Category Archives: Essays

Beyond World View

Posted on by

God reveals Himself to us in ways we can understand.  If you accept God’s Mercy, you won’t have to worry about His Justice. These might seem like incompatible statements, unrelated and disjointed, however, look closely.

This is true now, as it was for the Old Testament congregations. Much of what the prophets taught was centered on projecting the peoples’ humanity onto God’s divinity. What was said was filtered through their worldly experiences, tailored for cause and effect, and like the parables in the New Testament, the analogies and metaphors used were directed at the first century audiences. Today we might see these two statements as models, one being our human condition, or one being our created nature. It might make sense to you to look at your world view through lenses, one being spiritual or one being psychological. Obviously, there is an endless combination of faceted views, what we might call our “world view” uniting emotion, reason, logic, moral principles, experience, personal commitment, and my all-time ego driven favorite, fulfilling my wants and desires which I think will lead me to a rich and rewarding life. If the underlying objective is to have a rich and rewarding life, and I think it is, then we should consider the paradox of beginning from different points of view, taking different paths, and ending up in the same place.  

I believe, catechesis comes first, and evangelization follows. I am referencing my own world view, which directs me to know God in a devotional way, accept His teachings, and follow the path He has for me, so I might spread His word in an inspirational way to others, as they journey along their path. The cliché tells us we can’t give away what we don’t have. One step further tells me I can’t keep what He has given me until I give it away. So, you see that knowing Him is more important than knowing about Him, on the other hand, knowing about Him can lead to a deeper way of knowing Him. Let’s consider what we know.

Scripture teaches in Timothy, “If you are unfaithful to God, God remains faithful to you, because God cannot deny Himself.” This leads me to the simple notion that God has a nature in His divinity and a condition in His manifestation in this distinctive reality He created. Using definition, description and experience as a guide going forward, let’s look at God as both infinite and finite.

The definition begins simply by saying, I am man, my name is A. J. He is God, His name is Lord God. The definition quickly blends into the description, by acknowledging God as creator, by His word, He said what would be and it was. By divine and worldly attributes, we piece together a definition and description which leads us to knowing more about God, so we can better know God. We come to know that God is all powerful, there is nothing in His creation which is beyond His command. There is nothing in our lives He cannot do for us; nothing lies outside the parameters of His miracles. We understand He is not in His creation; He is the Creator not a player. We see His reflection in everything there is, however, said another way, He is not these things, He made these things. Now that we have made the observations and drawn the conclusions, we can appreciate many different levels of cognition, information, and knowledge,  coming to know more about God. It should be said at this point, that yes, Jesus did come into this world, it’s true. However, He was in the world, not of it. We, as created creatures, are both of the world as an assembly of contingencies, and in the world as an expression of His divinity, which is the plan and purpose He has for us. Understanding the definition and description as foundational and formational, we are better equipped to experience the experience of knowing God.

Let’s pause here for a moment. If we are considering knowing God as an experience, then our world view of knowing about God, by necessity should be big enough to include and contain any creditably faceted world view which truly reflects God. If knowing God is based on, yet beyond, any such world view, then,  through prayer, meditation, discernment, and contemplation any particular world view will be able to be assimilated or perhaps better said, be absorbed into our world view. I offer you this, as that foundational world view. God cannot create a God greater that Himself.  This is a rhetorical statement which does not point to any limitation of God, it actually points to His majesty. There is nothing greater than God, He is greater than the sum of infinity; there is not a condition where there is God and something more. Could God create a rock so heavy He could not pick it up?  Of course not, again another rhetorical statement, not limiting God but demonstrating His authority and command over all of His creation. However, there is a finite aspect of God, which is in this distinctive reality He created. Why finite: because God cannot deny Himself, by His own Nature and through His own creation, He is God. God cannot be evil. Evil is the absence of God. God cannot sin, sin is turning away from God; God cannot turn away from Himself. God cannot lie. There are no circumstances, no contingencies in which God would misdirect or misinform us for our own good. God cannot punish. He can cure and heal, He can re-align, He can rehabilitate, He can discipline but He cannot punish. Again, God is beyond our world view, however, our world view should be consistent with an expression of His Nature, and any world view which truly reflects God will be consistent with His Nature. Scripture tells us, God’s Mercy and Justice, sun and rain, reign down on sinners and saints alike; all receive, not all accept.

Let’s continue the description of this broad-based world view by considering scripture again. In Exodus 34: 6-7, we see God passing in front of Moses, describing Himself as He proclaims, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” This passage establishes God, in His own words, by name and identity. The Nation of Israel reflects the Old Testament, and in the emerging Greek world the theology, philosophy, spirituality, and psychology are bound together in an apparently seamless system. For the Greeks, philosophy was a way of life. For the Jews, theology was the center and all worldly endeavors were products of this central theme. This mind set allows a free interchange between the man God made and the God man made. Mysticism and spirituality co-exist and compliment the psychological world view, philosophy, history, and natural sciences of the era. On the surface, this homogeneous model satisfies both knowing about God and knowing God. However, it does force fit God into the worldly mind set of the times, and limits God to the often-demeaning confines of man’s imagination. It’s no wonder Jesus admonishes Peter, telling him he is thinking as man would think, not as God thinks. And again, in Job, we see God being all virtues and all virtues being God in His singularity. In the same manner as God is in all places and in all times at the same time, whereas man is witnessing each virtue and each place in his own time seen through man’s plurality. This passage continues by describing many of the magnificent virtues of God, along with a warning targeted at the psychological world view of man, that man should be careful, as with all fathers, God has a limit to His patience and His anger will eventually be provoked. Again, blending this homogeneous model into man’s understanding of how God might appeal to man in a way man could comprehend. And to this point, “might” for man in his humanity means, could be; whereas God’s “might” is for sure and for certain.

Now, let’s unpack the troublesome phrase, “Yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.”  On first reading it appears God will do the punishing. However, on closer examination we find, it is God who allows the iniquity of the father to be visited on the children and grandchildren, it is not God’s punishment, it is the consequences of the father’s bad behavior. Furthermore, these consequences, these reflections of wrong worship, this turning away from God is “visited” on the children, implying a coming and going. It’s not a curse, not an affliction or punishment from God. We see in Kings, that some sons recognized the dilemmas created and perpetrated on the Nation of Israel by their fathers and turned away from their father’s wicked ways, while others influenced and guided by these travesties acted worse than their fathers. For me this is nothing more than the calamities of original sin, the reflection of the fall permeating into the lives of the present. There are many discussions which follows from and through this train of thought. One being the sins we contract and the sins we commit. One being the power of prayer and how it is elemental to life on the earth. There are visions of hope, founded on love and trust, as well as, heart break in a seemingly endless maze of confusion in an ego driven world.

If you, the reader, can agree that we are not the early first century Zionist waiting for the coming of our Lord and there is a world view which does incorporate knowing God as we journey from the formative to the transformative, that we can truly bring definition and description into the realm of experience, then the next best question is why and how are we different from these early Zionists? The answer is transubstantiation. Now I’m sure you realize that if my model is a good one, and it is working the way it should, then there is more than one good answer. After all good questions make better answers than good answers make. So, let’s look at one facet, transubstantiation.

The Church knows that nothing says formative to transformative better than transubstantiation. The mystery of bread and wine turning into the body and blood has baffled and delighted Christian since the Passover Night on the eve of His Passion. Certainly, the real presence of Christ Jesus is the sum and summit of the Church, the pillar and foundation, the beginning and the end, along with a host of other definitions and descriptions. I am suggesting this is all that needs to be said, and that there is something more to be said. Christ Jesus not only changes the bread and wine, He changes everything. He entered the world, and nothing will ever be the same. Consider the formative aspects of the Mass. We hear His words as the Lector reads scripture. We see the Host as the priest raises Christ before the congregation. We reach out and touch Christ as the Eucharistic Minister places our Lord in our hands. Now think about this, there are several inert gases, such as, helium, argon, and neon to name a few, which do not combine with any other element. It’s possible that at any given moment we are actually breathing the same elements, the exact same elements which passed through Christ Jesus’ lungs. He entered the world and changed everything. His transfiguration put an end to the discussion concerning the immortality of the soul, a heavenly realm of resurrected bodies and the covenant relationship of the Father with the Son and the faithfulness of the Trinity and the created creatures. He was baptized in the Jordan River not only showing us the model, procedure, and purpose of baptism, also changing the water in the river forever more into Holy Water, forever changed. He died on the Cross for all of mankind, so that we could live in a new world, one where Justice has been and is forever served. This is more than a sum zero equation. It is an acquittal not a pardon; there are no equal parts, because there are no parts. This answers the “why” we are different than the early Zionists, now we look at the “how”.

We have the benefit of 2000 years plowing the same field. The early patriarchs of the Church, through their inspirational and devotional genius paved the way for countless saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church to lead us into the shadow of His providence. We draw strength from the blood of the martyrs; we rest in the loving arms of our Holy Mother, and we rejoice in the sacraments of Church life.  And more, we are children in the twenty first century, seekers looking beyond our world view and praying in unison with the billions of Catholics who have come before us. We separate our fields of study into disciplines each with their own definitions and descriptions within their areas of concern. We have united these disciplines into spheres encompassing far ranging influences so we can correlate geography and topography with anthropology, history, and theology in order to better understand the evolving mind of man. We have more than shifted the paradigm, more than arranged the elements or reconfigured the components. We introduced new ingredients, trumpeted new discoveries, changed the ways information is gathered and stored, and then theorized how things really are based on new observations and conclusions. In some cases, the words we commonly use can’t describe what we have found, so we have invented new words to better capture what we now know. In some cases, the words we choose can be a trigger to shift our minds from how we used to think, into what we now consider plausible, creditable, helpful, advantageous, and even inspiring. All of these formative elements are only precursors to our Lord God, who always was, who is and who will forever be. It is in the eternal now we find ourselves living in the presence of the Lord. In this moment there is no separation of the formative and transformative, any more than there is any difference between intuition and self-realization. In this moment, our lives become His plan and purpose for us beyond our own world view. Our life becomes authentic, we look beyond our unique life history, into our unique life experiences. These experiences lead us out of the world around us and into a world of empathy and sympathy. In this moment, the door opens in our minds, we understand what St. Augustine meant when he said,” God loves each one of us as if there were only one of us to love.” Is it any wonder, in the stillness of the moment or the clamor of the world, that God’s message and His mercy are given to us an undeniable expression of what we need to hear, clear and truthful? This is God telling us what we can understand and inspiring us to a deeper understanding , at least pointing us in a different direction, prompting us to ask questions and seek His answers.

Modeling the formative to the transformative, using definition and description as the formative and experience as the transformative, leads me to this conclusion; God’s love is like light passing through a prism….what we see on the other side is mercy, compassion, kindness, all the goodness of all the virtues….yet it is still light…just as God’s love is still love.        Blessings for all of us   AJ

Stating the Conclusion

Posted on by

                                                             

The problem with stating the conclusion first is the same problem as stating the theory without the evidence; it circumvents both reason and logic and what we like to call “common sense.” You see there is no such thing as “common sense”, unless we would agree that everyone is born with some, and over time and experience it develops into practical life skills or perhaps a compass to navigate this material world of ours. Or secondly, considering “common sense” as simply developing through life experiences, it is still unreliable since in this case, it would necessarily depend on an array of tangible and intangible conditions. I am suggesting two cases for your consideration. An intrinsic element, something we might call intuition or conscience, and a mental or structural element which we might call the foundational precepts of the Scientific Method. Both elements are recognized as a standard for inquiry, investigation, and observation. Through either element, we can discern what is a definition, a description, and an experience of every day natural occurrences, technically complex scientific questions, or abstract concepts such as morality, social justice, and righteousness. Since both elements come from different beginnings and end up in the same place, we can use either to develop a model which depicts definition, description, and experience. So, let’s take “common sense” out of the equation, using either the mental or intrinsic elements as a pathway to experience.

Certainly, the Scientific Method fits this model. Formulating a basic definition of what is, along with a thorough and extensive description of what is, and finally and most importantly capturing the real-life experience of what is. We can move from the premise, through the proof to the final purpose. Understanding any method can be corrupted unintentionally by error or purposefully by design, this author intends to consider an authentic representation of honesty and integrity to encourage serious dialog and contemplation. And again, through the intrinsic element, whether it be epiphany, inspiration or guidance from a greater power, the fundamentals remain the same.

Using the definition to draw the conclusion presents a shallow world view, which can be easily manipulated by encouraging the audience to formulate their own descriptions and select the purposes which best fits their particular point of view. Without the description, the experience can assume all the goodness and glory the definition might entail without enjoining any actual world values which might make the experience possible. This sleight of hand trick also forces any opposing point of view to deal with the definition without the related description or experience, which are the substantive component of the definition. This becomes a tactical strategy forcing other world views to frame a response within the parameter of the definition, when in fact the definition might have nothing to do with the description or experience.  

On the intrinsic side of the process, I believe the process actually works better and can be easily seen in reverse order. Whereas, in the mental process, the definition and description build to a depiction of experience; the intrinsic element begins with an experience, and the description and definition are created to support the experience. This means critically thinking people will analytically weigh the merits of the intrinsic experience with the same scrutiny as they would evaluate the credibility of the definition and description leading to the experience produced by the Scientific Method. The assumption made in this model is the realization that the experience is paramount regardless of the process.

For instance, if the experience is harmony, peace, and security which is the same as the definition of a rich and rewarding life, then all sounds well, straight forward, and forthright. However, as we have seen in Venezuela and other areas where Totalitarianism is on the rise, the description of the definition is  millions killed, millions interned  and hundreds of thousand released back into the society to spread the news; then the experience is one of terror and tyranny. Now evilness molds the narrative, the lie becomes reality. When the disconnect is defined as connecting the dots, when the oppressors are defined as the victims, then natural law can be suspended in favor of existentialism. Consider the recklessness of claiming an existential threat, when the goal is to further a political agenda and generate wealth for a few and suffering for many. Consider the damage done when history is defined in today’s politically correct scheme, that’s when yesterday’s impossibilities become today’s headline news, written to suppress what is happening in favor of promoting power and control. As we know the best hidden agenda is one in plain sight, defined by what it’s not, heralded not as absurdity but exalted as the new normal, the new order, and justice in action.

Here in America, just as a river changes its course over time in a slow and unperceivable way, so too does social sentiments slowly drift from one idea to the next. Trends develop and a willing media creates social commentary from prevailing bias and some fragments of today’s pop culture. When observers think things are happening quickly, it’s because they have failed to see the next step in what has become an organized trend. Events are only surprising when the dawning was not an awakening. “How did this happen?”, is not a rhetorical question, it is a desperate call to action. When a society does not value what it has achieved, it will soon lose those accomplishments. Order is replaced with chaos, and chaos championed as a new beginning. The old order is dismissed as inconsequential instead of formational and foundational, a necessary step.  The current conditions are only seen as intolerable by those outside the fabric of success. Those within the structure want change for the better, built on the existing systems. Those outside the systems appear to be disoriented and isolated because their unity is not based on diversity, but in destruction. They cannot build on what is because it’s beyond their experience. Those in the fabric of success understand  constant learning and the implementation of best practices. Those outside the fabric of success don’t want what is new and improved, they want something different. Different in their terms and in their direction, never considering the consequences of changing the engines in midflight which crashes the plane. When you have nothing to lose why not gamble everything.

                                                                       

Human Rights and the Common Good

Posted on by

One onto my self and one among many is consistent with conventional thinking. Presuming a democracy and free market system, an individual can move freely from one societal structure to the next. Being any part of a household does not preclude one’s status in the economy, the political structure, the denomination, or general social setting. On the other hand, one onto my self and one in the body of Christ, His Church, becomes paradoxical. Saint Paul uses the analogy of the human body to better explain this paradoxical interconnection. Yes, the eye is one onto itself, and yes, it is a unique entity, yet the eye only has substantive meaning within the context of the body; it is what it is because it is in the body and the body is what it is because the eye is what it is. All this gibberish is to utilize functionality, unity, and the comprehensible distinction between the worldly and transcendental. Using parody as our model we can conceivably better understand paradox as analogy.

Let us work backwards, let’s begin with a conclusion concerning this unity in a worldly way and how the individual through his inalienable rights can create the common good. Understanding paradox as a foundational factor in this discussion, let’s conclude government works better when some of the government functions are not performed by the government. Let’s return to the early days of our Constitution and reestablish the notion that promoting the common good means the government will not do anything to impede the common good. Today’s understanding of government is to design and execute programs and legislation which function as the common good. By its very nature, the government is created from and for empire building. When government makes the decisions concerning human rights and promoting the common good, a society can easily gravitate into a Fascist Germany or an Imperialistic Japan. Today’s China is more than a world competitor, China has become a global predator. Similarly, when religion takes the task of governing the society, a present-day Iran can emerge. OK, so how did we get to this conclusion that government in some areas should not govern?   

Firstly, we examine in a paradoxical way, human rights as the vehicle which gets us to the common good which are the same human rights that are found in the common good. In other words, the society has to have basic human rights to create the authentic common good and the common good will expand these  human rights. Either way, we will begin with human rights.

Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical letter of 1963, titled “Peace on Earth”, listed some of these rights as: the right to life and a worthy standard of living, food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and necessary social services. Rights pertaining to moral and cultural values, such as the search for truth, to worship God, to meet and associate with others, and to immigrate. There are certainly political rights and far reaching economic rights: a right to work and work in a safe environment, receive a just wage, and a right to have private property. Certainly, these are all worthy rights and these rights can be easily expanded into greater detail pointing the way to the common good. We find the Catechism of the Catholic Church continues with this idea of worthy rights. Firstly, and foremost by putting the concerns of the common good on the rights and social conditions which allow the people to reach their fulfillment, emphasizing the individual’s participation and responsibility in and for the common good. The CCC beautifully ties the rights of a person to the common good by presupposing respect for and the wellbeing of the person. Human rights and the common good are strengthened by the social development of a group within a peaceful, secure, and just order.

Next, we might want to look at how the transcendental transitions into the worldly. We might see this as the abstract into the practical, theory into practice, interpretation into application, or subjective into objective. How we view this transition is not as important as getting it right, actually having the worldly model be expressive of the vision. I suggest a few mental steps into the process. Looking at the subjective into the objective can be accomplished by agreeing on a standard by which we can measure and evaluate the clarity of the vision, and the results of the implementation. Considering the human rights brings to mind the personal responsibilities associated with these rights, and in some worldly ways the burdens of the blessings. I offer you this, there is a God Standard we can use which demands we act out of love and humility. Taking ourselves out of the equation and loving as Bishop Baron explains, loving for the sake of others, as other. Also, when asking what I am about to do, will it appeal to everyone’s highest ideals and best intentions? Finally, is the underpinning based on right thinking, in other words, kindness, compassion, empathy, and bringing joyous motivation as in giving with a happy heart? If the answer is yes, to these prerequisites, then I can proceed in confidence that I am beginning to move forward in the right direction.

Another step in this idea of moving from theory into practice might be to consider, what is, what should be and what ought to be? Considering Einstein’s life work was never completed. On his death bed were his notes and equations as he spent his final hours working on the mathematical path from the sub-particle mechanics to the world of physics. I am suggesting we do the same by considering problems such as this have solutions, but mysteries do not. Problems will eventually be solved; mysteries will be experienced. Moving into practice, we will by necessity decide, what is. What are the current conditions, what have our institutions, agencies, government legislations and bureaucracies created or failed to create? We know our vision of a kinder and softer world demands we take the next step, what should be? This is where our clear and critical thinking becomes paramount. Not only are we capturing our vision, we are also considering all the resources available and how these resources will elevate what is, to what can be experienced. We are looking for the best of all worlds, the one we have, the incremental transition steps being taken and the accomplishment of our goals, unfolding before us. Ours is a quest of inflorescence, what the Bible calls fruits of our labor. This is the process of nurturing and cultivating, growth and harvesting in the season of plenty. This is much different than the deliberation of what ought to be. What ought to be is that Utopian idea of pie in the sky; what can be imagined but is beyond reach. What ought to be has no prerequisites, there can be no transition from theory to practice because the vision has no foundation. Granted the vision does incorporate love and harmony, virtues, unity, and every platitude known to man, but it lacks character and energy; it has no substance only a clouded vision of heaven on earth.   

Pope John XXIII laid out our human rights as a pathway to a rich and rewarding life. Considering the human rights in and of themselves are not experiences, they are to be experienced. Virtue is only virtuous because of a worldly experience, something accomplished in our world, perceived as authentic goodness. The idea leads to action, without the action the idea is only a shadowy reflection of what ought to be. The spoken idea is only rhetoric, without the man-made action, the Holy Spirit has no arena. The human rights capture the vision; the worldly event captures the experience.

Our mission becomes the work of the Church, with or without the church, moving from the abstract into the practical. Taking what was once the function of government or what was perceived to be a necessary function and creating a new structure for the common good. The goal being collaboration. Communication to coordination and cooperation, all leading to collaboration. In this way the government can become a recipient rather than the originator. In the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, much has been said about the restructuring of government and the opportunities to make changes for the common good, what the pundits see as a way forward through existing structures and the strengthening of government. What the laity sees as strengthening government as they promote the common good with structures tangent to the normal operations of government. We have all seen these unique entities in ordinary ways, such as, neighborhood watch groups, private and home schooling, nonprofits, rural volunteer fire departments, foundations for charities and church sponsored charities. I will leave structuring and labeling to the sociologists, the political scientists, and economists. Its time to put away the clichés like, human dignity for workers of the world or capitalism not corporatism. Its obvious some platforms make a better starting point than others, again, its not about empire building, its about saving our souls, human rights and promoting the common good.

So, here’s how it worked. As a representative of Catholic Charities, I met in committee with West Palm Beach Food Bank, United Way, other charity groups and some non-profit food providers. Our goal was to establish nutritional requirements for children of different age groups, base line pricing, distribution schemes, and coordination between entities to provide weekend food for kids living in insecure home kitchens. This program is customarily called, “The BackPack Program.” Our program is designed for kids up to the ages of ten to twelve. The school systems provide breakfasts and lunches for children in need, but nothing was being done for their weekend meals. Through the effective administration and fund raising of Catholic Charities, the work of a field liaison, and the volunteers at the Churches, approximately 400,000 meals have been given away over the last six years. The program evolved to a point where there are no prerequisites, reordering and inventories are controlled by distribution logs. Recipients are simply asked to sign a form with the kids name and the adult who is picking up the food. There are no questions asked, just show up and pick up the meals. The program is so popular and successful that the school districts are now directly sub-contracting with the non-profit distributors so the kids can take the food home after Friday’s school day. The program could continue indefinitely as long as there is private funding, on the other hand, this is a case where government did step in to promote the common good based on the work of a unique entity whose sole goal was to further the sanctity of the individual and the promote the common good. Blessings for all of us.

Laws of Growth

Posted on by

By way of introduction, let me say I am a recent convert. A lifelong seeker who found a profound answer in Catholicism, which is, a person cannot find Grace. God’s love, His providence and His grace are gifts; we as His children, we can only receive and accept the design of His creation. More precisely, as children in the twenty first century, we know and love God in His singularity, while we struggle with all our facets, our passages and often times the resulting duplicity.

There are times when the dogma of the Church or the passage from scripture didn’t ring true for me. At those moments, I asked myself what it is I don’t understand and looked deeper into my thinking before I declared a point of departure. Being a believer forces me to reconsider, study and contemplate looking for what is right in scripture and what runs parallel with my thinking. Many times, an explanation from a priest’s point of view, or an insightful homily is all it took to show me the wisdom of scripture and the wisdom of the Church. However, as a Catholic writer I give myself the latitude to begin the dialog, realizing my obligation is not to lead the reader away from the Church or into sinful behavior. Using this as my standard, there are many times when I do find a point of departure in the interpretation or point of view of other Catholic authors.

To his credit, Russell B. Connors in his book, Christian Morality said, “in my view”, as he described the meaning of CCC #2343, Laws of Growth. He went on the say, “We are called to be and to do the best we can—no more, no less.” For me, this statement is not only a point of departure, it is also troubling. On reading CCC#2343, I find clear direction that chastity has Laws of Growth which progress through stages. The CCC continues, a person builds himself through many free decisions, and so knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth. Clearly, Laws of Growth encompasses moral good and moral good encompasses many other Christian virtues including, compassion, integrity, and kindness to name a few. Implying an individual could be his or her own judge as to what is the most one could do at any given time, in any given virtue, including chastity is not consistent with Catholic teaching. The standard is set by Christ Jesus, through His church, the magisterium and the CCC. A person’s accomplishments or limitations at any of the stages of growth does not affect the teachings or the authority of the Church.

The first century Christian could legitimately struggle with what to believe. In an effort to make a radical idea more understandable, many well intentioned clergy and scholars scuffled over the nature, meanings and teachings of Christ Jesus. Saint Thomas asked Jesus to help him with his unbelief as would many followers going forward. As practicing Catholics in the twenty first century, our dichotomy is not belief or unbelief, it is belief or disobedience. We have the magisterium and the Catechism giving clear direction. To imply an irregular relationship, adultery, genital contact outside of marriage or the idea of contraception being acceptable because it is the best we can do at the moment, denies the magisterium its authority in our lives, and more importantly we are putting ourselves ahead of Christ and the design of His creation. In all fairness to our psychological make up and our spiritual nature, we will certainly agree, everyone falls short in the eyes of Jesus. Given this inevitable situation, Jesus also provides a remedy which is glorious, for sure and for certain, that is confession. As the author suggests, it would be trite and unreasonable to think our confession would carry the burden, I’ll never do this or that again. However, confession does mandate, by its very definition, that we will go beyond our thinking and turn away from the direction which is leading us into harmful behavior. This ideal is a long way from subjectively accepting our current circumstances as the best we can do. Matthew Kelly proposes constant learning and the implementation of best practices. Joyce Meyer puts it this way, “I know I’m not where I should be, thank God I’m not where I used to be.” I believe these reflections of the CCC better capture the Laws of Growth rather than the presupposed disposition of an individual at a certain time.

So, is there a fatal flaw in our author’s thinking, or perhaps something not so nefarious? Could a study in hermeneutics be a simple solution? Isn’t there a presupposition at play here, something built into the language or depth of understanding which brings a certain bias to the forefront? It occurs to me both the CCC and the author’s point of view, points to the truth and for the betterment of the individual. The CCC from a principled and rigorous doctrine of spiritual understanding, and the author’s from a softer psychological frame of reference underscoring tolerance of a fragile psyche struggling for forgiveness in a difficult situation.  I find it very telling as the author describes the advice of a good pastor; we learn to refrain from judging others. Certainly, good advice considering our judgments would be mostly if not purely subjective. Saint Paul took it a step further, preaching one should not judge themselves. The conclusion I find is pretty straightforward, its never about us, our evaluations, our frames of reference or our calculated concoctions; it is about His timeless message, His guidance and His direction.