Coming Clean

People say they remember things a lot, and while it’s not a lie - it’s not the truth either. I can’t remember the first time I saw pictures of a black Santa Claus or a black Jesus … but I can remember the shock of seeing a very clear depiction of something other than what I had always internalized as something like myself - like myself to a degree that it likely was (and is) false.

Today, I think I found myself on the opposite side of that coin. Some protestant friends of mine were asking me about the perpetual virginity of Mary - which means I implicitly have to give an account that dismisses the full-blood relation of “the brethren”. To be honest, I didn’t do very well, and I am disappointed in myself.

But what struck me was the … pure alien thought that married people would remain celibate. It’s not Mary’s perpetual virginity that gets them, really. It’s the Mary and Joseph abstaining part that really gets them. And they think they have a clincher of an argument that trumps, well, pretty much the entirety of Christian history minus Protestantism that says otherwise, in prooftexts of brethren and James and Thomas/Jude. Even with solid arguments rooted in language, translation, etc that satisfactorily argue the half-blood relation or cousin relation, in the end, it’s the abstinence between man and wife that really confounds them.

I’m not one to make the argument that it’s usual. But then, I’ve also never been one to argue that much about the Holy Family was usual. And, really, it’s their peculiarity that really sets them apart and makes them all the more beautiful.

The witness of Christ will stand in relation to the faith as Christ stood in relation to the mystery of His Father in its revelation. To testify to the faith is to participate in the revealing action of the Incarnate Christ who spoke for the Father. The believer shares in that ministry of spreading the knowledge of God.

Bishop Donald W. Wuerl Fathers of the Church

The last sentence is an old idea to me. The preceding sentences define it in a powerful way that had never really had any hold on me before. Scary cool.

I know there’s a lot of desire to be ecumenical and “kumbaya” between various Christian sects. That’s all well and good. I think it’s a good thing. But I don’t think it’s going to lead anywhere, really. Not in any kind of corporate, meaningful sense. (Label me the skeptic/cynic)

Every Church or denomination has a sense that the way to be a part of their community is through Christ. And all of our ecumenicism should be about our mutual understanding of Christ. But how far can you really get when you’ve got something as fundamental as Christ as Eucharist dividing you?

I’ve heard the theology of the Real Presence of the Eucharist called an interesting hermeneutic. I disagree. It’s THE hermeneutic that separates modern Christians from those who could be considered in communion with the universal Church since the time of Christ or not. It is a question, fundamentally, about Christ.

No answers … just this nagging sense that this is the real issue: Christ as Eucharist. Secondly, how we know that. The rest flows naturally afterward. Yet so few people (Protestants especially) seem to tackle this question … well, and remain Protestant … that I’ve found, anyways.

Alright, I think I’ve beaten the differences between Original Sin and Total Depravity to death. If there are still more questions or clarifications, I’d love an opportunity to answer them.

Next thing I’ve been thinking about lately is sin in the more general sense. What is sin and why is it such a problem?

At first blush, this is a pretty stupid question - sin is what God doesn’t want you to do, and so He’s gonna beat you senseless if you do it. But I think that’s more of a human (the fallen variety) way of seeing sin - it certainly sums up my fist inclinations in being a father of a 3 year old. God seems like a pretty big guy … so much so that it doesn’t make a lot of sense that He would truly be offended by the stupid things I do - He did, after all, create me and allow me to get into the position to sin … what, then, can really be so bad about it?

And so, we’re brought back to one of Christ’s simplest and yet perhaps most profound teachings: the Law is summed up in two commandments. The first is to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like the first: love your neighbor as yourself.

The root of the Law, these two commandments, are rooted in love. And, in case you missed it, being rooted in love means that obedience and thus sin has everything to do with relationship and not so much about doing as you’re told.

So, that’s what I’ve been thinking about … and what I’ll probably be blogging more about for a while. I hope it interests you, oh silent readership.

So, apparently, there’s talk that the Pope will be issuing some kind of instruction with regards to Limbo soon-ish. The Pope, before he was Pope, more or less stated his more than unfavorable view of Limbo, so, I’m guessing he’s not really going to come out in any more favor for Limbo than already exists.

Limbo’s one of those teachings that are technically possible given the definition of things but more than likely is not real due to the nature of things. And, though it be a valid teaching that has existed in the Church for some time, it’s not a dogmatic teaching - you’re free to think someone who believes in Limbo is stupid … you just can’t tell them with any kind of authoritative weight that they’re wrong (right now, anyways).

So, what is Limbo? Well, Limbo’s that place where people who have not been baptized yet committed no sin spend eternity. They don’t go to heaven because they haven’t entered the life of grace that baptism inaugarates an individual into, and they don’t go to hell because they have not committed a sin. Remember, Catholics don’t believe that Original Sin makes people proper sinners - it makes them inevitable sinners … assuming that they get far enough into life to commit a real sin. So, since they technically can’t go either place, they go to Limbo - an in between state. Some imagine Limbo to be a place of utter contentment and happiness but no share God’s divine life and love. It sounds warm and fuzzy; I just don’t think it plays out theologically.

Now, this is a pretty medieval way of looking at things. It’s simple; it’s direct; and it instructs people on what they ought to do - get you and your babies baptized! If you’re medieval, you don’t have the time, the energy, and most of all the education to understand the why’s … it’s knowing WHAT to do that is the most important thing for you because, well, everyone around you is dying, and you need something to hope for and trust in. Persist the teaching beyond that time, though, and it arguably begins to miss and mislead the whole point of baptism and what and why God does therein.

See, Limbo assumes that God’s grace is limited to the Sacraments. If you want to go to heaven, you’ve got to get baptized. True enough, in the general sense of things. But what if you don’t have the opportunity to get baptized, what then? Well, assuming you desired to be baptized, then you’re covered by a “Baptism of Desire”. There’s a few other Baptisms as well. Still, that doesn’t quite resolve the issue of babies.

If a baby dies, is not baptized, and has committed no sin … what’s God gonna do?

Well, it’s really not a matter of heaven, hell, Limbo, yet. God’s grace is the foremost important thing in the human experience. It’s not limited to the Sacraments; though, the Sacraments are the most consistent place where we receive grace and one of the foremost places we are encouraged to go commune with God. But God’s grace is His to give as He will, and His grace is something that He showers upon us with overflowing abundance, both in the Sacraments and in our daily lives. So, that being true, why would we think that God would withold the grace He offers us everyday, in the ordinary and mundane of our lives and in the Sacraments, from infants who had no opportunity to live for themselves, as themselves, and without opportunity to the Sacraments?

I’m inclined to think that children are at the very least brought into an enlightenment upon death, and that God then offers them the life of His grace to accept or reject. I’m also inclined to think that children would take to God’s grace like they take to their mother’s breast. But as to all that, I’m happy and comfortable leaving it all a mystery, trusting in God’s grace and mercy, that all is right, fair, and just beyond any measure I can know in this life. Call me presumptous and perhaps a wee bit arrogant, but I imagine that Pope Benedict will come down somewhere in this area. It certainly seems to be what Pope John Paul believed. And I’m comfortable with it. It keeps Christianity focused on what it ought to be - the relationship, not just some of the prescribed and promised ways and means that so many get caught up in systemizing.

… is forgetting that theology is only as good as the relationship with Christ you have and continue to pursue.

How often we forget that and make theology our idol.

Makes sense though … having a perfect theology probably makes you feel a lot more secure than the tenuous ebb and flow, give and receive of earnest relationship. But that’s what Christ calls us to. He went to the cross to give it to us. We ought to be brave enough to stay true to Him in our hearts and lives as we know how before anything else - open to let the rest pour forth.

I doubt that’ll make everyone Catholic - oh, one come hope - but I do imagine it’ll bring us closer if the peoples of the faith can really latch onto that idea.

It’s not a place that we’re destined to. It’s a union to God through Christ; a perfect relationship. That’s something that starts now. It’s not what theology is. Theology informs us how to make it stronger. But so many people have got it backwards - it’s so easy to do because it’s so much easier … probably more comfortable, too.

In my last post concerning original sin, I compared the effects of Adam’s sin to being like Adam breaking his leg and giving himself a black eye, doing so against the commands of God. Because of that, we are all now born with broken legs and black eyes. It’s not our fault; it’s really nothing that God did; it’s just the way we are because of what Adam and Eve did.

The baseline confusion / addition to the theology of original sin that was developed by the Protestants during the Reformation was changing original sin from a state of no fault into a proper, personal sin. Before the Reformation, it was taught that we just showed up in this world with black eyes and broken legs because of Adam’s sin and the consequent disgrace of mankind. The Protestants during the Reformation, however, said that isn’t quite right. The Protestants said that we are properly responsible for our blackeyes and broken legs. Essentially, it’s like saying that as soon as our little fetal bodies develop arms in the womb, then we start beating away at our eyes and our legs so that by the time we have arrived in the world we have done the damage to ourselves - we each have personally gone against God, we each have sinned.

This is an important development because it says that sin dominates our nature whereas before sin was an inevitability of our nature.

Consider the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 25: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

Answer: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Compare that to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

The real difference between these two visions of original sin is the role of concupiscience - the inclination towards evil. Prior to the Reformation, concupiscience was not held to be sinful in itself though certainly a product of sin - mankind’s corporate sin, Original Sin, to be precise. Nor was concupiscience’s dominion over the indivual considered total. Rather it was considered inevitable and ever present and the arena of all spiritual warfare. The Reformers then added that concupiscience is not only of sin but is properly a contracted sin in all men. In other words, Protestants believe that each man is guilty of sin because of his inclination towards sin - that wayward desires, regardless of how fleeting they may be and how they are responded to, are proper moral faults in each man. And in all things, in all times, man is always inclined to sin - and thus are sinning.

The simplest illustration I can think of to describe these two competing visions of human nature is through the idea of reconciliation. I’ve read elsewhere that:

The word “Reconciliation” is split up into: “Re / con / cilia / tion” which means literally: “again / together / hair / act of”. The reference to hair is a reference to eye lashes. Reconciliation is the act of bringing your eye lashes back together with the eye lashes of God, that is, to see eye-to-eye with God.

I pulled it from this website, though I’ve heard it elsewhere before.

In the Catholic understanding, mankind has turned its back on God and in doing so lost the eye-to-eye relationship that it needs for proper living though God’s position as far as His commitment and desire for mankind and each individual man has not changed. In the Protestant understanding, God in effect also turns His back on mankind because in each and every man He sees not a lost soul but the sin of Adam.

The sum effect is to produce two different economies of salvation. Both economies agree that God’s grace is in short demand. But one economy says that God’s grace is in abundant supply and the other says that God’s grace is in an as-needed supply. And that’s a topic for a later post.

Part of what I’ve been so busy doing lately is studying the documents from Vatican II and presenting a small subset of them to members of my parish as part of a whole parish catechesis program (fancy name for sunday school for people of all ages). In particular, I’ve been focusing on the documents that affect the Mission of the Church and the laity’s involvement in that. In total, I cover 5 documents:

Dignitatis Humanae DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Nostra Aetate DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Unitatis Redintegratio DECREE ON ECUMENISM
Orientalium Ecclesiarum DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE
Ad Gentese DECREE ON THE MISSION ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH

Together the documents repaint the picture of the Church’s place in and relationship with the world. This is something of a rough sketch of what I’ve been dialoguing with my fellow parishoners the past few days.

Firstly, the Church acknowledges and affirms the need for religous freedom in the world. Religion is suppose to be an honest pursuit of Truth: answers to whence we come, where are we going, how we’re getting there, and above all else why? As such, each man must be free to be honest in himself, to who he is, and what it is he knows and believes to be true. That is not to say that the Church denies that all men are bound to come to the Truth of the Church, but rather that each man must come to the Truth of the Church himself, in honesty and sincerity. There is to be no coercion of people, whether it be by religion, state, or individuals. There is to be freedom and honesty and dialogue - an open society of religous ideas, striving in common purpose if not to common ends and conclusions.

Secondly, the Church realizes and acknowledges that She is not the only religion in the world. There are many other great religions in the world, and there are many things in common between these religions. With the Buddhists, the Church acknowledges and affirms a common contemplative life. With the Muslims, She acknowledges a common ancestry with Abraham and belief in the God of Abraham. With the Jews, the Church acknowledges Her full ancestry rooted in that great religion. It acknowledges the many moral precepts that all these religions and more share with the Church. In all these things, the Church seeks a kind of solidarity and common encouragement for the purposes of pursuing true, free religion.

But the Church also wishes all of mankind and especially these religions that She is the first and foremost and fullness of all Divine Revelation. Though there not be immediate agreement on this, the Church is ever ready to study with the peoples of these great religions and enter into honest and open dialogue. The ideas of commonality that is seen amongst the great religions, the Church sees as seeds of God’s grace, waiting and ripening for the coming of the Gospel. The people of the Church are ever called and are to be found ready to share the Gospel of Christ with all men so that God’s grace, that has been given to and received by men outside the Church, can come into its fullness of life.

As to its special relationship with others who claim Christ as their own, the Church acknowledges all who are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as proper owners of the title Christian and members of the universal Church. The Church again maintains its foremost position as bearer of the fullness of faith and revelation in this world but also wishes to begin and continue dialogue with those Christian groups outside of Her communion.

In Her relationship with the Churches of the Eastern rite, the Church acknowledges the validity of their history, their existence, and their Sacraments. Her members are to feel free, while remaining faithful to their local parish and diocese, to participate in the Eastern Traditions, especially during special occasions.

Lastly, all members of the Church, keeping in mind all that has been said beforehand, are to participate in the great work of the Church in the world: Mission, to go out. The Missionary work of the Church has long been co-opted by the ideas of travel to far-off lands of destitution and poverty; however, any work that would inspire the Christian life truly begins in the individual and in their family. The Missionary work must begin first in the home with parents rearing children - to teach the faith, encourage engagement in the faith, and to live faith’s works of love. And in these things, to live our faith externally as much as live it internally - let it indeed be an all encompassing passion. In this way, when families of faith join together in worship and common faith, greater encouragement and engagement can be found, and greater deeds be made manifest in the world for the glory of God. And finally, through the solid base of faith found in the whole community, the distant and far-off missionary work of the Church will become that more effective and lasting.

Missionary work is about identifying common purpose, participation, encouragement, and dialogue. The Missionary work should not be viewed as a kind of colonization motivated by a kind of manifest destiny. It is a life of love, not simply duty and obligation. Without love born of a life of faith, the Missionary work of the Churh will not be as lasting and potent as possible if it is successful at all.

The move from the Garden to “the world” is a fundamental change in mankind. In the Garden, man was in communion with God, endowed with original justice and innocence. In the world, all of this is gone. What does this mean?

It means that, through no fault - no sin - of our own, we are born injured and estranged from God because we are all born “in the world” and not “in the Garden”. Adam’s transgression is the curse of all mankind - that all mankind should suffer the separation he willfully placed between him and God. This is what is meant when it is said we are born into Original Sin.

Augustine writes in On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book III)

As, therefore, by the answer of those, through whose agency they are born again, the Spirit of righteousness transfers to them that faith which, of their own will, they could not yet have; so the sinful flesh of those, through whose agency they are born, transfers to them that injury, which they have not yet contracted in their own life. And even as the Spirit of life regenerates them in Christ as believers, so also the body of death had generated them in Adam as sinners.

We all understand Adam’s sin - it’s something he willfully did. He is at fault. Under Original Sin, the Roman Catholic Church and Augustine both teach, we inherit the injury of Adam’s sin, but we are not held as properly responsible for Adam’s sin. It’s kind of like Adam willfully giving himself a black-eye and breaking a leg when God told him not to, and now, because of Adam’s choice, we’re all born with black-eyes and broken legs. It’s not our fault that we have a black-eye and broken leg - we didn’t punch our eye and strike our leg - but here we are all the same.

The fact that we are injured is important because, using the above analogy, with a black-eye and a broken leg, we’re not going to be able to see well and we’re not going to be able to walk right. As a matter of fact, if we think we can see perfectly well and walk perfectly right, then odds are we’re just going to make the situation a whole lot worse, resulting in a misery and suffering life. Same goes it with our moral life. We are born morally injured - separated from God - and so cannot live perfectly morally well until we are healed.

Original Sin does not say that our ability to see, to walk, to behave morally is totally gone or absolutely ruined. Original Sin only says that we are flawed which leaves room and has been interpretted to mean that mankind can by his own will get things right while getting other things wrong. People can see both in others and in themselves that they are injured, and so they can adjust for that. To use our analogy, if I know my leg is broken, then I can stay off of it … or use it such that I will not cause myself more harm. Likewise, we all know our personality faults … we can exercise our will to avoid invoking those flaws or situations that would encourage such bad behavior. This is moral living … a poor moral living, yet a moral living all the same.

God can and does see good works by fallen man for what they are and reckons them as such, but these good things don’t restore communion - that takes an act of God, that takes grace. Furthermore, God does not want people hobbling on one good leg all their life, avoiding the further injury of the second. God wants man walking on two good legs, and He offers to heal our injuries, to tend to our wounds.

It is for this reason, this desire and plan of God, that people can live a moral life and still be condemned to hell: if you don’t accept God’s healing invitation - His grace to let you walk on two legs - then you’re not the kind of man He wants, the kind of man He has intended you to be.

Original Sin eliminates the ability for man to rise above it all without God’s grace - thus leaving him “evil” and a “sinner” from the earliest of his days, in a universal sense, even though no formal act of immorality may be present. It does not matter how well a man tends his wounds, he cannot properly heal them to the perfection that God had created and intends for us to have. And that is all that matters. That’s what makes Jesus desperately needed.

Next to come, where Protestants add to this theology.

“And now, please rise for our opening hymn, uh…’In the Garden of Eden,’ by I. Ron Butterfly.” Cue the Organ music … annnnnnnd … oh, right, this is suppose to be a serious post … Roger, I owe you a story, bud. I’m thinking …

The theology of Original Sin simply says one thing: Adam’s sin has removed mankind from God’s presence - from communion with God.

Right … but that’s the short version. For the purpose of making it a little more meaningful, we need to unpack that simple statement.

In the Garden of Eden
Prior to the Fall, mankind - Adam and Eve - lived in communion with God and all of His Creation in the Garden of Eden. In the simplest sense, this means that Adam and Eve lived in a manner that was consistent with God’s creative purpose. All they did was right and pleasing to God. But living in communion with God and Creation goes beyond just following some set of rules. Living in communion means you give all of yourself over to those things. You give God all that you are. You give Creation all that you are. You receive from them what they gift to you - you don’t take what is not yours and not given.

And that’s the setup for the Fall. God had given Adam and Eve everything in the Garden except the fruit off of one tree - the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Being as the whole of Creation is suppose to be represented in the Garden, you would have to conclude that there was plenty of other food around - the restriction God had placed on Adam and Eve was no real burden on their part … just an observance for obedience.

The Serpent then comes along and tells Eve (and Adam) that eating the fruit would make them like God. Eve (and Adam) like this idea. They like the idea of being like God. They also know that God has said eating the fruit is an act of disobedience. When they take the fruit and eat it, they in effect prefer themselves over God. They eat the fruit hoping to elevate their place in Creation to that of (or at least like) God’s place - a place that God had not given them.

In eating the fruit, however, they find that they are not elevated. Instead, they become aware of the fullness of freedom, that of acting outside of obedience - and so they become aware of evil. They gain that knowledge of what evil is and the vulnerability it preys upon - thus, they don’t need to be told they are naked, they know it and dress in fig leaves and hide. They also become aware that life wasn’t simply pleasant before, it was good … and their disobedience has created something in them that isn’t good.

When God finds Adam and Eve in hiding afterwards, the first question He asks them is, “Who told you that you were naked?” It’s a redundant question. God knows how it is they know they are naked. The question is a grace, a freely given opportunity, for Adam and Eve to repent. Instead of answering wholly truthfully by accepting responsibility, Adam denies the fullness of the blame proper to him and says, essentially, “Eve made me do it.” Eve then gets the same opportunity … but instead, “The Devil made me do it.” And certainly, the Devil did instigate the whole affair and certainly did not speak truthfully - God knows this character, he has already made any choice he would make, repentance is beyond him, and so God does not question him.

So it came to pass that mankind came to be at spiritual odds with the Devil and his minions, mankind is promised a redeemer from the Devil and his minions and the suffering resulting from his deception, women suffer greater pain in childbirth, women are subjugated under their husbands, and mankind’s communion with Creation is broken. Worst of all, Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden, from communion with God. All that was wholly good was lost, but all that is good was not destroyed nor abandoned.

More to come …