Faith: The Glass Half-full or Half-empty

A Landscape Painting

I would like to compare this Gospel reading to a landscape painting. More accurately a series of landscapes (John 6:1-15, John 6:16-21, John 6:22-71) with this Sunday’s Gospel being the first.

In the background of the painting, the Passover was near. Jesus leaves the region of Galilee where he has been ministering by crossing the sea, and a large crowd follows him, “because they saw the signs he was performing.” Jesus also went up a mountain, and Jesus commanded the people to recline on the grass. 

While this detail could merely be practical, the Jews did not normally recline at meals except for the Passover. Jesus takes the bread (and fish), gives thanks, and distributes it. These actions would certainly remind later Christians of the Last Supper and of the Eucharist. Remember as well that initially the Breaking of Break took place as a community meal. The word for ‘to give thanks’ (eucharisteō) became the standard name for Our Lord’s presence in the Christian Mass, the Eucharist.

The crowds, however, are not Christians who are looking back, so what did they see?

A Prophet

As will be highlighted in the next narrative (John 6:22-71), Jesus in the wilderness, on a mountain, miraculously feeding the people, parallels Moses. St. Augustine even sees the five loaves as an allegory for the five books of the Pentateuch, written by Moses in Jewish tradition. Yet when the people saw the new sign that Jesus performed they said, "This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world" (John 6:14). What did they mean by "the Prophet"? We might compare this miracle to Elisha the prophet who we heard about in our first reading 2 Kings 4:22-44. In this Elisha narrative, we have a miraculous feeding, a doubting servant, and barley loaves.

Moses the Greatest Prophet

We might, however, be missing something important. In the Jewish mind, Moses is not merely the Giver of the Law, but more importantly, the greatest prophet in the tradition. Moses gave a promise near the end of his life, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kindred, and will put my words into the mouth of the prophet; the prophet shall tell them all that I command” (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18). In fact, all other later prophets are in Moses’ image. They are like Moses. Yet, they remain lesser than Moses who was able to see God ‘face to face’ (Numbers 12:8).

Two Dads and a Promise

Another passage from the Moses tradition became important as the prophetic tradition developed. At one point Moses becomes burned out and complains to God that he cannot carry all the people by himself (Numbers 11:14). God helps Moses to appoint 70 elders. The Holy Spirit rests upon these men and they all prophesied. Unfortunately, two of the elders Eldad and Medad, apparently overslept and missed the meeting, so the Spirit fell upon them publicly in the camp instead of outside the camp with the other elders in private meeting.

This greatly alarmed Joshua, who tries to stop them, but Moses replies … “Are you jealous for my sake? If only all the people of the LORD were prophets! If only the LORD would bestow his spirit on them!” (Numbers 1:29). This desire of Moses to see the Spirit on all people becomes a theme, which is slowly developed.

The Spirit on all Flesh

Later Prophetic tradition promised that God would do something new with his Spirit. In future time the Spirit would come anew giving his people an interior transformation of their hearts. Jeremiah promises a new covenant, based on an interior knowledge of the Lord by the Spirit and forgiveness of their sins (Jeremiah 31:31.) Ezekiel writes, “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you so that you walk in my statutes, observe my ordinances, and keep them” (Ezekiel 36:26–27). Jesus makes the promise of a future outpouring of the Spirit in Isaiah, his own mission statement in Luke 4:18. “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; He has sent me to bring good news… (Isaiah 61:1ff.).

Perhaps the most obvious fulfillment of Moses' desire to see all his people become prophets comes in the prophet Joel, “It shall come to pass I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions (Joel 3:1).

St. Peter quotes this passage of Joel at Pentecost.  “These people are not drunk, as you suppose," St Peter tells the crowd, "for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:15–16). 

St Paul notes that as Christians we now live in the Spirit, we are no longer veiled as Moses was, but “All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

So we see that the backdrop for our painting of this Gospel scene is the promise of a New Moses, perhaps even to the surprise of Jesus contemporaries, one who is greater than Moses (Hebrews 3:1-6, Matthew 17:1-8, John 1:17, Acts 13:38-39), who will bring about all that is promised in the prophets, especially the coming of the Spirit into the hearts of his people. This backdrop will become increasingly important as we journey forward through the successive narratives of John 6.

The Faith of Philip and Andrew

If this is the backdrop to the scene, who are the characters added to it? Two people especially standout as they interact with Jesus: Phillip and Andrew. We are told that Jesus wishes to test Philip. There is a stark contrast between the responses of their two Apostles. Looking at the crowd Jesus asks Philip, "Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?"

Philip replies, "Two hundred days' wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little."

By contrast Andrew says, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many?"

When we look at the response of Philip, the impression we get is that he is saying, “Jesus that is impossible.” He ends the sentence with the word, “little.” We do not have enough resources to do this. It's impossible.

Andrew by contrast responds not by saying "this is impossible" but instead presenting the problem to Jesus. His words are essentially saying, “How is this possible.” His sentence ends with the word, “many.”

The Glass Half-full or Half-empty

If I carefully measured a glass of water in front of you so that you were convinced that I had filled it half full and then I asked you, “Is the glass half full or half empty?” I think most people will say it is  half full, thinking that it is better to maintain a positive attitude. Clearly, someone might look and say, “Look, I still have half a glass of water left” while another could say, “Dang! I drank half the glass. Now I only have half left.” Yet it is the same glass of water in both cases. 

A clever person, therefore, might answer that the glass is both half-full and half-empty. Therefore, we might ask what makes the difference between these two interpretations. The glass of water does not change. Instead, what we bring to the glass from our hearts makes the difference. I think Philip is seeing the glass as half empty. There is too little food. Andrew sees that the glass is half full but is still unsure that Jesus can make this work for many. We might call this hopeful but realistic.

I am sure Philip later learned to think differently, but on this day, he seems to respond to Jesus with raw skepticism. “Jesus the glass is half-empty and this is impossible.” By contrast, Andrew says, “Jesus, the glass is only half-full so how is this possible for so many?” Lord, I believe, help me to understand. Andrew illustrates an important attitude that leads to faith.

Many times in life, we are left discouraged by what we actually see before us. It may seem like there are not enough of us to make a difference. We may suffer trials and setbacks. Yet if we offer Jesus what little we have, he may surprise us with the result. As the Lord reminded St. Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Faith is trusting in what we do not see.

The Grass is Greener Where you Water it.

In a Catholic Marriage ceremony, the bride and groom exchange solemn promises with one another that form a covenant bond between them.

The bride and groom exchange promises to be faithful to one another, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love and honor one another. The couple also promises to enter a permanent relationship, which lasts “all the days of our life.”

Modern psychological research has demonstrated that the pillars of a lasting marriage are commitment and trust. A Catholic Marriage ceremony dramatically highlighted these values.

When we think about commitment in Marriage, we need to realize that commitment grows slowly over time. Commitment is an act of the will, a firm decision to value our partner above others. We must do this in both difficult traumatic times, and in mundane busy times. Our commitment carries us forward.

Trust is also something that builds slowly, as we experience our partner being trustworthy. We build trust with our husband or wife in small day-to-day interactions that may seem inconsequential. Trust is also lost in a thousand small cuts when in little ways we prove untrustworthy to our partner. Brené Brown has observed what she calls the paradox of trust. In order to build trust we must be open with them and risk vulnerability. Yet at the same time, it is the building of trust, which inspires vulnerability. In small ways, then we must take the risk by offering our own vulnerability, in order to begin to inspire trust, this trust will in turn help us to be more vulnerable.

In an extensive four-decade-long study, “trust” emerged as the key factor for strong Marriages. Trust, however, is not like a light switch or an attribute that we either have or do not have. We build trust slowly in small interactions and experiences with another person. In the case of spouses, in our daily life together.

We build up trust slowly as we prove ourselves trustworthy in our interactions with our partner. Each moment, we have the choice of turning toward them and connecting with them or turning away and ignoring them. In these interactions, trust either is built up or declines as the cumulative effect of these interactions.

Some simple activities for inspiring trust in our married relationship include showing up and being there for the other person. There are many distractions in our lives, and most of them are on a screen. Setting time aside to be present and to listen to our partner is a simple way to build trust.

In conversations between couples, our partner often makes small bids for connection. They give us a signal that they want us to stop and pay attention to them and listen to them share about their life. In these small moments, we need to turn towards and not away from our partner. In doing so, we will slowly allow our trust to grow in the relationship.

Consistently turning away from our partner erodes trust and eventually makes us spiral into negative thinking about our partner. Once we have allowed this negative climate to become normal, one study showed that we are 50% less likely to respond to our partner’s needs. Negative thinking often leads people to think the grass is greener somewhere else. Neil Barringham points out, it is more true to say “the grass is greener where you water it.”

In Sacred Scripture, we learn that love is not a passive emotional state, but a call to action on our part. St. Paul tells us, “Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

In his great ode to love, St. Paul notes, “Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; … Love does not insist on its own way…it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13: 4-7, cf. Philippians 2:1-5).

What can we do to water the grass in our relationship? The answer might be deceptively simple. We need to pay attention to our spouse and be ready to respond to their bids for connection. Although this isn’t hard to do, often when we are tired or already engaged in some entertainment, it is an effort to stop or to turn off the screen and respond.

In a study of 3400 couples followed for more than 40 years, the couples who turned toward their partners 86 % of the time remained married, while those who did so only 33 % of the time later divorced.

If we have allowed our relationship to become somewhat negative we need to make a serious effort to change or replace negative thoughts with patience, kindness, and forbearance. We need to learn to compromise rather than ‘insist on our own way.’ Rather than ‘rejoice in the wrong we see,’ we can forgive, and learn to ‘rejoice in the right.’ We can take these things to our prayers (cf. Philippians 4:8).

One powerful way to change our thinking is to take time to appreciate our partner. Make a list of things you appreciate about your partner and share it with them. Perhaps read The Five Love Languages together and figure out how your spouse best likes to be appreciated and loved.

Schedule time together for date nights. Build rituals for connection.

St. Paul tells us that love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endure all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7).

 

Forgiving From the Heart

Our readings for this Sunday focus on forgiveness. Forgiveness is a detailed and complicated topic. Jesus and Forgiveness

In Matthew 18, Jesus sternly highlights the spiritual consequences of holding on to unforgiveness.

"Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.

So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives your brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:34-35, lectionary)

Is Jesus saying that holding on to unforgiveness automatically eternally condemns us? His statement is ominous, but perhaps not for the reasons some will assume. If we have a wrong idea about how we get into heaven, we could easily get confused. Many people seem to think that, at the gates of heaven, St. Peter will challenge us about why we should get into heaven, and he will produce a scorecard of sorts based on our good works. We might call this a cartoon faith.

Cartoon Faith

I continue to be amazed at the power of stories and images to influence people’s beliefs. A few years ago, many people read the fictional thriller, The Da Vinci Code.  A great deal of confusion occurred, as hundreds of errors in this tale unintentionally influenced people, concerning the Catholic Church and our faith.

A similar thing has occurred with popular cartoon images of heaven. The standard "cartoon" has the deceased person coming to the gates of heaven usually depicted with wings like an angel. St. Peter challenges the person about why he should let them into heaven. Often this is bundled with the idea that we need to present a list of our good deeds to enter.

In sacred scripture, we are explicitly told that the heaven city has a massive, high wall and not one but twelve pearly gates (Revelation 21:12). There are three gates that face each of the four directions North, East, South, and West (Revelation 21:14). This emphasizes that the city is for every nation, race, people, and tongue (Rev 7:9). In spite of these apparent fortifications, the gates are always open and never shut (22:25). Entry into heaven is for “those whose names are written in the lamb’s book of life” (21:27).

What the typical cartoon gets wrong is that our eternal destiny is determined “at the moment of our death,” in a particular judgment by Christ. This judgment will determine if we are worthy of either heaven or hell (CCC 1022, 1051). There are only two possibilities. All who die in God’s grace and friendship are assured of salvation, but they may also need to undergo purification before entering the joy of heaven (CCC 1030).

It is not the list of our good deeds that will make us worthy of heaven, but our communion with the death and resurrection of Christ and our deeds of cooperation with the graces that we have received through the sacraments. The catechism calls this living and dying “in God’s grace and friendship.”

The Church teaches that our eternal destiny is sealed at the moment of our death. We cannot earn our salvation through our own good works, no matter how good we try to be. Without exception, salvation comes through an unmerited gift of grace, received by faith, as we enter into communion with the death of Jesus. This is what the Catechism means by “All who die in God’s grace and friendship” (CCC 1030).

Forgiveness and Repentance

We also believe, however, that it is possible to lose this gift of grace through serious (mortal) sin in our lives. The conditions include grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This type of serious sin can cause us to lose the gift of grace that we have received until we are restored to grace again by repentance in Confession.

This restoration to the life of grace occurs through an act of repentance in Confession. In order to make a good Confession we must have some contrition (CCC 1451-1453), and be willing to change our lives and stop sinning. If we do not intend to stop the sin, or in the case of difficult habitual sins, at least to genuinely struggle to stop them, we cannot be forgiven in Confession. 

The healing we receive in Confession actually helps us to exercise mercy towards those who sin against us. This is one of the reasons why even frequent Confession of less serious sins is helpful.  The Catechism reminds us that by "receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father’s mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful" (CCC 1458).

I believe that Jesus is telling us that deliberately withholding forgiveness for some injustice that we have experienced is potentially a grave sin. Withholding forgiveness could also be an unwillingness to stop sinning by failing to show mercy. The unforgiving servant in Jesus' parable suffers a kind of moral blindness that seems to prevent him from connecting the mercy he has been shown, with the mercy he should show to others.

Forgiveness is both a Choice and a Process

Now I think we need to be fair. Forgiving an inconsiderate driver in traffic is not the same as experiencing a life of trauma or abuse.  When I hear a victim of trauma say, “I will never forgive my mother,” I am well aware that forgiveness in such circumstances is a process. If I am able to see this, then we can be certain that Jesus understands this as well.

A number of years ago while teaching a seminar on forgiveness; I met a man who said to me, “I will never forgive my mother.” He had not talked to his mother in 55 years. When I heard his childhood story, frankly I thought his mother deserved to be in jail for her crimes. 

During the evenings of the seminar, we explored what forgiveness is and is not, and why we need to forgive for our own healing (spiritually and psychologically). By the end of the seminar, the man shared with me, “I think I can now forgive my mother.” He resolved to call her mother and tell her so. (Personal details changed to protect the person's identity.)

Dr. Robert Enright (a Catholic clinical psychologist) has developed a therapeutic approach to the human act of forgiveness that has helped many people to work through the difficult feelings of anger and resentment and find healing.     Modern Psychology and Forgiveness

What Forgiveness Is

Enright uses the following definition of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is a decision to let go of resentment and thoughts of revenge. More than this, Catholic psychologist Robert Enright suggests that in addition to letting go of grudges and resentment even when the wrongdoer's actions deserve it, we instead offend gifts of “mercy, generosity and love” or “beneficence” when the wrongdoer does not deserve them.[i]

Enright identifies three components to forgiveness.[ii] First we must acknowledge that the offense was and continues to be unfair. Secondly, since our anger is a response to someone hurting us, and we have a moral right to this anger. To put this another way our anger is justified, since we have the right to be treated with respect. Thirdly, forgiveness involves us offering the offender a gift, as we give up our anger and resentment. In essence, forgiveness is an act of mercy toward the offender. What Forgiveness Is and Is Not

At a basic level simply letting go of anger and resentment and saying “I forgive you,” is an act of forgiveness. I believe that if you have taken this step, you are likely no longer in the realm of obvious sin. Yet Enright suggests a further step, we need to make an act of mercy toward the offender. 

Since forgiveness is a process, in order to fully experience forgiveness in our hearts, we need to hear Jesus say “Love your enemies.” Jesus calls us to universally exercise mercy. 

We can test our heart. If we have forgiven someone, but we still have the temptation, at least mentally, to stick out our foot to trip the offender when we see this person, we likely have more work to do in our hearts! Again, I think God understands the need for a process as we work through our emotions. It should be obvious that a simple act of forgiveness does not necessarily take away all our hurt. In some cases, it may take years. Why is Forgiveness Difficult

Yet, I think Jesus’ warning about “forgiving from the heart” encourages us to continue the process until we reach the end of the journey.


Notes:

CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church

[i] Robert D. Enright, Forgiveness is a Choice: A Step-by-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope. (Washington: APA, 2001), p. 25. 

[ii]  He follows the definition of the British philosopher Joanna North. Ibid. p. 25. Cf. Robert D. Enright and Richard P. Fitzgibbons, Forgiveness Therapy: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope 2nd ed. (Washington: American Psychological Association, 2015.)

 

Th Grammar of Love in Conflict

A times life is full of difficulties and disappointments. I don’t know about you, but when I reflect on my life, most of the unhappiness in my life stems not from traumatic events or serious illnesses, but from relationship conflict.

I have been happily married for 37 years, but I still agree with modern research on marriage, which has shown that 68% of conflict in all Marriages never gets resolved. Most often differences in personality create conflict in Marriage. Happy couples learn to compromise on their differences and develop skills in conflict resolution.

Since personality does not change, unless you live as a hermit, conflict with others is a normal part of life. Not just in Marriage, however, but with our friends, our family, our colleagues, and the people in our church.

This means our future happiness depends on learning how to deal with conflict.

The question is where do we find good advice?

Growing in human virtue and positive psychology could likely help, but as Catholics, perhaps we should turn to the Bible for advice.

In our modern culture, many people resonate with Jesus' admonition, “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. (Matthew 7:1.) We often interpret this to mean that we should be completely tolerant and not interfere with other people's personal freedom in their life choices. If we interfere, we are being judgmental and unloving. 

The Bible, however, requires someone to interpret it. If we think this way about Jesus’ teaching on "not judging," I wonder how much our mind is being influenced by modern culture, so that it is actually culture, and not the Bible that we are hearing? 

Does our first reading from the Old Testament surprise you? God told Ezekiel that he would hold Ezekiel personally responsible if he did not try to dissuade people from a misguided life. Does he require the same of us?

While Jesus’ famous words: “Stop judging” in Matthew 7, are concerned about avoiding our own hypocrisy, they still imply we should try to help our brother or sister. Jesus certainly did not tell us to "look the other way" and do nothing.

Our culture celebrates personal freedom and tolerance, and I admit these are good things, but even good things can be misused.

If someone had a seven-year-old son, who decided to eat only chocolate ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and never to eat anything else, the son would not be healthy. Yet other than the grocery bill, this choice would only affect him. Yet, I doubt that any sensible parent would allow this.

True freedom must always be freedom for the good.

Echoing Jesus, St. Paul reminds us in our Second Reading that “love is the fulfillment of the law.” If we always acted in love, we would be on the correct path at all times. St. Augustine famously said, “Love God and do whatever you please.”  I am guessing this quote was very popular in the 1960's! If the quote sounds a bit off, that is because the full quote is,

“Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved.” [i]

The problem is that love, like words in a sentence, has a certain grammar. Our love must be ‘rightly ordered,’ or have the correct grammar, to be genuine or true love. Love must always be directed toward the good.

In relation to freedom, the Catholic Church has always taught that we are only truly acting with freedom when we pursue what is good. To pursue something evil is a personal choice but not genuine freedom. Clearly being pro-choice can be actively evil in many circumstances.

In our Gospel today, Jesus discusses the grammar of love in conflict. In normal circumstances, when we have a problem with someone else, we should first “go and tell him or her their fault on our own” (Matthew 18:15).

As part of the inherent dignity of the human person, each of us is entitled to a just reputation. When other people attack or diminish our just reputation this is a sinful act. The Catechism reminds us that “Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury” (CCC 2437).

If we are not careful in this regard, we can fall into three sins. Before discussing these sins, I want to assure you that like Jesus I am beside you, but unlike Jesus, I am not above you! I think each of us could admit that we have committed these sins from time to time. I know I have!

Rash Judgement

The first sin is rash judgment. A person commits this sin when they assume, as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor (CCC 2437). If we quickly assume our neighbor's fault and even think they have bad motives for their behavior, but we have done nothing to see if this is true, we are sinning.

Following Jesus' advice in our Gospel, we should instead first go to the other person on our own, and talk to them. If we do this, we will hear their side of the story. Perhaps we are mistaken about their fault or their intentions.

When we are angry or hurt, is easy to make a rash judgment in a situation. Our anger at a perceived injustice on our part can often lead us to exaggerate the fault committed and to be defensive. While we may well have a just complaint about our neighbor, it would not be fair to respond unfairly.

The most loving behavior is to begin by thinking the best of the other person and only to think badly of them once we get all the facts. This often includes determining the difference between an act carried out carelessly, and one done with malicious intent.

Detraction

The second is the sin of detraction. We commit this sin when without objectively valid reason; we choose to disclose another’s faults and failings to persons who do not know them (CCC 2437).

Detraction is the sin of gossip. Even after determining that we are correct about another person’s fault, this does not mean we have the right to tell everyone we know about it. It is a sin to reveal another person’s fault to other people, who do not have the right to know. Again it is a sin to unjustly harm another person’s reputation.

Normally the number of people we should talk to is severely limited. There are exceptions. Often times there are legitimate authorities who do need to know. If a crime has been committed, we need to report it immediately. Something serious may occur in the workplace, which requires us to tell our superiors. While there are people in our lives who may need to know about the fault, this clearly is not everyone. Jesus calls us to act with discretion.

I do not want people to think, however, this means we need to resolve every problem on our own. As we work through a more difficult problem, we may well need to talk to a pastor, a counselor, or a trusted friend who will also promise to keep the matter confidential. This is not gossip.

I am not sure what sort of conflict between Christians Jesus has in mind in our Gospel but there is a progression, first go alone, then take witnesses, then tell the church. The pattern is to try to resolve the conflict by involving as few people as possible. If we do not follow this pattern, we are likely gossiping.

Gossip is like a contagious disease. Someone says, “Did you hear about so-and-so, I heard…” and then it is passed on to the next person.

Gossip is always sinful, but it can be especially sinful if the fault is exaggerated or simply not true. Rash judgment plus detraction intensifies the sin. Furthermore, gossip once released is almost impossible to repair. What if we later discover there was more to the story and we were completely mistaken about the fault?

Perhaps you have heard the often-told story of the priest who gave a penance to someone guilty of gossip. He told the penitent to take a feather pillow and climb up the church tower. He then directed them to cut open the pillow and release all the feathers in the wind. After doing this, he told the penitent, you must go and collect each feather and return all of them to me. 

When the penitent protested that this was impossible. The priest replied, “You are correct, and now you understand that it is impossible to make amends in this life for your sin.” He then gave the penitent absolution, in the hope that they would amend their future ways and no longer engage in gossiping.

Calumny

Finally, we have the sin of calumny. This sin is committed when, by remarks contrary to the truth, we harm the reputation of others and give occasion for others to make false judgments about someone (CCC 2437).

The sin of calumny is more malicious. The person guilty of this sin deliberately makes remarks contrary to the truth, with the intention of harming the reputation of another person.  This could be by telling deliberate lies about another person, or even by telling a series of half-truths calculated to harm the other person. 

This could also occur passively by constantly highlighting and exaggerating little faults by the other person. Imagine what would happen if someone followed us around and constantly highlighted every mistake we made but was silent about anything good. What would people remember about us?

Does this bring to mind ugly political advertisements?  Calumny can also be against classes or groups of people, such as comments that incite racial prejudice, or hatred towards a group of otherwise innocent people. In a certain sense even “click-ish” group behavior, which determines who is in and who is out, by putting down the undesirable group falls into this category.

Having laid down some important but simple principles for our relationships, Jesus discusses church discipline.  In a serious matter, if someone refuses to listen even to the church, then such individuals could be subject to church discipline. 

This is likely a type of excommunication (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2, 5). We need to keep in mind that baring someone from Communion always has the purpose of bringing them to their senses and restoring them to full communion. Church discipline is medicinal and intends to bring healing to the individual.

Forgiveness

Finally, Jesus calls each one of his followers to forgive those who have sinned against them. This includes our enemies. This does not mean we are passive, or that we allow ourselves to be mistreated repeatedly. We can say to the person who sinned against us, “What you did to me is completely unacceptable, and this is how it hurt me, and I do not want you to ever do that again, but I forgive you.” If the offender refuses to listen, we can take steps to protect our reputation and if necessary even our safety. We can involve other legitimate authorities in our dispute, but in the end, we must forgive the offender (Matthew 6:14-15).

We do this ultimately for our own sake because holding on to unforgiveness will only hurt us in the end, both psychologically and spiritually.

Read more on forgiveness:

Why is Forgiving Difficult?

What Forgiveness Is and Is Not

“Be Angry but do not Sin”

Modern Psychology and Forgiveness

Jesus and Forgiveness

I pray that as we reflect on Jesus' words today, we will each learn to grow in discretion and love toward all people, even our enemies. Imagine the change that would occur in our lives if we put Jesus’ words into practice, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.”

 

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2023 
TWENTY-THIRD SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME--YEAR A

Notes:

CCC     Catechism of the Catholic Church

---

[i] Saint Augustine, Homilies on the First Epistle of John (Tractatus in Epistolam Joannis Ad Parthos), ed. Daniel E. Doyle, Thomas Martin, and Boniface Ramsey, trans. Boniface Ramsey, vol. 14, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2008), 110.

Denial and Irredeemable Weakness

I often like to say, 

“There is only one thing in this life which cannot be redeemed and that is coffee which is made too weak.” 

If coffee is too strong you can always add more water, but nothing can be done to fix coffee that is too weak. ...

It is irredeemable. This is an apt metaphor for this Sunday’s Gospel reading. Our heart must have an all-or-nothing commitment. If it is too weak, or double minded, it simply fails (James 1:7-8).

Jesus’ words in in this section of Matthew’s Gospel may be a bit puzzling if we do not see the context. Earlier in the chapter Jesus commissions the Twelve Apostles and sends them out on mission. Like all disciples in the ancient world, disciples are expected repeat the master’s words, to imitate him, and do the works that he did.

Jesus then warns his disciples that by following him they will face persecution, and he encourages them not to be afraid and to have courage. Jesus’ disciples will receive peace and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Yet, our faith will be a cause of division in the world. In fact, Jesus has not come to bring peace but the sword (Matthew 10:34).

With this background in mind, our reading today, outlines the conditions for discipleship and the rewards of discipleship. The focus is not on our deeds, but on the fullness of the commitment of our heart. This is not a “to do list,” but a test of the heart.

The Conditions for Discipleship

Under the conditions for discipleship, Jesus repeats the theme of “being worthy” of him through our fundamental choice to follow him with our whole heart. Our deeds matter because the fruit of our heart is manifest by our actions. Our deeds reveal the condition of our heart.

In our second reading, St. Paul reminds us that by virtue of our Baptism we are joined to Christ in his death and resurrection so that “we too might live in newness of life” (Lectionary, Romans 6:4).

The word translated “live,” in our reading literally means to “walk,” and then as a figurative extension of this “to conduct one’s life, comport oneself, behave, live as habit of conduct.”[i]  In rabbinic tradition, Jewish disciples were expected to follow the halacha or “walk” of their master by imitating both their way of life and their teachings.

The ritual of Baptism results in our being joined to Christ, and our being made one with him (Galatians 3:27). We receive a treasure of sacramental graces in our Baptism, but we must cooperate with these graces from our heart, to make them effective. We must consciously choose to “walk in newness of life.” As St Paul reminds us, “Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11).

Jesus tells us that the decision to walk in the newness of life and to be alive for God in Christ Jesus, is what makes us worthy to be called his disciples. The decision to follow Jesus with our whole heart, and to make him the center of our life is called an Act of Faith. We are called to “yield by faith the full submission of … intellect and will to God who reveals” (CCC 154).

Under the conditions for discipleship in our Gospel reading, Jesus points out that a heart which is not fully submitted to him, will attempt to put the love of father or mother, or the love of son or daughter above their love for Christ. Jesus tells us that such a disciple is “not worthy” of him. As Jesus warned in last Sunday’s reading, “…whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father” (Matthew 10:33).

Again, our external response, or our deeds, are a symptom of the heart. A heart which has not fully given itself to Christ, will deny him in many little ways. On the other hand, the heart fully committed to Jesus will not falter. I have met Christians who risked being disowned by their parents to become a Christian. Even today some new Christians in our world face imprisonment and even death, for such a conversion. I have also seen parents oppose their children who want to pursue God’s calling the priesthood of religious life, because of the parent's lack of faith.

A true act of faith is an all-or-nothing venture. It is not watered down, or halfhearted. It is a commitment to put Jesus before all else. Jesus reminds his disciples, “whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me” (Mt 10:38). While it is popular in our world to talk of even daily annoyances as “crosses” clearly Jesus has in mind here the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom. Jesus paradoxically says, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

“Finding our life” by compromise with the world, will cause us to lose our life by being unworthy. Giving all to Jesus, even, if necessary, to the point of losing our life for his sake, will result in finding him in eternal life.

The Rewards of Discipleship

Its is likely that most of us think of rewards as a just response to our own efforts. We say to ourselves, “I earned this.” Yet when Jesus discusses the rewards of discipleship here, he is focused primarily on the fruit of the heart. As St. Paul pointed out, we are made one with Christ in Baptism, and we participate in his body. Jesus says, “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me” (Mt 10:40). We are all joined in one body in Christ. All our actions are linked to Christ.

We are therefore rewarded for recognizing Christ in others. Here Jesus mentions a Christian prophet, a righteous man, and even a simple act like giving “a cup of cold water to one of these little ones” who happens to be his disciple. Jesus tells us, if our heart is truly given over to him, we will not lose our reward.

It would be a grievous error, however, to think our works are somehow earning our way to heaven. Only the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus can save us (Hebrews 7:27). We are each saved by receiving and cooperating with God’s unmerited grace, earned by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

At the moment of death, there is a particular judgement by Jesus for each person. This judgement will determine if they are worthy of either heaven or hell (CCC 1022, 1051). All who die in God’s grace and friendship, are assured of salvation but may also need to undergo a purification before entering the joy of heaven (CCC 1030).

While we cannot earn our way to heaven by our own works apart from grace, at the second final judgement, all our earthly deeds will be judged. There will be different rewards for each of us. The saints will not be rewarded equally equal in heaven. For these works to count at all, however, they must be the fruit of a changed heart which flows from our faith in the graces we have received in the sacraments, and our decision to cooperate with these graces in faith. They result from a genuine conversion and walking in the newness of life.

Notes:

CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church

[i] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 803.

Be Perfect, as your Heavenly Father is Perfect

 ​​

As we think about this Sunday’s Gospel (Matthew 5:38-48) we need to understand the whole context of this series of sayings by Jesus. Last Sunday Jesus declared himself the fulfillment of the Law.  Again, we hear Jesus repeat the phrase, “But I say to you.” This indicates that Jesus is doing something new.

He is not giving us even more rules to follow. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not giving us twelve new commandments like the Ten Commandments to follow with even stricter obedience (Matthew 5-7).

Jesus is introducing something entirely new. We call this the New Law.  We must not think of Jesus’ approach as merely giving a deeper meaning to the old approach. The New Law requires a change in our hearts from the inside out.

The early church believed that the moral life was about conversion and growth in virtue, led by the interior work of the Holy Spirit. Interior conversion and growth in virtue are Jesus’ approach here in the Sermon of the Mount and in the Beatitudes, and we see the same in St. Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament. This is also the consistent view of the Church Fathers, and it was the perennial view of the Church for most of history.

As we hear Jesus’ call each of us to even greater perfection, we must not think this means merely following the rules. Those who try this will inevitably fail. In fact, the rules-bound approach to righteousness is the model of the scribes and Pharisees that we must surpass. This does not change our standards of holiness, but requires a completely different approach to achieving them.

Only those disciples of Jesus who have experienced an inner transformation by the Holy Spirit will be able to follow Jesus in these counsels of perfection. Our journey must be one of continuous conversion. We must place Jesus at the center of our life. We are aided in our journey by the graces we receive in the sacraments, but these graces require our cooperation to bear fruit. Our principle means of cooperation is to grow in relationship with God.

In the topics found in this Sunday’s Gospel, Jesus begins with the common understanding of retaliation in his day. Today when we hear, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21), this phrase sounds harsh. In the ancient world, however, it was intended to limit the amount of retribution one could take against someone who harmed you. If someone knocks out your tooth, you cannot retaliate by cutting off his or her finger.

Based on this model, the injured person could legally demand a certain level of retribution. Jesus however, says, “Offer no resistance to one who is evil” (Matthew 5: 5:39). Jesus is not dispensing with the principle proportionality in justice, but instead saying that retribution should be left to God alone.

St Paul connects this idea of offering no retribution to Jesus’ next saying about loving our enemies,

Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. (Romans 12:19-21).

Jesus gives several challenging examples regarding retribution.

First, if someone strikes you on the cheek, offer no resistance and “turn the other one as well” (Matthew 5:39). These words are not directly about physical conflict, but rather about a cultural perception of being insulted. Striking someone takes away the victims honor and results in shame. At the time of Jesus, it was profoundly insulting to smack another person with your hand.

In rabbinic oral traditions written several hundred years after the time of Jesus, the second century AD, Rabbi Jose the Galilean discusses the varying penalties for the insult of striking someone on the cheek. The penalty for smacking someone was 100 shekels, but if the offender used the back of his hand, it was 200 shekels, as it was if someone were to spit on someone else (Mishnah, m. B. Qamma 8:6).

Some have suggested that if the offender uses the same hand, then perhaps ‘turning the other cheek’ would imply using the back of your hand. I am not sure about this. It could merely imply not offering resistance. We also need to be aware of Jesus’ use of dramatic hyperbole.

Although Jesus is clearly talking about retribution for insults, some have tried to extend the meaning of Jesus’ words, “offer no resistance to one who is evil” to mean a declaration by Jesus that Christians should disavow all violence and be complete pacifists.

Here one might propose that “offer no resistance” is a prohibition against killing (Thou shalt not kill) or the murder of the innocent, which implies that Jesus prohibits even violence for legitimate defense of persons and societies. The Catechism points out that this is false. Quoting St Thomas Aquinas, ‘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.’” (CCC 2263).

While we can kill as an unintended consequence of self-defense, we cannot kill someone as retribution for his or her crimes.

On the topic of retribution, Jesus also discusses going to court to recover your goods, and resisting the Roman government who conscripts you into temporary service.

I think​,​ without attempting to create a series of new rules to follow, Jesus essentially says, why not rather be wronged in these small things, and just ignore the grievance, or treat the person with unexpected kindness and mercy. Jesus notes, “Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow” (Matthew 5:42).

Of course, we are not sinning, if at times, we pursue the legitimate path of justice, but at other times we can instead choose a more perfect way and display forgiveness and mercy. Many times such behavior is literally an opportunity to be Jesus in the situation.

Jesus moves on to the topic of dealing with our enemies. Non-resistance to evil people regarding our honor and possessions now moves to actively loving our enemies. Jesus notes, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (5:43). While the love of neighbors is scriptural (Leviticus 19:18, including foreigners in the land 19:33-34), ‘hatred of our enemies’ is not found in scripture.

Jesus responds again with a surprising saying. “But I say to you, love your enemies​ ​and pray for those who persecute you” (5:43). This turns the common thinking of the day on its head. 

Whether we are thinking of our personal enemies, or the corporate enemies of Israel that were persecuting them, how can Jesus tell us to love them? Often our personal enemies are those who have proven untrustworthy and perhaps even abused us in some manner. While it is true that trust is earned, and we can justly remove ourselves from their harm, we are still called to forgive them!  In fact our own forgiveness ​from God ​is contingent on our forgiveness of others, perhaps especially our enemies (Matthew 6:14-15).

Jesus calls us to a new level of perfection. “So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). This perfection is only possible, however, if we are led by the Holy Spirit to journey through an interior conversion, and then to grow in our imitation of Christ as his disciples. “So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A 

What We Get Wrong About the Moral Life

Recently, I was behind a large truck in the left turn lane. As the light changed to green, the driver of the truck was not paying attention and did not begin to advance. 

In frustration I spontaneously blurted out, “Come on you big lunk, go!” For those unfamiliar with my vocabulary a ‘lunk,’ is short for lunkhead, a stupid or dull-witted person. Based on our Gospel reading,  ‘lunk’ is the equivalent of ‘raqa’ or 'stupid' (Matthew 5:22).

If I ask myself, “What would Jesus do in this situation?” I think that the answer is that he would show more patience and not say this to another person, even if he or she cannot hear what I am saying. Since my sincere desire is to conform myself to Christ, I need to improve my behavior.

I freely admit my error in losing patience, and blurting out my inner thoughts saying “lunk” to the other driver, even though he could never hear me.

Yet based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:21-26, have I committed a serious sin? St Paul displays similar impatience with the Galatians, and addresses them, “O Stupid Galatians” (Galatians 3:1), and this is the same apostle who also says, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). The reality is that growth in virtue is a gradual process, not a light switch.

Here is the important point, I think. How do we improve our behavior? How do we best learn to imitate Christ?

Does Jesus want us to have even more rules to follow, and to be stricter in our obedience to them? Is our development in moral character about an increasingly stricter adherence to external rules?

Shall we add this rule to the list of new rules from Jesus? “Thou shalt not say stupid, idiot, lunk, or even twit, or nitwit to another person.” Ironically, in our Gospel reading, it is the scribes and Pharisees who are all about external conformity to the rules. Furthermore, Jesus says our righteousness must “surpass” that of the scribes and Pharisees! He calls us to an even higher perfection.

If we are not careful, I think we have subtly adopted the exact method that the scribes and Pharisees followed, which was about mere external conformity to the rules. This is what Jesus was condemning in our Gospel!

This Sunday’s Gospel concerning Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law highlights many issues that people get wrong about our approach to our moral life in Christ.

The ancient view of the moral life found in the church was about conversion and growth in virtue, led by the interior work of the Holy Spirit. We call this the New Law. This is Jesus’ approach in the Beatitudes, and the approach followed by St. Paul elsewhere in the New Testament. This is also the consistent view of the Church Fathers and is the perennial view of the Church for most of history.

In modern times, a new view of morality emerged under the influence of Neo-Scholasticism called the ‘Roman School.’ Under its influence, a change came about in how many Catholics viewed our moral life in Christ. This view ignored the ancient virtue-based approach.

Unfortunately, this unprecedented new method was prevalent in many seminaries just prior to the Second Vatican Council. This casuistic approach emphasized following the law, and duty and obedience above all else. There was a resurgence of the use of the Ten Commandments as a moral guide for the faithful. Previously the focus was entirely on the virtues.

Perhaps we should point out that this does not change the truths or standards found in the Ten Commandments, but is concerned with our method of reaching these standards.

This new view affected entire generations of priests who instructed in this method during their seminary training. This in turn affected how generations of the lay faithful came to understand the moral life.  In fact, we still take this for granted today, as most examinations of conscience follow this method.

Older treatments of our moral life in Christ centered on the virtues. The faithful were led to the same outcomes but using an entirely different methodology. As I mentioned, this is not a dispute about what constitutes sinful behavior, but an entirely different approach to living the moral life.

Unfortunately, the type of spirituality we see in the scribes and Pharisees in our Gospel parallels the faulty thinking of many people today. We see in our Gospel that Jesus was trying to refocus the moral life away from mere external conformity with the law and formal outward duty, and to replace this with a New Law, which was the presence of the Holy Spirit working interiorly in our hearts enabling us to pursue moral excellence through the virtues.

Mere external conformity to the rules did not work in Jesus’ time, and still does not work today. It leads to moralizing homilies, legalism, and results in either pride or shameful failure and discouragement.

One stanza in an ancient hymn Magnæ Deus potentiæ, attributed to Saint Gregory the Great, (540-604) captures this perfectly,

Let none despair through sin’s distress,

Be none puffed up with boastfulness;

That contrite hearts be not dismayed,

Nor haughty souls in ruin laid. 

The sin of legalism leads to presumptions against the virtue to hope. As the Catechism notes,

There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit). (CCC 2092)

We need God’s help and the conversion of our hearts before the life of Christ is even possible. Growth in virtue is a process, not a light switch operates like, “obey, don’t obey, go to Confession, we must follow stricter duty.” As we grow in relationship with Christ, we form our hearts more and more in his character. The sacraments are not rites of passage, but a means of grace to grow in a deeper relationship with Christ.

The practical reality is that rules without relationship with Christ leads to rebellion and discouragement.

 

The Catechism and the Renewal of Moral Theology

The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents a restored approach to the Christian moral life as compared to some newer 19th century treatments whose legacy endures today. These 19th century manuals of moral theology focused almost exclusively on an exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the notion of obedience to the law. Ironically, the casuistic focus on the Ten Commandments in 19th century manuals of moral theology is not the traditional Catholic approach to the subject, but later development.

Without suggesting that nothing good came from this tradition, many of these pre-Vatican II works were based on faulty philosophical notions (nominalism, voluntarism), were generally unscriptural (focused on external duty without a notion grace, justification, or conversion and life in the Spirit), and out of step with the sources of the patristic tradition (largely ignored).

A strong focus on law, obligation and duty, can lead to negative pastoral results in the faithful. Our modern post-Christian culture, has lost the sense of Christian societal duty, is highly individualistic, and typically rejects authority.  Many Catholic faithful have also been formed poorly in both Scripture and personal prayer. This situation has left many younger people to be virtually inoculated against this legalistic approach to our moral life.

Many younger people today view this law, obligation and duty approach as primarily negative, and merely about following the rules. We often hear them say, “You are just trying to guilt me into following the rules, but the rules don’t make sense!” Not surprisingly, this criticism is true, and an apt description of the obvious weakness of this approach.

Early in his pontificate, Pope Francis warned that, “The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.” Francis notes, “We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.” He notes, “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,” while, “The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.” [1] To put this in simpler terms, we need to begin with conversion, and focus of all catechesis should unceasingly include our relationship with Christ.

As St. John Paul II notes in his encyclical Mission of the Redeemer;

“From the outset, conversion is expressed in faith which is total and radical, and which neither limits nor hinders God’s gift. At the same time, it gives rise to a dynamic and lifelong process… Conversion means accepting, by a personal decision, the saving sovereignty of Christ and becoming his disciple.”

The life we receive through the sacraments requires our cooperation. It requires a “total, radical, personal decision” to put Jesus at the center of our life. Conversion may involve a decisive point of decision, but as St John Paul II points out it continues with ongoing discipleship.

One of the primary features of the restoration of virtue ethics by the Catechism is the return of the topics of “grace” and “justification” to a central place in the moral pillar of the Catechism. In a word, it begins with conversion. The notion of grace continuously informs the entire Christian life. As St Paul reminds us, “I am what I am by the grace of God” (1 Corinthians 15:10a).

We must understand the Christian life foremost, as a life in the Spirit. Again, the Christian life begins with conversion and our life in Christ flows from our understanding of grace and continues to develop through our relationship with Christ.

Modelling its presentation on St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism renews the focus on the New Law or the Law of the Gospel. “The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it” (CCC 1966).

Aquinas developed this model by drawing on Sacred Scripture and patristic sources, especially on St. Augustine. While the Catechism still discusses the topics of fundamental moral theology found in older manuals of moral theology, and even later includes the Ten Commandments, but the framework for this discussion is completely different.

The Catechism seeks to integrate its four pillars, so we find the theme of the New Law throughout the Catechism (CCC 459, 715, 782, 1114, 1210, 1548).

Under the treatment of the sacraments, we find sections on the “Conversion of the Baptized” and “Interior Penance” (CCC 1427-1433). Quoting Second Vatican Council, the Catechism notes, “The sacred liturgy does not exhaust the entire activity of the Church”: [SC 9] it must be preceded by evangelization, faith, and conversion. It can then produce its fruits in the lives of the faithful (CCC 1072), The Liturgy of the Eucharist is “mystogogy” (CCC 1075) which assumes both “conversion” and “initiation.”

Again, the Catechism highlights the centrality of grace, human cooperation and conversion. The treatment of these truths in the catechism are modelled on the New Law framework found in St. Thomas, and this merely echoes a more biblical perspective found in the patristic sources.

The Catechism seeks to restore the ancient understanding of morality found in the Church fathers and in St Thomas Aquinas, against the notions of the Roman School that developed in Neo-Scholastic circles in the 18th and 19th centuries. During the Second Vatican Council, a working document called a schema on morality began to be discussed, but was not completed during the council. The Catechism of the Catholic Church represents the completion of this renewal envisioned by the council.

 

The Catechism and Following the Rules

If we ask a room full of faithful Catholics, what they think might be on the first page of Our Life in Christ, or the moral section of the Catechism, the most common answer is the “First Commandment.”  The average person still assumes today that the moral life is about ‘following the rules’ and that this life primarily centers on the idea of ‘duty.’ 

There are 866 paragraphs in the Our Life in Christ section of the Catechism, but there are 366 paragraphs before we get to the Commandments. Where does the Catechism begin?

The Catechism as a whole highlights the organic unity of the faith (CCC 11).  We must connect the faith we profess, with the sacraments in order to discover our human dignity and divine purpose as we are empowered by the Spirit through the sacraments and prayer (CCC 1692). We should recall in the first section of the Catechism that,

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. The Holy Trinity is the source of all the other mysteries of faith, and the light that enlightens them. The Trinity is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith.” (CCC 234).

Not surprisingly then Our Life in Christ Part 1, begins by highlighting the role of the Father (CCC 1693) and the Son (CCC 1694) and the Holy Spirit (CCC 1695) who sanctify us bringing us to new life. God calls each of us to imitate the Father through the example of the Son. Jesus begins his discussion of the moral life by introducing the beatitudes.

As the Catechism reminds us, the Beatitudes are important because they are “at the heart of Jesus’ preaching” (1716) and because they depict the countenance, or character of Jesus Christ and express the vocation of the faithful, the actions and attitudes characteristic of the Christian life and they proclaim the blessings and rewards of eternal happiness (1717).

The beatitudes respond to our natural desire for happiness which is of divine origin (1718) –there is a God-shaped hole in the human heart which can only be filled by God (cf. Acts 17:22-27; John 7:38; Ecclesiastes 3:10-12). Beatitude reveals the goal of human existence. The ultimate end of all human acts is God’s own beatitude (1719).

God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come be “partakers of the divine nature” and of eternal life (1721). The Catechism notes, “Such beatitude surpasses the understanding and powers of man. It comes from an entirely free gift of God: whence it is called supernatural, as is the grace that disposes man to enter into the divine joy” (1722).

A prior work of the Holy Spirit first prompts our hearts, and then heals and renews us as we cooperate with his grace (CCC 1695). This is the beginning of our journey toward an act of faith. This divine calling enables us to live the joy and demands of Christ’s way of life (CCC 1696-1697).  As we journey through the stages of conversion, the act of faith is a radical and total decision to put Christ at the center of our life.

Beatitude invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that we find out true happiness not in earthly pleasures or achievements but in God alone (1723). As St Augustine notes, “Thus no one is happy but the man who has everything he wants, and wants nothing wrongly.” (St Augustine, De Trinitate, XIII, 8).

As we turn back to consider the Commandments, we see that they still reveal God’s truth and his heart, but they are fulfilled in a completely new way in union with Christ Jesus. In imitation of Christ, our journey towards perfection begins not primarily by duty and mere external obedience, but by an interior work of the Holy Spirit. Transformed grace, the Holy Spirit, directs our hearts to eternal happiness through the forgiveness earned by Christ’s own sacrifice. The light of this good news also awakens in us a new grasp of the beauty and the attraction of right dispositions towards goodness, enlivened by the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity.

_________________

[1] in an interview with Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civiltà Cattolica