Dealing with Hatred

I can't recall ever encountering so much hatred in our nation as seemingly exists today. Certain groups, apparently founded on and continuing to espouse Marxist principles, simply cannot abide the presence of any contrary beliefs. For example, Black Lives Matter "protesters" who openly support the looting and burning of businesses in American neighborhoods are now invading restaurants, creating physical havoc by upending tables and chairs, all the while demanding that the diners support them. 

This video was taken in Rochester, NY and shows the tormented tots of BLM storming a local restaurant. Don't they sound like little 5-year-olds in the midst of a tantrum because mommy and daddy didn't give them the toy they wanted?

Here's another, in Washington, D.C., a bit more placid but still remarkably stupid. Watch this collection of spoiled white kids who never learned a thing from their equally ignorant professors. Their poor parents paid tens of thousands to colleges and universities that failed to educate their children. How sad for them all...except the schools. As a result all the little ones are able to do is parrot the inane words screamed into a megaphone by their verbally challenged  "leader." Again, how sad. Not an original thought in the group.

These, of course, are among the more "peaceful" of the BLM and Antifa demonstrations now plaguing our nation. Believe me when I warn you that your city or town, your neighborhood, could well be next. These yahoos have no intention of limiting their violent activity to the big cities. Right now, those cities, run by equally stupid far-left mayors and city councils, are the neo-barbarians' best hunting grounds because they know the police won't challenge them. But because they're not very bright, they'll begin to think themselves invincible. That will be their mistake. The folks who live in America's heartland won't tolerate what you saw above in unarmed cities like Washington, DC and Rochester, NY. If the barbarians get really stupid they will suffer stupidity's unintended consequences. One can only hope things do not go that far.

But how should we Christians respond to all this? If we turn to Sacred Scripture and Church teaching, we can find some good answers. 

Some Christians maintain that we must tolerate those who want to do us harm, that any resort to violence is no better than the violence that threatens us. The Church, however, has never taught this and has, indeed, always supported the human person's right to self-defense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says quite a bit about this right, which for many becomes even a duty. I've extracted only a few paragraphs

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor...The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow...

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Church teaching, then, is clear: we have a right to defend ourselves against those intent on harming us. We can also use less than lethal defensive measures to prevent those prohibiting us from exercising our God-given human rights.

Some, however, seem to believe that evil does not exist, or that people cannot be overcome by evil -- that such people are simply misunderstood. They are decidedly wrong, as the history of humanity shows us. Overcome by the presence of evil, men and women soon forget God, who is the personification of goodness and love. They become habituated to the presence of sin in their lives and disorder fills them -- disorder of body, mind, and spirit. We see this in those who have ravaged our cities. They cannot accept the freedom of others. They cannot tolerate that others find happiness and joy in God's creation, in His gifts, and desire to live only in peace. These others they accuse of causing their own self-generated failures. 

What are we to do? Well, in addition to defending ourselves, we must confront evil with the truth. Interestingly, the readings for today's Mass (23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A) address this beautifully. 

The psalmist reminds God's people that many will ignore God, and in doing so, will turn to evil. Even their fathers had fallen prey to this failing:

"...your fathers tempted me; they tested me though they had seen my works" [Ps 95:9]. 

Yes, even living in the midst of God's creation, surrounded by His wondrous works, we can forget His presence:

"You are the God who does wonders; among the peoples you have revealed your might...and no one saw your footprints" [Ps 77:15,20].

Evil exists, and driven by ignorance and self-worship it must be confronted by the truth. In today's first reading the prophet Ezekiel reminds us that by warning those who do evil, we are doing God's work:

"But if you warn the wicked, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself" [Ez 33:9]. 

In today's second reading, St. Paul reminds the Romans and us that our attitude toward others -- even those who do evil to us -- must be grounded in love:

"Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law" [Rom 13:10]

And then, in today's Gospel passage from Matthew, Jesus doesn't pull any punches. Our attitude and approach to those who stray, who generate disunity in the Body of Christ, must be one of love. But the one attitude we must always avoid is that of indifference. God desires reconciliation and peace among His people, and to allow disunity is to reject the will of God. We must, therefore, take positive steps to restore the unity God desires. 

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector" [Mt 18:15-17].

Here we encounter a deeper understanding of the teaching found in Old Testament, a teaching that immediately precedes God's command to "love your neighbor as yourself."

"You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him" [Lv 19:17].

Like Leviticus, Jesus places the responsibility to act on the offended party. So often today, when we are offended or treated badly -- when someone "sins against" us -- we ignore those first three steps and immediately jump to the last. We just toss the other person out of our lives. But Jesus instructs us to make every effort to "win over" our brother. Indifference, then, is not permissible. 

Jesus, of course, took this same approach in His dealings with those who obstinately refused to follow God's revealed Word. He never allowed the Pharisees to get away with their willful and self-centered attitudes and behaviors. And yet, at the same time, Jesus' rebukes and questions were always consistent with His long-suffering desire to bring about the conversion and redemption of all. 

Jesus, then, remains the Good Shepherd who goes in search of the lost sheep to bring him back into the fold. His teaching here is one of those highly practical teachings to help His Church deal with the reality of the world in which it must thrive. 

St. Paul, who focused so much on needs of the early Church, never tired in reminding us that love must always be joined to truth. Aware of our own weaknesses, we must still:

"...preach the Word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching" [2 Tim 4:2].

Yes, indeed, love married to truth. That is our challenge, but always remembering:

"What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?...No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through Him who loved us" [Rom 8:35,37].

(A friend just reminded me that I had written about fraternal correction some years ago and should provide a link to it. For what it’s worth, here it is: Fraternal Correction)

Subsidiarity

Finally, brothers, pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may speed forward and be glorified, as it did among you, and that we may be delivered from perverse and wicked people, for not all have faith [2 Thes 3:1-2].

The upcoming election will certainly highlight the vast policy differences that define the Democrat and Republican platforms. And if we dig a little deeper we'll also encounter major differences in the underlying principles that form these policies. From a political and societal perspective, perhaps the most basic principles are those that describe how best to organize human communities and activities.

As I pondered this the other day, I couldn't help but turn to a principle the Catholic Church has long considered key to the proper establishment and function of any human community: the principle of subsidiarity. Here's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes this principle:

Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" [Pope John Paul II, Centsimus Annus, 48].

God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order [CCC: 1882-1885].

Subsidiarity, then, is really a simple principle: if something can be done well (or better) by a smaller, simpler organization, it should not be done by a larger, more complex organization. In other words, opt for decentralization when it comes to the actual work performed. Note, too, that the Church bases this principle on the action of God Himself. In other words, subsidiarity has divine roots.

As I used to tell managers during my consulting days: 

“Get decision-making down to the level where the real work of the organization is done. As managers, your job is to develop policies that support the organization’s ends, to set the boundaries of action for those who do the hard work, to give them the freedom they need to work within those boundaries, and to monitor the quality of work so you can adjust policies and provide the necessary resources.” 

Managers in most small- and mid-sized companies usually understood and accepted this, but I often encountered resistance from executives of large corporations. Too many didn’t trust their frontline people, so decision-making moved to higher levels, away from those who did the work and understood the real needs of the company's customers. 

Socialism, in all its forms, rejects the principle of subsidiarity. Socialist governments, by their very nature, seize power from the people and grant decision-making authority to ideologically pure elites. Personal freedoms disappear and government becomes essentially unlimited in scope. It begins as a seemingly benign welfare state, but moves inexorably toward totalitarianism. Socialism, then, is the very opposite of the federalism upon which our nation was founded.

The principle of subsidiarity, therefore, is a bulwark, a key protector of limited government and personal freedom. It's implementation conflicts with the power-focused desire for centralization and the mindless bureaucracy characteristic of the ideological left. 

You might want to keep this in mind when you exercise your right to vote this November.

The Year of Faith -- Update from Rome

I trust your home parish, like ours, is playing an active role in the celebration of the Year of Faith inaugurated four months ago by Pope Benedict XVI. The pope announced the Year of Faith on October 11, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council and the twentieth anniversary of the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This year, if we live it wisely and well, offers us an opportunity, in Pope Benedict's words, to “usher the whole Church into a time of particular reflection and rediscovery of the faith.”

Pope Benedict believes this Year of Faith is necessary because of the radical changes that have taken place in our culture. No longer can belief in and acceptance of Gospel values be taken for granted. New kinds of atheism and agnosticism have become popular, especially in the post-industrial West where belief in God is mocked as passé and unenlightened. So much of this thinking stems not only from a lack of faith, but also from ignorance and misunderstanding of God's Word and the teachings of His Church.

The Church, therefore, calls us to rediscover the ‘power and beauty of the faith’ by reading the Documents of Vatican II and the Catechism, by studying the lives of the saints, by entering deeply into God's Word in Scripture, and by sharing our faith with others. We are all called by Jesus Christ to evangelize the world:

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” [Mt 28:19-20].

But we cannot obey this command if our own faith is weak or uninformed. As Pope Benedict said, we should all “reappropriate exact knowledge of the faith, so as to reinvigorate it, purify it, confirm it, and confess it.”

I've included below a brief video that provides an update on the Year of Faith as it is being celebrated at the Vatican. You can also access the Vatican's special website devoted to the Year of Faith.

Political Authority and Its Limits

Today, in our own nation, we are confronted by an administration that apparently believes there is little room in the public square for either the pronouncement or the application of religious values, especially those religious values that conflict with the government's ideology, its own view of the world. Not just the Catholic Church, but all faiths have been put on notice that they will be required to suppress their most basic moral beliefs and take actions that directly contradict these beliefs. This, of course, flies in the face of this nation's founding principles and the Constitution in which these principles are enumerated. Our Constitution prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion and yet this is exactly what the current administration is attempting to do. The Catholic Church, joined by many of other faiths, has come out strongly against these policies and we can hope that this dispute ultimately will be settled by the U. S. Supreme Court in favor of the Constitution and the Church. Until then, and perhaps even afterwards, the Church -- and that includes all of us, not just our bishops -- must resist the implementation of such policies regardless of the personal consequences.

Many Catholics, along with many other Christians, however, seem not to realize what is at stake and view this issue as just another political controversy, one that will have little or no effect on how they vote in November. If this represents your view I suggest you turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and take a few moments to review the Church's teaching on political authority and its limitations. The Catechism is one of the few sources of wisdom to which we should turn when confronted by the absurdities and disputes and terrors we encounter in the world. The Church's teachings as found in the Catechism derive not only from Holy Scripture but also from Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium, the teaching authority it received directly from Jesus Christ.

Addressing this issue (CCC 1901-1904), the Catechism first quotes Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical, Pacem in terris:

"Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, 'authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.'" [Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris 51]

And so, we are called to resist laws or regulations that are "contrary to the moral order." By not doing so we place the salvation of our own souls in jeopardy.

In this same section the Catechism also quotes Pope John Paul II, from his encyclical, Centesimus annus:

"It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men." [Pope John Paul II, Centisimus annus, 44]

Here Pope John Paul encourages keeping government authority in check via the application of separation of powers which epitomizes our own constitutional form of government. But he also addresses the necessary presence of "other spheres of responsibility" -- i.e., the Church --to ensure the government does not stray beyond its "proper bounds." The Church, then, must speak out when confronted by the gross usurpation of authority by teaching its members, the community at large, and the government itself. And it must also put its teachings into action by resisting the illegitimate application of authority.

One of our more courageous bishops, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill, in a recent column in his diocesan newspaper, encouraged Catholics to approach the upcoming election responsibly and not vote for candidates who support intrinsic evils. As he stated in his column, “My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues.” You can read the bishop's column in its entirety here. (A video of his comments is also available on the same website.)

As Bishop Paprocki told the people of his diocese, we must all “think and pray very carefully” about our votes in the upcoming election.

Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Capital Punishment

Not long ago, someone asked me, "You seem to be pretty conservative politically. How come you're against capital punishment?" I told him there was no quick answer, but that I'd write about it soon. And so I suppose this is my response.

It's been interesting experiencing the change in my own thinking regarding capital punishment. Thirty years ago I had no problem with the death penalty. As far as I was concerned, when it was applied in our country it was applied correctly, and usually only in cases of first-degree murder and treason. I had great faith in our legal system and the appellate process, and assumed no one would be executed unless he were truly guilty of the crime for which he had been sentenced. Admittedly this faith displayed a naivete common among non-lawyers, but I think most Americans held similar beliefs.

Of course today, as a result of DNA testing, we have seen that many people have indeed been convicted unjustly and  sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. As a result we hear of a growing number of wrongly convected people being released after years in prison, often on death row. How many have actually been executed we will never know since no court or prosecutor is going to pursue such cases after an execution has been carried out. DNA testing made one thing certain: man's justice, as meted out by our courts, was often flawed. But my views on the death penalty changed before the advent of effective DNA testing.

Quite honestly, though, I rarely thought about the death penalty at all. It was simply one of those things I accepted. After all, wasn't it in the Constitution? Actually, the United States Constitution refers to capital punishment twice, both times in the Bill of Rights, in the 5th and the 8th Amendments. In the former it states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Here the Constitution guarantees that no one can be held for a capital crime unless he has been indicted. It also states that you may not be executed -- "deprived of life..." -- without due process, which consists of proper indictment, trail and conviction. (Note: the 14th Amendment extended this restriction to the states.)

The 8th Amendment, although it doesn't specifically mention capital punishment, does address what it calls "cruel and unusual punishment." Here's the Amendment's entire text:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

As you can see, the wording is pretty flexible and can easily lead to a range of interpretations and judgments. The forms of capital punishment considered usual in the 18th and 19th centuries -- hanging, firing squad, etc. -- would be considered unusual and probably cruel by most Americans today. And the forms of capital punishment common in the 20th century -- electric chair and gas chamber -- have in most instances now been replaced by some form of lethal injection which the state considers more "humane". As far as capital punishment itself being considered "cruel and unusual", today's Supreme Court has generally not intervened in death penalty cases.

And so, the state -- that is, the law of man -- seems to think capital punishment is just fine, so long as it's not too "cruel and unusual". And quite honestly this had been my opinion as well. But what about the Church? What does it say? Well, here's what we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent" [John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

And so the Church is telling us that today there is really no safety-related reason to execute someone, since we certainly have the means to protect society from the convicted criminal through effective incarceration. If this is the case, and I believe it is, our decision to execute the criminal is really based more on revenge than on safety. How often do we hear about the need for "closure" on the part of victims' families? What they really seek is revenge, because in the minds of many the death of the murderer will supposedly balance, if only partly, the death of the loved one. Regarding revenge, the Catechism says:

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill" [Mt 5:21], our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice" [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica II-II, 158, 1-3]. If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" [Mt 5:22].

Pretty serious stuff. And the Catechism also reminds us that we should not take away from the offender "the possibility of redeeming himself." As anyone involved in prison ministry can tell you, personal conversion can take a long time for someone who has never known love, never received a kindness, never experienced anything in his life but hatred and sinfulness.

The Church reminds us, too, that being a Christian isn't always easy. We are called to "be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt 5:48] and that's a tall order. We are called to conform our law, as best we can, to God's Law. And perhaps, most importantly, we are called to reflect in our lives the prayer we pray daily when we say, "...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." To forgive does not mean we neglect to punish those who are a threat to society, but can forgiveness and capital punishment coexist? Can the Christian say, "I forgive you. Now I'm going to kill you"? I think not.

What got me thinking about this 30 years ago wasn't the Catechism, which at that time had yet to appear, but abortion. I experienced this little epiphany one January during a March for Life in Washington, D.C. as Diane and I, along with several hundred thousand others, approached the United States Supreme Court. As we stood there peaceably, under the gaze of hundreds of U.S. Capitol Police, I realized there was something terribly wrong with a nation that allowed the killing of the most innocent and helpless of its people. Ironically, the Supreme Court's fateful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 came not long after a 1972 decision that banned capital punishment and threw out most death penalties en masse. In other words, in 1973 the court decided that killing the most innocent Americans was fine, but executing those found guilty of capital crimes was unconstitutional. This remarkable contradiction, more than anything else, led me to question my own beliefs. (Of course, a few years later, in 1976, the Court decided that executions, after all, were okay.)

The legalization of abortion led me to wonder what else the courts could ultimately decide was worthy of the death penalty. And I believe it's important to realize that an abortion is really the imposition of the death penalty on an unborn infant because she committed the unpardonable offense of being inconvenient. You see, that's one of the more practical problems with capital punishment: once you allow it for murder and treason and terrorism and piracy, what's to prevent the state from adding a few more "crimes" to the acceptable list? Just this week, I read that the compassionate Islamic government of Iran has decided to execute two bloggers who it seems "spread corruption" through their blogs. Capital punishment for bloggers -- a radical Islamic form of political correctness. Unbelievable? No, believe it. Can't happen here? If you believe that, I suggest you ask your grandparents if fifty years ago they thought unrestricted abortion would ever be legal in this country. After all, the only modern country that had allowed it was Nazi Germany. Back in the fifties and earlier abortion was universally considered a most despicable crime. But once the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue, like sheep most of our nation went along with it, assuming the courts knew what they were doing as they interpreted the Constitution. Oh, they knew what they were doing all right, but it had little to do with the Constitution. Once you allow the camel to stick his nose under the tent, it's only a matter of time before he joins you in your sleeping bag -- a most unpleasant situation.

And so, those are some of the reasons I'm against capital punishment. I'm too tired today to write any more. And I miss Dear Diane who is away on a cruise with a group of her "girlfriends" and has left me alone to fend for myself. It's all very disconcerting.