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

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

What is Marriage? 

“The Sacrament of Marriage does not involve two persons, but three.” But like Dr. Fagerberg of Notre Dame quips: “by Trinitarian arithmetic, that means there are five persons involved in each marriage.” Marriage is a mystery and a sacrament, just as the Holy Eucharist is a mystery and a sacrament. 

As Pope Leo XIII puts it in his encyclical on marriage:

“Christ our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament; that to husband and wife, guarded and strengthened by the heavenly grace which His merits gained for them, He gave power to attain holiness in the married state; and that, in a wondrous way, making marriage an example of the mystical union between Himself and His Church, He not only perfected that love which is according to nature, but also made the naturally indivisible union of one man with one woman far more perfect through the bond of heavenly love (Arcanum).”

The Sacrament of Matrimony is one of the sacraments at the service of communion. Matrimony is a vocation to a state of life that joins a baptized man and baptized woman in a lifelong covenant of love for the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children.

Marriage in God’s Plan

The Bible begins with a Marriage and ends with the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and it contains wedding imagery all throughout. At the beginning, God created man and woman in His image and likeness. He saw that it was ‘not good that man should be alone.’ Just as God is a communion of three divine Persons , the Blessed Trinity, marriage is a communion of life and love between husband and wife with their children.

For a long time in human history, Marriage had fallen from its created nature and original practice because of sin. Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. But Jesus Christ restored and elevated Marriage to the level of a Sacrament. Jesus’ first public miracle is performed during a wedding feast. Really when a man and woman are married, they are entering into a deep communion with one another and with God. Marriage is an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence. As He said,

“From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder (Mk 10:6-9).” 

Matrimony is thus a Sacrament for two baptized Christians. Dr. Scott Hahn gives us a helpful reminder: “Marriage does not make it easy.  Marriage makes it possible!” In order to overcome human failings, the married couple must cooperate with the grace of God and follow the teachings of Christ and his Church. Marriage is oriented to the salvation of both spouses, and the more they recognize Heaven as their mutual goal, the more fruitful their marriage will be. Marriage is far more than a civil contract. The Sacrament is an indissoluble covenant, which serves as a conduit of God’s grace and means of sanctification and salvation for both husband and wife. 

Celebrating Matrimony and Matrimonial Consent

Proper preparation for marriage is vital. Those who can receive the Sacrament of Matrimony are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent. To be free means to not be under constraint and not impeded by any natural or Church laws. If the conditions are not met, then the marriage is invalid (i.e. - it does not exist).

The two must consent totally, freely, faithfully, and fruitfully. In other words, they consent to marry for life, free of any coercion, to be faithful to one another, and to be open to the procreation of children. The couple declare this consent in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized minister of the Church: bishop, priest, or deacon. The matter, the stuff, of the Sacrament is the couple themselves. The form, in the Latin Rite, is the vows they make: “I, N. take you, N., for my lawful wife (husband), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” This consent freely given, without impediment, makes the marriage.  

After the minister ratifies and blesses the marriage covenant. The sealing or consummation of marriage occurs later in the conjugal act. This consummation makes a marriage indissoluble. In the Latin Rite of the Church, the minister of this Sacrament is the couple themselves. The priest or deacon officiates but he acts only as an official witness of the Church. In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (called “Crowning”) is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the consent of the spouses, crowns the bride and groom as a sign of the marriage covenant.

At any rate, consent makes the marriage. And consummation makes the marriage indissoluble.

After the husband and wife have been joined through the exchanging of consent at Mass, then receive the Holy Eucharist. Because, of course, all of the sacraments are directed towards the Sacrament of sacraments, the Eucharist. I love the way the Catechism of the Catholic Church phrases this, so please permit me the longer quotation:

“In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself forever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but "one body" in Christ (CCC 1621).”

Effects of Matrimony and the Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love

Christian marriage is bound up with the union of Christ to the Church and therefore is ordered to the communion of the spouses and children with God. The effects of the Sacrament profoundly reflect the essential properties of Matrimony: unity and indissolubility, as well as the two fundamental purposes of the marital act: union and procreation. Matrimony joins the spouses in a perpetual and exclusive bond. Matrimony gives couples the grace to strengthen their indissoluble unity.  

As the Second Vatican Council puts it: “The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent (GS, 48)."

Marriage is all about a total gift of self from one spouse to the other. Matrimony and conjugal love gives a ‘new significance’ to human sexuality. More than simply a biological process or reflection of love, this good and noble act strengthens the marriage bond and demands permanence, fidelity, and openness to procreation.  

St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. Supplement to the Summa, q. 49, a. 2) and the Council of Trent after him speaks of three blessings of Marriage, in particular: children, fidelity, and the Sacrament.

Children

Of course, not every woman is able to bear children, for whatever biological reasons. But for those who do, St. Paul says that “The woman shall be saved by bearing children.” This does not mean just having children, but as St. Paul says to Timothy, they must also continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. So, it is clear that the procreation and education of offspring has been held as a primary end of marriage, since the time of the Apostles.

The blessing is not only to the wife. Psalm 127:3-4 says, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!” 

Fidelity

The blessing of faith in Marriage is the virtue of justice to remain faithful to one’s spouse. As the Council of Trent puts it: “the fidelity which binds wife to husband and husband to wife in such a way that they mutually deliver to each other power over their bodies, promising at the same time never to violate the holy bond of Matrimony.” As St. Paul says, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church.” We have to remember that Christ’s love for His Church is immense. This love brought no advantage to Him, but only advantage to His spouse, the Church.

The Sacrament

The third blessing is the Sacrament itself: the indissoluble bond of marriage. Marriage ends only in death. Just as Christ never separates Himself from His Church, so the wife cannot be separated from her husband in so far as regards the marriage itself. 

The Second Vatican Council

How does the Second Vatican Council build upon these duties and summarize what has been said? In the Constitution on the Modern World, we hear:

“Authentic married love is caught up into divine love and is governed and enriched by Christ's redeeming power and the saving activity of the Church, so that this love may lead the spouses to God with powerful effect and may aid and strengthen them in sublime office of being a father or a mother. For this reason Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state. By virtue of this sacrament, as spouses fulfill their conjugal and family obligation, they are penetrated with the spirit of Christ, which suffuses their whole lives with faith, hope and charity. Thus they increasingly advance the perfection of their own personalities, as well as their mutual sanctification, and hence contribute jointly to the glory of God (GS, 48).”

Marriage is a path to holiness and the practice of marriage means undergoing sanctification. As the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Church puts it:

“Christian spouses, in virtue of the sacrament of Matrimony, whereby they signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and His Church, help each other to attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children. By reason of their state and rank in life they have their own special gift among the people of God (LG, 11).”

Can Divorced Catholics Receive the Eucharist?

Just a note on something very controversial in the Church today. Can divorced Catholics receive the Eucharist? First, it should be noted that divorce is always a tragedy. Being divorced, however, is not in itself an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist. This is a very misunderstood reality.

Divorce is a purely civil affair and legal separation for the safety of the children or one of the spouses may even be appropriate in cases of domestic abuse. However, marriage, even natural marriage between non-Catholics, is viewed as ending only in death. This fact is preserved by the Church with love and tenacity. Therefore, the remarriage of a validly married person transgresses the nature of marriage itself and is therefore a serious offense against the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. Though the civilly remarried cannot currently receive Communion does not mean they are excluded from the Church! It is the job of the Church to continue lovingly care for their spiritual lives and work to normalize any irregular situations.

What is an Annulment?

Chiefly this normalization is investigated through the annulment process. Some people who want to get married in the Catholic Church eventually may find themselves in marriages that do not appear to be working despite their best efforts. In these cases, the Church encourages counseling in an effort to save the marriage.

However, in cases of domestic abuse or addiction to alcohol or drugs, it might be in the best interest to separate. This, however, is not divorce or permission from the Church to remarry. Some individuals or couples seek a decree of nullity, called an annulment. This is a statement of the Church, after thorough examination of the marriage at the time of consent, that a valid marriage was never established. In other words, from the very beginning there was something seriously lacking at the time of consent which limited the marriage in a serious enough way as to make it null and void.

Once an annulment is granted, those involved in the invalid marriage are free to enter into a sacramental marriage or the religious life. In order to procure an annulment, the person must prove that some kind of impediment to marriage existed at the time of consent. This means that they were not actually free to marry for some reason. Or that the intentions of one or both of the spouses lacked in being free, total, faithful, or fruitful.

The Duties of Married People

What are the duties of married people? St. Paul and St. Peter provide quite a few duties of husbands and wives. All of these are geared to the primary goal: get my spouse to heaven!

Duties of a Husband

The husband is to treat his wife generously and honorably. Adam called Eve his companion given to him by God. Remember, Eve was not formed from the feet of Adam but his side! Nor was she formed from the head of her husband; so, it is not her duty to command her husband but rather to be a helpmate to him. 

The husband is also traditionally expected to, using the language of the Council of Trent, “be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.” This is not to say that the wife cannot work as well, but the husband is the one who, nonetheless, has the normative duty to provide and to avoid idleness.

Finally, the husband is to keep his family in order, to correct their morals and behavior, and to see that each family member does what is expected of them and that they heed their responsibilities.

Duties of a Wife

“Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands,” says St. Peter, “so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior (1 Peter 3:1-2).” He also exhorts women to prefer inner sanctity to external beauty. What St. Peter is saying here that wives have remarkable power of example over their husbands. They are to be obedient to their husbands, in that he has the final say as the head of the house, but the woman’s behavior and witness has a tremendous effect on the direction of the decisions. 

Wives are called, in a special way, to train their children in the practice of virtue and to especially care for domestic concerns. There have been tectonic shifts in our societies and cultures and there is a lot more freedom of movement for women. The Church does not say that these developments are contrary to the Faith. But the natural gifts of women towards making a house a home and compassionately caring for the needs of domestic life are unrivaled by men. 

The Council of Trent ends the section on the duties of a wife with the following: “... let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.”

The Domestic Church

Why is the Church so insistent on this idea of the husband as the head of the house and the wife as the suitable helpmate? It is because this is what God created when He created mankind. This is the original state of marriage which keeps everything in good, working order. Marriage is the fundamental building block of society. If we get marriage wrong, we get the family wrong. If we get the family wrong, we get the community wrong. If we get the community wrong, we get justice wrong. If we get justice wrong, everything falls into chaos. 

When our Lord Jesus Christ raised marriage back up to its original place at the level of a Sacrament, He was also instituting the Ecclesia domestica, the domestic church. Throughout the history of the Church, the local Parish has always been a family of families, a Church of gathered domestic churches. In the domestic church, the faithful exercise the priesthood of the baptized in a most excellent way. Following the example of the Holy Family of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, the family of God, in their household, moving towards Heaven as “islands of Christian life in an unbelieving world (CCC 1655),” to quote the Catechism. 

It should be noted here that single people are not left out. Whatever the particular circumstances, Pope St. John Paul II reminds us, “No one is without a family in this world: the Church is a home and family for everyone, especially those who 'labor and are heavy laden (FC 85).”

Where is Everyone Going?

Until we recapture this reality of the domestic church, the whole Church will continue to hemorrhage. 79% of former Catholics leave the Church before age 23. 50% of Millennials raised Catholic no longer identify as Catholic today - only 7% of Millennials still actively practice their faith today.

Where are they going? 49% said that they are not affiliated with any religion. 25% became evangelical Protestant. 13% became mainline Protestant. And 13% became something else (Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jewish, Muslim). 

So, what is happening in our domestic churches and local Parishes? Why are they leaving? A whopping 60% of those surveyed in 2016 by PEW research said that they stopped believing in the religion’s teachings, 32% said their family was never that religious growing up, 29% perceived negative religious teachings about or treatment of people with same-sex attraction, 19% mentioned the clergy sex-abuse scandal, 18% said that a traumatic event happened in their life, and 16% said they left because their church became too focused on politics. 

What this says to me is that our domestic churches do not know how to be domestic churches. The grace is there. The Sacraments, including Matrimony, have power. Remember Dr. Hahn’s phrase: “Marriage does not make it easy. Marriage makes it possible.” 

The Root Cause of Our Problems

Everyone you talk to, in the Church, whether conservative, liberal, traditionalist, or progressive has their own opinions and reasons why the Church is losing so many young people. They will say that it’s the liturgical changes, the rigidity, the rules, the abuse scandal, the Latin and tradition, poor catechesis, hypocrisy, something the pope said (present or past popes, for that matter), or so many other things.

I would argue that one of the largest single contributors is a misapprehension of what Marriage is. Over 50% of marriages today, in or out of the Church, end in divorce. Our society today certainly does not celebrate good, holy marriages. Our country has now even tried to redefine what marriage is. Even within Catholic marriages, how many wives seek to be subordinate and loving to their husbands? How many husbands strive to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, with all the theological significance of that particular vocation? 

Our society is broken and the first remedy to shore up the flood waters and begin to rebuild a true culture is good, holy marriages. As the Second Vatican Council puts it:

“Authentic conjugal love will be more highly prized, and wholesome public opinion created about it if Christian couples give outstanding witness to faithfulness and harmony in their love, and to their concern for educating their children also, if they do their part in bringing about the needed cultural, psychological and social renewal on behalf of marriage and the family (GS, 49).”

One of the best things that we can do is give words of affirmation to those living their marriages well. I am sure we all know someone who is clearly devoted to their spouse and vice versa. No marriage is without its problems, but there are saints among us. Let us lift them up in prayer and show them to the world as the wonderful examples they are! If you are married, give thanks to God for your spouse. If you are unmarried, please pray that more young people will answer the vocation to good, holy marriages. 

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

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

A Subversion of Expectations

There is a well-known quote from the 1995 movie Usual Suspects. Perhaps you’ve heard it: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Isn’t this true? And we could take it a step further to say that Satan has not created anything at all in his entire existence. He just subverts good things created by God. Satanism, even, is nothing more than a hollow reversal of the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity.

If I showed you an upside down cross, what would you think of it? Would you immediately recoil and say that it’s satanic? Today, that might be the expectation. But what if I told you that the upside down cross is the Cross of St. Peter who did not believe himself to be worthy of crucifixion in the same manner as Jesus. It wasn’t made a satanic symbol until the 18th Century.

What about the five-pointed star enclosed in a circle? This is universally recognized as a satanic symbol. The so-called church of Satan and the Satanic Temple have taken it on as their symbol. However, the pentagram (and pentacle) is traditionally associated with both the five senses of the human body and also with the five Wounds of Christ! The hermeticists of the Renaissance period hijacked it and made it an image of magic. And it wasn’t made a satanic symbol until the 1960s.

These are just a couple of examples to show that we need to reexamine our preconceived notions from time to time. 

What is All Saints’ Day?

The liturgical calendar of the Church is punctuated by various feast days of saints. On these days, we ask in a special way for the intercession of these holy men and women. We also honor their cooperation with God’s grace and seek to imitate their lives. We may also read some of their writings or pray in a way which was particularly loved by that saint. 

There are too many saints to honor specifically by name and there are only 365 days in a year, and we do not know the names of all the citizens of Heaven. So, the Church celebrates All Saints’ Day each year to commemorate each individual in Heaven: those known by name and those known to God alone. 

All Saints’ Day is celebrated each year on November 1st and is a Holy Day of Obligation for Catholics of the Latin Rite. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, this special feast is celebrated on the Sunday after Pentecost. In the Latin West, November 1 became the date to honor all saints. This practice goes back at least to the 8th Century. Even in secular culture, we have an indication of the prevalence of the day. The night before All Saints’ Day is known as All Hallows’ Eve or Halloween (Hallow is the German word for the Latin sanctus).

Halloween is Definitely Part of American Culture

As a secular celebration, Halloween is a huge deal in the United States. Kids go trick-or-treating, we watch scary movies, people dress up in costumes, go to haunted houses and corn mazes, tell spooky stories, and listen to scary music. To be honest, it was always one of my favorite secular celebrations as a kid. What kid would not want a bag full of free candy? As a teenager, I didn’t trick-or-treat, but I still went to theme parks during Halloween time and went through the haunted walk-through attractions. And as an adult I would go on haunted walking tours in old cities; I’m pretty sure I could lead the French Quarter ghost walking tour in New Orleans. 

Death is Part of Our Fallen Reality

We have to keep in mind that death is part of our fallen reality. Humanity has always had a fascination with the macabre and things that go bump in the night. Why this interest in the ethereal and otherworldly? What is it about this day, in particular, that draws out the attention to the supernatural or paranormal?

Death comes to all, much like taxes. The answer is what are we going to do about it? We can run from it, but it will chase us to the tune of the ticking of the clock. Human beings are no stranger to death, but that plan was not so from the beginning. Our first parents were created in a state of original justice, walking hand in hand, so to speak, with God. After the first sin, evil entered the world. Our nature was tainted by the inclination to do wrong and offend God. Our relationship with Him was changed. And death entered our reality.

However, God did not leave us abandoned to our sin. In fact, death itself was both punishment and salvation. Anyone who has watched a vampire movie knows the curse of immortal life in this vale of tears. And those who watch zombie movies see bodies without souls and ghost movies show us souls without bodies. Again, all these examples show the futility of being trapped in the earthly realm of suffering. 

Our relationship with death is complicated. We rightly grieve when a loved one dies, and we naturally have an aversion to the thought of our own death. Sometimes, in despair, we might have suicidal ideation due to a traumatic event or mental illness. Think of the fictional character Hamlet weighing this earthly life of suffering and the endless sleep of death: “To be, or not to be, that is the question…” Hamlet is even pictured in the play soliloquizing a human skull, a profound symbol of mortality.

The Greek philosopher Plato even wrote that philosophy itself is “about nothing else but dying and being dead.” This was also a common theme of the philosophical school of thought known as stoicism which meditated on death often. In another play by Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, the praetorium guard whispers to the doomed dictator: “Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.”

If we live our life with the daily reminder that we are going to die one day, perhaps we will make better choices. Perhaps we will choose to pray more, to love more, to fully live more. We can think of how Moses prays in Psalm 90 that God might teach the people “to number our days so that we may get a heart of wisdom (Ps. 90:12).” Our life on earth is short and fleeting. As Isaiah says, “The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the Lord blows on it; surely the people are grass (Is. 40:7).”

When the ancient pagans meditated on death, there were several who took this as an invitation to party. The ancient Romans even had a phrase for this mindset: nunc est bibendum (now is the time to drink). The Christian tradition’s meditation on death, of course, does not bear the same weight. In fact, the Christian notion does not motivate us to throw caution to the wind and embrace the mid-2000s notion of Y.O.L.O. (you only live once). Instead, we are called to meditate on our last end and act accordingly in the present.

How to Meditate on Death - The Four Last Things

The Scriptures teach us: “In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin (Sirach 7:40).” Death does not pity anyone and it comes for everyone. Life is short and shortly it will end. 

In the end, we die. This is the first of the last four things. Our death is our soul’s separation from our body. It is a consequence of evil and original sin. However, death is a grace, in God’s timing and providence, because it ends our toiling in the valley of tears and draws us to Himself. 

Upon our death, our soul appears from Jesus Christ, the Judge, who commends our soul to Heaven or condemns us to Hell. The particular judgment of our soul is the second of the last things, and Heaven and Hell are the third and fourth.

We are not so much damned as to say we damn ourselves by our actions here on earth. If we are in a state of unrepentant mortal sin upon our death, we will be judged to Hell, but the choice is ours. God loves us immeasurably and desires our salvation. He wants us to be in Heaven with Him for all eternity, but will not force His love on anyone. 

If there are any vestiges of venial sin on our soul or attachments to sin, then we may need a “time” of purification in Purgatory, for nothing unclean can enter Heaven. Then, at the end, comes the General Judgment and the resurrection of our body. With the establishment of the new Heaven and new Earth, with our newly reunited to our soul resurrected bodies, we enjoy eternal life or punishment. 

What is a Soul?

To help us get a fuller picture of the Catholic view, we need to ask the questions: What is a soul? What is a spirit? Are they different? What is a saint?

Normally when we use the word “soul” we are referring to “spirit,” but these are a bit different concepts from one another. Generally speaking, the soul is what gives life to the body. Whatever is alive has a soul; this includes bacteria, plants, animals, humans, and angels. Of course, even the difference between a “plant soul” and an “animal soul” is vast. 

Human beings, specifically, have what is called a “rational soul.” Our rational soul is what allows us to think and to act, to know things and to will towards certain goods. Wherever our body is, there our soul is. We have a body and a soul; this is part of what makes us human beings. In fact, to be without either a body or a soul is the cause of various nightmares and monsters: a body without a soul is a zombie and a human soul without a body is a ghost. 

The related word “spirit” comes from the Latin spirare which means “to breathe.” Oftentimes, spirit is used interchangeably with soul, but spirit tends to bring with it the connotation of the higher aspects of our rational soul. The spirit could point to abstract thought, art, religion, and morality, beyond mere animation of our bodies. St. Paul lists the elements of man as spirit, soul, and body in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Ephesians 4:23.

Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem. offers a fantastic breakdown of this distinction: 

“‘Soul’ when distinguished from ‘spirit’ means that which gives life to a body. ‘Spirit’ when contrasted with ‘soul’ simply means those aspects of human life and activity that do not depend on the body or on the conditions of matter, and so open the soul toward the supernatural life of grace. Human nature has all of these aspects essentially, and finally, even the body will share in the life of the spirit in the resurrection (Catholic Answers).”

What is a Saint?

Next, let us look at the definition of “saint.” Saint comes from the Latin “sanctus” which means holy. This term is used in both the Old and New Testaments to refer to the followers of God. We can call someone a saint on Earth who exhibits holiness in a remarkable way. Likewise, the holy souls in purgatory can be called saints in the sense that they are holy and bound for Heaven. 

Most of the time, however, when we use the term “saint” we are referring to the members of the Church Triumphant in Heaven. God’s disciples in Heaven, who have attained purified perfection by His grace, are called saints: the holy ones of God. There are countless men and women over the last millennia who are officially recognized as saints by the Catholic Church, and there are many more who are not known by name. One does not need to be beatified and canonized in order to be a saint in Heaven. The Church simply gives us the assurance that those recognized by official canonization are definitely in Heaven. 

The Pagan Roots of the Festivities

Now, back to Halloween… where did Halloween come from anyway? Well, we can speak with some historical reliability of the Celtic people in Ireland. The Druid Celtic pagans had a festival on October 31 called Samhain (pronounced “sow-in”). Let’s go back in time to 837 A.D. The Celtic people celebrated this day as the start of a new year each November 1. The summer was at an end and the harvest was beginning. The dark, cold winter was on the way and the harsh Irish winter always brought death. The abbeys of Ireland had been spreading the Gospel in the area for two hundred years or so, but there were still many pagan Celts. 

The Celtic people believed that Samhain was the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead. On this last day of the year, the line was blurry enough for the dead to appear to the living. The celebration always happened the same way. The hearth in every home would be extinguished. Then, the Druid priests would light huge bonfires and crops and animals would be sacrificed to the Celtic gods. The next morning, the hearths would be lit from the “sacred” fire. 

Almost a thousand years previously, the Romans had left a few festivals in late October as well. The first was Feralia which commemorated the passing of the dead from that year. Second, there was a day to honor Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruit and trees. These two festivals were meshed over the years with Samhain. So, the Celts had bobbing for apples and rites honoring the dead along with their bonfires, fortune-telling, and animal sacrifices. 

Then, the Christians came and things began to change, slowly. 

The Christians were rightly wary of some of the practices like fortune-telling and animal sacrifices. But, they had no problem with bonfires. They told the people that it symbolized the great light of Jesus Christ. They did not have a problem with bobbing for apples, because they are fruit from the earth, formed by the hand of the one God. They had no problem with commemorating the dead either. In fact, they were able to show many of the pagans how we pray for the dead at every single offering of the Holy Mass. The Celts were astounded that the Christians did this every single day.

The monks worked hard to clean up these pagan festivities of the problematic parts. In 609 A.D. Pope Boniface IV dedicated the Pantheon in Rome to honor all Christian martyrs and established All Martyrs Day. This was expanded by Pope Gregory III in the 8th Century to include all of the saints. The Pope also did something quite providential for the folks in Druid territory: he moved the feast from May 13 to November 1! The monks and other Christians worked to combine their celebration of All Saints’ Day with Samhain as much as they were able.

In the years following the mid-9th Century, the celebration of All Hallows’ Eve and All Saints’ Day (and All Souls’ Day beginning in the early 11th Century) looked like this: the communal celebration began on the Eve of All Hallows, modeled after the festival of Samhain. There were bonfires, parades, the adults and the children dressed up as saints, angels, and devils, and there were bobbing for apples. There was not a Druid priest in sight and no animal sacrifices or fortune-telling. As the community continued to be converted, Samhain passed into History, but Halloween, the Catholic Feast, remained.

Should Catholics Celebrate Halloween?

We now, finally, approach the question: “Should Catholics celebrate Halloween?” I want to begin by saying that I am trying my best to prudently apply the principles of Faith and Morals of the Church to the specific historical instantiation of celebrating Halloween here and now. As a prudential application, you might come to different conclusions, and that’s okay. At any rate, here goes. I will try to keep this wrap up brief. 

If you keep in mind everything that has been stated thus far, then I say: celebrate Halloween, both in church, at home, and in the streets. Do not try to reproduce pagan rituals and do not be superstitious. Know that Satan and the demons are real and do not invite them into your life. Instead, be discerning but enjoy the candy, movies, music, decorations, and costumes, always in moderation, of course. Perhaps use it as an opportunity to meditate on your own death and be moved to contemplation of the divine. Remember the great cloud of witness of the saints and the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death. 

Halloween (as the Vigil of All Saints) has been brought into the Faith as a Christian Holy Day; let us mark it as one. Let us seek to keep the good and leave the bad, just as the Holy Mother Church has taught us over the centuries. The Gospel does not come into an area and destroy culture; it elevates and purifies it. Make good distinctions and let good fun be good fun. If something is vicious or evil, then discard it. And if something is good but has been perverted, then take it back! 

If you like carving pumpkins, then do it! Just don’t worship the pumpkins and I think you will be just fine.

There is so much more to say. But, when I asked my wife what her take on this question of Catholics celebrating Halloween was… well, I’ll just end with her words: “I wish people would just use their brains. It’s common sense. People need to chill out and find the rational middle ground.”

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

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

It’s Time to Address the Papal Elephant in the Room

Pope Francis is the 266th Pope of the Holy Catholic Church, having been elected to the papacy following the vacancy left by Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. I will be the first to admit that I was beyond upset when Benedict announced his resignation. I entertained all sorts of notions of conspiracy theories and that he must be being forced to resign in some way, though he has maintained that the decision was his and borne from personal prayer and discernment. 

When Pope Francis became Pope, I was watching the news like everyone else in the world. I heard the words “Habemus Papam [we have a pope], Cardinale Bergoglio.” Who?!? Who was this Argentinian Italian Cardinal? What? He’s a Jesuit? He’s chosen the name “Francis”?!? How odd. 

Then, over the last nine years, I have been edified, inspired, and emboldened by Pope Francis to have an ever greater zeal for evangelization and a decreased sense of materialism. His document Evangelii Gaudium (2013) is spectacular. I also enjoyed many of the teaching points of Laudato Si (2015). Gaudete et Exsultate (2018) has some solid moments as well! I also particularly like this line from Fratelli Tutti (2020): “We gorged ourselves on networking, and lost the taste of fraternity (FT, 33).” That is a fantastic line. The most recent document on the Eucharist is beautiful, though it does not offer anything substantial new in terms of reflection. 

No Shortage of Issues With the Current Pontificate

I know there has been some controversy lately about this document, claiming that the Pope is advancing some sort of Lutheranesque sola fide doctrine, but I unequivocally denounce these criticisms as the bad fruit of uncharity.

What I want to stress here is that I have read every encyclical and exhortation that Pope Francis has published, including those not previously listed. I always try to give him a fair shake and read the documents charitably. 

But I have also been irritated, outraged, scandalized, and befuddled by Pope Francis, especially every time he speaks to reporters on airplanes, gives interviews to atheists who do not take notes, gives talks and sermons that suggest novel interpretations [always bad news when it comes to Church teaching], betrays the Church in China over and over again, allows too much nonsense to continue [in Belgium, Germany, the Amazon, et. al.], says something jesuitically ambiguous, or refuses to clarify matters of doctrine. 

There are plenty of things to be worried about with Pope Francis. However, I wonder if there are elements in the Church that are looking for problems where there are none. It is perfectly appropriate to charitably criticize error and imprudence. It is not okay to invent mountains out of molehills, or, as the case may be, to invent mountains out of level ground.

Pope Francis has done and said many things which are problematic and borderline heretical (many of those in my company would argue that the line has been crossed numerous times into formal or material heresy). His general ambiguity and lack of clarity make it exceptionally difficult to have conversations about the consistency and authority of the Church with radical traditionalists [sedevacantists and those that reject Benedict’s resignation], Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and non-Christians alike. This is especially the case in a climate of many lackluster, cowardly bishops and priests [not all, of course], an immobilized laity, a growing contingent of lapsed Catholics, and the ever-looming sex abuse crisis.

Many in the Church are worried. Many of my friends have reached out to me to have conversations about the shenanigans they are seeing coming out of the Vatican or from Pope Francis himself. What are we, as faithful Catholics, to make of such turbulent times? I thought it might be fruitful to dive into what the Magisterium is and how we can evaluate levels of Magisterial authority.

What is the Magisterium?

Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and the Incarnate Word of God. He is also our King, reigning as our sovereign Lord. As the full revelation of God to man, He imparted all that He taught, did, implemented, and is to the Apostles. As the fathers of the Second Vatican Council put it in Dei Verbum, the sacred constitution on the Word of God:

“... Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth (DV, 4).”

The Church is His Body, of which He is the Head, and He reigns still. In obedience to Him, the faithful here on Earth continue to perpetuate this sacred Deposit of Faith, which is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures, until He comes again in glory. The council fathers, in the constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, said this:

“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God (LG, 18).”

The Magisterium, simply put, is the teaching authority of Jesus Christ to authentically interpret the Deposit of Faith in the age of the Church passed on to the Apostles and their successors: the Pope and the bishops in union with him. As History progresses, we have new technology, means of communication, and techniques which change the way we interact with one another and how we understand the world around us. As such, in His Wisdom, God gave us the Magisterium to faithfully interpret the perennial and unchanging teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals in contemporary circumstances, from age to age.

It is important to emphasize this last point: Church teaching on Faith and Morals cannot, does not, and will not change. As the Second Vatican Council clearly teaches: 

“The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (DV, 4).”

The Church’s Magisterium, therefore, does not give us new teachings that contradict old ones, nor does it give us new revelations or pretend to alter the foundational doctrines and dogmas of the Holy Faith. The Magisterium, at any given time, is beholden to the preceding Magisterium. We faithfully echo on the words, life, and teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church without substantial change. 

A Religion of the Word - The Supreme Rule of Faith

The Word of God is the supreme rule of faith - the standard by which the Divine and infallible faith can be tested. The rule of faith and the Faith itself are from the same divine wellspring. This rule of faith is not extrinsic to the faith nor is it an add-on to the faith. Truly, the Word of God is not a collection of writings or even teachings. The Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. We are not a religion of the book of God, but rather a religion of the Word of God.

The Word of God flows into Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is the driving force of doctrine. The written word of God is inerrant and faithfully transmitted and guarded from error by Holy Mother Church. Sacred Tradition is not primarily a collection of doctrines, but, as the Directory for Catechesis teaches: “is a life of faith that is renewed every day (Dir. 26).” As St. Vincent of Larens taught, Sacred Tradition advances, “consolidated with the years, developed with time, deepened with age (ibid.).”

How then can we arrive at the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? This is where the Magisterium comes in. The Directory for Catechesis puts the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium well:

“The Church’s Magisterium, supported by the Holy Spirit and endowed with the charism of truth, exercises its ministry of authentically interpreting the word of God, which it serves. The Magisterium therefore performs the ministry of safeguarding the integrity of Revelation, the word of God contained in Tradition and in Sacred Scripture, and its continual transmission. It is this living Magisterium that interprets it in a consistent manner and is subject to it (cf. DV 10) (Dir. 26).” 

The living Magisterium interprets Scripture and Tradition in a consistent manner. And the key phrase for today’s discussion is that the Magisterium is “subject to” the Word of God. Remember, the supreme rule of faith is the Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Church cannot and will not contradict Jesus on Faith and Morals because the Church is divinely guarded by the charism of infallibility.

How Do We Weigh Magisterial Teachings?

Doctrine does not change, but it can develop, in a certain sense. Therefore, it is important to understand what is set dogma, what is developed doctrine, what is merely a discipline, and so on. We need to be able to weigh magisterial authority. 

Not everything the Church teaches is marked by infallibility. For example, let’s look at the 1998 profession of faith that used to be used when someone assumed a certain office in the Church. Following the public profession of the Nicene Creed, they would say:

“I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

So, some things are definitively proposed on faith and morals; to these, we firmly accept and hold. We give “religious submission of intellect and will” to the teachings of the Pope or college of Bishops when they speak together, even on matters other than faith and morals, even in the ordinary magisterium. Clearly from this, we see a distinction in level of authority and level of adherence to this spectrum of Church teachings.

The main categories, in order of importance are: 1) dogmas, 2) other infallible statements, 3) doctrines that have not been taught infallibly, 4) theological opinions, 5) other non-doctrinal statements.

* Dogma

Dogmas of the Church are truths that the Magisterium teaches infallibly as being divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. These can be taught by the Pope, an ecumenical council, or by the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium. Dogmas require the theological assent of faith by all members of the faithful. We are not free to dissent from them in any way. To obstinately place them in doubt or deny them is to fall under the censure of heresy. 

Heresy

As an aside, a lot of people speak about this priest or that, or bishop, pope, or lay person, being a heretic. We have to understand the difference between the crime of heresy and sin of heresy. Formal heresy (the crime of heresy) is “the wilful and persistent adherence to an error in matters of faith” on the part of a baptized person; the persistence in error comes from having been formally corrected but continuing in error. Heresy is a grave sin as well, even if it is committed privately. 

The important note here is that heresy is the crime and sin of corrupting dogmas of the Church. Heresy is thrown around a lot today as a term, but most of the time the issues would better be described as either theological error or imprudence. For example, if the pope or a bishop phrases something in an unfortunate way, they could have misspoken or made a theological error without it rising to the grave sin and crime of heresy. We have to proceed in love of the truth but also in charity for the individual speaking or writing. 

* Other Infallible Statements

A step below dogma is “opinions to be held definitively” and these are taught infallibly but are not directly “divinely revealed.” The fact that only men can priests is infallible doctrine but not dogma because it is an open question, theologically, whether it is connected to divine revelation or is itself an example of divine revelation. There is a related discipline to this of clerical celibacy in the Latin Church and episcopal celibacy in the Eastern Churches. So, we see the dogma pertaining to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the infallible doctrine and reality that only baptized men can validly receive this Sacrament, and the discipline of clerical celibacy. All three: dogma, doctrine, and discipline are important but in various weights and with different magisterial weight.

According to St. John Paul II in Ad Tuendam Fidem, in such cases of infallible statements the faithful are “required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

So, these statements still pack a lot of weight and are guarded by the charism of infallibility. Other examples of such infallible statements include:

* When the Pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of Peter. This is extraordinary magisterium.

* When the bishops, in communion with the Pope, define doctrine at a General Council. This is also called extraordinary magisterium.

* When the bishops, in communion with the Pope, together with the Pope, propose definitively in agreement, though they are dispersed. This is the ordinary and universal magisterium.

* Doctrines That Have Not Been Taught Infallibly

When the Pope speaks in an ordinary, but authoritative way, we are required to submit our mind, intellect, and will, but it is not guaranteed to be infallible. Likewise, it is the case with bishops in communion with the Pope who teach authoritatively in their diocese. Just because these doctrines have not been infallibly declared does not make them unimportant. They are also part of the Deposit of Faith. Sometimes, in the history of the Church there has arisen solid reasons to take the time to define certain doctrines to protect against error or heresy.

* Theological Opinions

Theological opinions are the next rung on the ladder. They are not infallible nor are they authoritative. The opinions of theologians can be in legitimate disagreement and ongoing dialogue.

* Other Non-Doctrinal Statements

There are some teachings of the magisterium that are not universal and to be held always. They are more or less circumstantial to time, customs, and culture. For example, if a Church document describes the state of a society, makes suggestions or exhortations, these are to be received with respect and a grateful heart, but do not require strict intellectual assent.

Important Sources of Authoritative Catholic Teaching (Non-Papal)

There is a hierarchy, not just of dogma, doctrines, and disciplines, but also of magisterial texts. 

The Church Fathers

The writings of the Church Fathers, the writers of the first eight centuries of the Church, are accepted as true and authoritative when they speak “in unison” on a matter over those eight centuries. Repetition through the ages does matter. 

Doctors of the Church

The Doctors of the Church are those ecclesial writers who have been given this title for the great advantage given to the whole Church derived from their doctrine. There are now 23 Doctors of the Church who are held in very high esteem for their faithful teaching. The other Saints as well contribute to the great tradition of the Church in varying degrees through their lives and works.

Rules of Life

These rules govern communal life for certain communities and they have to be approved by the Pope. For example, the Benedictine Rule of Life is the ordered way of living as a Benedictine monk in a monastery.

Code of Canon Law

The Code of Canon Law was first compiled from various sources in 1917 and was revised in 1982. The 1982 version is our current Church law which governs all Catholics of the Latin Rite. There is also a Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches. These canons are authoritative and binding on the faithful. 

Papal Documents

Papal documents all carry various magisterial weight. The five main sources of these are (in order of importance): Wednesday audiences, Apostolic exhortations, encyclical letters, papal bulls, and the motu proprio.

Wednesday audiences

Every Wednesday normatively, when the Pope is in Rome, he gives an audience and a talk to those gathered in St. Peter’s square. These audiences are authoritative when they involve teachings on faith and morals, but not infallible. For example, much of St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body was taken from his weekly Wednesday addresses.

Exhortations

The lowest authority of a Papal document is an apostolic exhortation. This is a document in which the Pope exhorts the faithful on a certain matter. An exhortation does not define doctrine, by design. It is higher in authority than a normal ecclesial letter. Exhortations usually follow a meeting of a synod of bishops to outline their deliberations.

Encyclicals

A Papal encyclical or letter is a letter from the Pope to the entire Church. The first Encyclical was the first letter of St. Peter. The next recorded example after Peter is a letter from Pope Clement I to the Christians in Corinth. An encyclical seeks to clarify a certain doctrine. Therefore, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and requires us to submit our mind and will on matters of faith and morals. Encyclicals have a high level of magisterial authority.

Papal Bulls

A papal bull is a public decree or charter issued by the Pope. These are authoritative and binding. A Bull may treat statutes, appointment of bishops, dispensations, excommunications, Apostolic constitutions, canonizations, and convocations.

Motu Proprio

A motu proprio is technically a type of rescript, which is an official edict or announcement. A motu proprio is an official legal act taken by the Pope on his own power and volition and personally signed by him. It has full legal effect for Canon Law. Motu Proprio literally means “by his own hand.” 

Council Documents

Next, let’s take a look at three types of documents that come from General Councils: Constitutions, Decrees, and Declarations

Constitutions

An Apostolic Constitution is the most solemn form of legislation issued by the Pope. They are either doctrinal or pastoral. They are issued as Papal bulls because of their solemn and public form.

Decrees

A decree is an order or law given by the council and the Pope to the rest of the world or a specific group of people. These are legislative acts of the pope. These decrees have the full power of the Pope in making laws.

Declarations

Declarations are more specific and usually address a specific topic. However, they still carry the same weight as other documents of a general council of bishops in communion with the Pope. So, they are authoritative and infallible on matters of faith and morals.

Catechisms

Throughout the Church’s history, there have also been various written systematic presentations of the Faith. These are called Catechisms. Some are universal and others are for a particular locale. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated in 1992 originally and in English in 1997. This document was a game-changer. It was the first truly universal Catechism and was so beautifully compiled. It is the go-to standard in terms of understanding what the Church is and what she believes. The Baltimore Catechism was a question/answer Catechism which arose from a local council in Baltimore, Maryland in 1885. It is based on St. Robert Bellarmine’s 1614 Small Catechism.

The important thing to keep in mind about Catechisms is that they are compilations. They contain dogma, doctrine, and discipline. They contain prudential applications of principles and law. The doctrines contained in Catechism are thus magisterial, but they bear no more weight than before they were compiled in the Catechism.

Judging the nature of a teaching…

First, we can look at the nature of the document that teaches a doctrine. Some are more authoritative than others. For example, A papal encyclical is more authoritative than the weekly general audiences a pope gives, and the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II are more authoritative than the council’s decrees.

The second test is the frequency with which the magisterium repeats a doctrine. If it is something mentioned only occasionally, or has not been mentioned in centuries, it will have a lower level of authority attached to it. But if it is something that the magisterium repeats with great regularity, it is more authoritative.

The third test is the tone of the words used to express the teaching. If it is proposed briefly and tentatively, it will have less authority. If it is expounded at length or emphatically, it will have more authority.

What To Do If the Pope Seems to Be In Error?

So, what do we do when we think that Pope Francis is in error or is holding heretical positions? First, we pray for him. Second, we recognize that God alone judges the Pope… and I mean this juridically. Only the college of cardinals can formally correct the Pope in any sort of authoritative way. Further, no one can be found to be a manifest and formal heretic without a trial. In general, stop calling other people “heretics.” It is unhelpful and often uncharitable. 

We also need to remember that we must not be guilty of the sin of rash judgment in regards to the Pope (or anyone else, for that matter). The Fourth Council of Constantinople in Canon 10 says: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”

I do not claim to have the answers. How do you solve a problem like Pope Francis? No clue. But I do know and believe that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church. I know and believe that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior, and King. And I know and believe that the entire apostolic action of the Church is directed always to the glory of the Father. 

I propose that we dive deep into the study and love of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The perennial truths of the Faith will not and cannot pass away. When the Pope is truly in error, he ought to be charitably and fraternally corrected. But, if you are reading this (or listening to the podcast), then you are not likely to be the one to correct the Holy Father. Do not trust everything you hear from the armchair theologians and gossipers of the Church on YouTube and other podcasts. Theirs is a poison which does just as much, if not more, harm to the Church as anything we are seeing from the hierarchy. 

I know this was a much longer article/podcast than normal, but I did not want to shortchange any of the explanations. With much more left to say, I will opt to wait until another occasion. I will end with the words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians:

“... test everything; hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21).”

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

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

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

Are Faith and Reason at Odds?

Materialist atheists view the world as being composed of matter, its movements, and modifications, and nothing else. Religious fundamentalists and literalists see the world in a monochromatic view based on the biblical texts (i.e. - seeing Genesis as a literal scientific explanation of the creation of the world). The former seem to embody “reason” and the latter embody “faith.” However, I hope to show that the materialist atheists are not using the gift of reason well nor are the biblical fundamentalists understanding the gift of faith. When held clearly, faith and reason are not opposed to one another. In fact, they are incapable of being at odds, when properly understood.

Scientism

I want to begin by looking at a prevalent error in popular society: scientism. Science is an incredibly powerful tool for exploring the world around us. In many ways, it is the tool for discovery given the most credibility by intellectuals in the modern world. This credibility is sometimes so strong that we are led to a sort of scientism in which science is the only tool for discovery worth utilizing, the only one which is trustworthy. Where does this notion come from?

Philosophically, there are two prevailing theories which have taken over much of academia: naturalism and materialism. Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are to be excluded or discounted. There is an even harder stance than naturalism called materialism which holds to the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. In either case, the material and natural are all that are accounted for and the supernatural is disregarded at best and rejected at worst. 

Naturalism and materialism lead to the error of scientism, which is self-refuting. Put basically, scientism suggests that the only things of which we can be certain are those things which are subjected to the scientific method. The crippling problem with scientism is that the scientific method cannot be applied to the scientific method. Therefore, this worldview begins with an unverifiable premise. 

Again, science is an incredibly powerful tool for exploring the world around us and learning more about the composition, movement, and modification of matter. Though, science is unable to answer other important questions: What created the universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the nature of being itself? What is personhood? All of these questions require different tools of discovery than science.

Tools of Discovery

Beyond science, what tools of discovery are at our disposal? First, we can begin with philosophy. Modern philosophy is remarkably convoluted and rife with scientism, un-based skepticism, and other rational landmines. But, the long patrimony of philosophy allows us to ask questions like: What is the nature of being (metaphysics)? How do we come to know things (epistemology)? What makes a thing good, virtuous, or valuable (axiology)? How do we know that conclusions follow from certain premises (logic)? These are fundamentally different questions than science could ever ask or answer, but how many of us would truly argue that these questions are unimportant? So far, all of these questions, while different from science (and along with science), would fall under the broader category of human reason.

Theology

The study of God and of the things of God is called Theology. As long as there have been human beings asking questions of consequence, there have been questions and statements of a theological nature. It is only recently in human history that naturalist and materialist sentiments have disregarded or rejected the supernatural. When thinking of how we could apply the tool of discovery of Theology, I am reminded of the words of Galadriel to Frodo in Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Ring: “May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out.”

In the Catholic patrimony, the realm of Theology arises from what God has revealed about Himself through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but it also includes what is called natural philosophy. Many of the classic arguments for the existence of God come not from St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, but from Plato and Aristotle. More needed to be revealed to arrive at the truths expounded by Christianity, but Plato and Aristotle were able to apply human reason so keenly that they arrived at faith in God (as they understood Him). 

Are Faith and Reason Compatible?

So, are these various tools for discovery actually compatible with one another? Ultimately, are faith and reason compatible? St. John Paul II put it this way:

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (Fides et Ratio, 1).”

Faith and reason are, therefore, both gifts that God has given to human persons to rise to the contemplation of Himself, who is Truth itself, and truth about ourselves. So, faith and reason are more than merely compatible; they are complementary. St. Thomas Aquinas rightly says that the light of reason and the light of faith both come from God, therefore there can be no contradiction between them. 

We need Faith because without it, we would be lost and without direction. We need Reason because without it, we would be lost to our emotions and blind whims.

What is Reason?

Reason is the God-given gift of rational thought. Beyond mere reaction, we can come to the knowledge of things, events, and persons through thought and observation. Like Faith, this second wing of the human spirit, leads us to know in order that we might act. We know and we love. We believe and we act.

Lest we think that reason is somehow more rigorous than Faith. We must reject the notion that the only tool of reason is science. Science is an incredibly powerful tool to investigate the material world. What exists and how does it exist? Science, however, can never answer the question, for example: why do we exist at all? For these questions, we might use the tool of philosophy.

Reason also prepares the way to faith. St. Clement of Alexandria said long ago that philosophy is a “stepping stone to faith (cf. FR 38).” At the same time, we must learn as Pope Benedict XVI taught that human reason alone is weak; it needs faith to elevate it. God’s grace builds upon our nature. 

What is Faith?

Faith means to trust in God. Faith is belief. What we believe, contained in the Creeds of the Church, for example, can be referred to as Faith. The entirety of the Catholic religion can be called the Faith. Faith is not believing in something irrationally. There is a great amount of evidence for God and the truth of the claims of Christianity.

The Gospels are historically reliable. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is well attested. And the last two thousand years establish how well founded the Faith of the Christian religion is. The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God. God exists. On these three levels of God, Christ, and the Church, we have Faith.

The tenets of the Faith lead us to assent in belief to God and to trust Him. This intellectual way of coming to know God moves our free will towards love of Him. Of course, this requires trusting the Church, trusting the saints and holy writers of the past, and trusting in the testament of Tradition, written, or orally handed down to us. In this way, we are trusting what we ourselves have not seen personally, but it is certainly rational to trust such a firm witness.

As St. John Paul II put it: 

“Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth (FR 13).”

Truth is True, Regardless of Feelings

Certain things exist in a certain way and our feelings on the matter do not change that reality. There are certain things which are always true, always and in all places. We might refer to these as “principles.” The application of these principles can be many and varied, but the principles themselves might not change.

When the Church teaches on a matter which pertains to Faith or Morals, the teachings can develop but they will never change. These truths point to the nature of God, of man, and of the created order. In all of these principles and applications, the truths do not change. However, they are discovered by means of either faith or reason. Because faith and reason both are at the service of the truth, they cannot contradict. If we believe that something is in error, then either our reason is faulty or our understanding of a teaching of the Faith is faulty. 

Reason can show that God exists and lays a foundation that makes faith credible. Therefore, reason is a common ground between believers and non-believers. Faith without reason is myth or superstition. Without reason, faith is only feelings and experience. If this happens, then universality of truth is lost.

How to Know if We are in Error?

How can we know if we are in error? Could the Holy Spirit point us in a direction which seems like a logically poor decision or lead us into error? The answer is no. The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit is God. God never wants to deceive us.

If we have a strong indication that God is leading us in a certain direction, we must figure out why we think that. And, if we feel that logic dictates a different path, we must figure out why we think that. In other words, are we cooperating with the gifts of faith and reason properly?

Investigating human reason, we look at arguments to ensure that they are valid. Does the conclusion necessarily follow from the premises? If the argument is sound, however, then the conclusion will be valid if the premises are true. It is possible that we have an improper understanding of something. This can affect us greatly because we might think that something is logical, but our arguments are bad or our premises are wrong.

Investigating our understanding of the Faith, we must think with the mind of the Church. What does the Church teach on Faith and Morals? We must form our conscience well and learn as much as we can about Church teaching.

Ideally, when we are investigating or discovering, we are aiming at the truth. As Pope Benedict XVI put it, 

“In the irresistible desire for truth, only a harmonious relationship between faith and reason is the right road that leads to God and to the person’s complete fulfillment (Gen. Audience, Nov. 21, 2012).” 

He also thought there was a “fertile connection” between understanding and believing. Even the field of Theology which studies the things of God and God Himself is classically defined as “faith seeking understanding (fides quarens intellectum).”

What to Do with a Supposed Contradiction?

What, then, should we do with supposed contradictions? We must begin by remembering that God never wants to deceive us. He’s not trying to trick us. If we come up against a supposed contradiction where reason seems to be saying one thing and faith is saying another, then necessarily our understanding is wrong as it regards either reason or faith. So, we must diligently investigate our premises and data points, pray, ask for guidance, or research the answer from someone who has wisdom and insight. What we cannot do is act in a way which seems truly illogical, and we cannot act against something we feel convicted by the Holy Spirit to do or not do.

We Need to Live in the Truth and With Love

God has given us the gifts of reason and faith to come to knowledge, love, and service of Him and of those placed around us. We must never lose sight of why we have these various tools of discovery. It is all about the love of God and neighbor. 

When we study science, we should do so out of a sense of wonder and awe at God’s creation and His majesty. And any application of what we learn should be at the service of the common good of humanity. Likewise, when we use the tools of philosophy and theology, we must bear in mind that these are tools of discovery, not of innovation. The truth belongs to Jesus Christ. He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Our job is not to hijack reason or faith, but to harmonize the two wings and let God’s grace draw our souls ever upward into His own blessed life. 

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

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

Universal Call to Holiness

Each person is created in the image and likeness of God and he or she is of inestimable worth. Human dignity is the greatest equality in our world. People may come from different cultures, times, places, and creeds, but they all have human dignity in common. This worth is not without a purpose. Created by the grace and love of God, we are ordered towards eternity with Him in Heaven. In short, we are called to be saints.

In Latin, the word for “saint” and the word for “holy” are the same: sanctus. Sanctus means to be set apart or consecrated [the assumption here is consecrated for a purpose]. The call to be a saint is universal and applies to each and every person. What is more astounding is that this call is remarkably individual. God’s call to be holy and thus to share in His own blessed life is offered to us in a way that we will understand, if we have ears to hear. 

How, then, can we grow in our ability to hear the voice of God? How can we have eyes to see more readily His grand design for our life? How can we become more disposed to God’s grace and cooperation with His grace? One of the most practical tools in this endeavor is the life of virtue.

Fullness of Christian Life and Perfection of Charity

The Second Vatican Council makes this call explicit in the Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). The Council fathers write, “All Christians… are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity (LG 40).” And lest we believe that we have attained the pinnacle of growth of virtue, St. Gregory of Nyssa reminds us: “Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none.” 

Certainly, there is no more important effort in our lives than cooperation with grace ordered towards communion with God. If we make progress in virtue, then we make progress in holiness. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Spiritual progress tends towards ever more intimate union with Christ (CCC 2014).” Not to belabor the point but it is worth saying again: any progress we make is the fruit of God’s grace in our lives. 

What is a Virtue?

The Catechism defines virtue in the following way: “A virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do the good (CCC 1803).” We do not fall into virtue haphazardly. A firm disposition is required for virtue. Regular and habitual performance is also necessary. Finally, it is an action and disposition which firmly intends towards the good. 

The Catechism rightly shows that these good actions are not to inflate our pride and make us feel good. Rather, they are ordered to communion with God and to become like Him. In the words of the Catechism: virtue “allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself… the goal of a virtuous life is to become like God (CCC 1803).” 

The Theological Virtues

The life of virtue is ordered to God but it also originates in God. He gives us the grace to be virtuous. Prior to Baptism, the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity swirl around us and woo us into the salvific life of the Christian. Then, after entering through the door of Baptism, we receive these tremendous gifts as an indwelling of God’s own life in our soul. 

We receive faith to be able to know and believe what God has revealed. We receive hope which is sure and certain that if we love God and heed His commands then we will forever behold the beatific vision in paradise. And we receive the virtue of charity which makes possible everything that we do. God’s own love and life is charity, for God is love. All things were created out of His sheer goodness and love; His love is the ground of being. 

All three of these remarkable theological virtues are not something that we can grow in on our own volition. God gives them, we receive them, and then we choose to cooperate freely with them or squander them. Then, we can ask for a greater share in faith, hope, and charity. In this respect, we are habitual and firm in our disposition to cooperate with God’s grace to do the good.

The Human Virtues

Aside from the theological virtues, are there virtues which we CAN grow in by our free use of them? Are there virtues we can strengthen like going to the gym to strengthen our muscles? These are called the human virtues.

The Catechism says that the human virtues are “firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith (CCC 1804).” In other words, the virtues allow us to be in control of our actions, emotions, and overall conduct. 

The final note from the Catechism here should not pass without comment: our actions and conduct should be in accordance with reason and faith. Doing whatever we want is not virtuous. Doing what God wants is. So, it should be very clear that the virtues are part and parcel of living the Christian life and answering the universal call to holiness.

The Cardinal Virtues

Before we explore the human virtues in more detail, I would like to spend a few moments on the cardinal virtues. The word cardinal comes from the Latin word for hinge. On these virtues all the other human virtues hinge. They are prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Let’s see what the Catechism has to say on each.

“Prudence disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it (CCC 1806).” It is called the charioteer of the virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas said that it is “right reason in action.”

“Justice consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Through it, we are disposed to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good (CCC 1807).”

“Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life (CCC 1808).”

“Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable (CCC 1809).”

How Do We Acquire Human Virtues?

How do we actually go about acquiring human virtues? The first way is by education. We must never tire of allowing ourselves to be formed more and more in the life of virtue. Virtues are habitual and deliberate. Therefore, we must persevere in repeated efforts to cooperate with God’s grace. By His goodness, our character is forged and our intellect and will are freer to practice the good. We will know that we are growing in virtue when we are truly happy to practice virtue.

Pursuing virtue will not always be easy. Living in a world wounded by sin, it is difficult to maintain balance in the virtuous life. With God’s grace, we must continue to live a life in the Church with the sacraments, read Scripture regularly, take time each day for prayer, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and be docile to what He calls us to love and what to shun. Intention and deliberation follow from cooperation in the spiritual order: grace always goes first.

In Medio Stat Virtus - In the Middle Stands the Virtue

Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, once quipped: “In medio stat virtus” - In the middle stands the virtue. Living a life of virtue is a balancing act. Practically speaking, we do not want a deficiency or a disproportionate emphasis. 

For example, if we go too far towards the excess of justice, we will lose mercy. But if we have a deficiency and we stray away from justice towards what we think is mercy, we are not being just at all.

In another example, if we are trying so hard to be prudent that we do not act, this is an excess of virtue. However, if we are deficient in prudence, we will act rashly and unadvisedly. Neither excess or deficiency is meritorious and virtuous. 

There is a chart (below) which has a listing of virtues in the middle column and the deficiencies on the left and excesses on the right. I hope that this visual is helpful to be able to see how virtue is often found in the mean between two extremes. 

In practicing virtue, we must continually examine our actions at the end of each day. Begin by giving thanks to God for the times when you were able to choose virtue recognizing that His grace allowed this. Then, sort through some times when virtuous acts strayed towards deficiency or excess. Finding this balance is a lifelong struggle. Run, but do not grow weary! The life of virtue is worth it. The more you and I embrace virtue, the happier we will be, in the ways that actually matter.

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

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