What would Jesus write and do

A pastor once announced in one of his sermons that there were 726 different kinds of sins. Soon he was deluged with requests for the list. Most of the requests came from folks who had their own short lists and they all wanted to know which sins they were missing out.
/

Fifth Sunday of Lent
March 21, 2010
John 8:1-11

The story of the adulterous woman is well-known. Curiously, it is almost always referenced in conjunction with compassion towards sinners, tolerance and forgiveness, along with the very tiresome do-not-judge refrain. While all of these are surely notable, there are many extreme viewpoints which appeal to the passages to justify tolerance of sin, and intolerance of its rightful judgment. While the chapter certainly teaches many things, tolerating manifest, obstinate sin isn’t one of them. Almost lost in translation is the emphatic ending where Jesus said: “Go, and from now on do not sin any more”.

The strange thing is that the Pharisees make no mention of the other party in the adulterous situation. As it takes two or more to tango, the adulterous situation cannot possibly transpire with just one individual alone. In this case, the woman was dragged off by the Pharisees to be stoned to death, but what were they thinking with regards to the adulterous man involved? Even so, had they enough proper witnesses?

One other mystery is: What could Jesus have been writing on the ground? The texts are silent here. The verses only state that as the charges were brought up, "Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger." Then when the Pharisees became persistent where upon Jesus uttered that famous line "...you...without sin...cast the first stone", it was recounted that "again he bent down and wrote on the ground.".

Just what did Jesus write (or draw) on the ground? To be sure, the Pharisees could not have missed observing Jesus writing, as all eyes were on him. Whatever was written on both instances (with impeccable timing), were likely a prelude and an exclamation point to Jesus' challenge. Obviously, the Pharisees realized they were now at a loss in squarely confronting Jesus with a self-righteous air, because at this point, "they went away one by one".

Clearly, Jesus got their numbers.

Maybe Jesus began to list down 726 or so sins, starting with the sins of the Pharisees. Maybe he wrote down Old Testament passages about sinning and accusing. But then again, there couldn’t be enough time and space. If the Scribes and Pharisees had to pay attention and understand, the scribblings had to be plainly visible and readable all around. Moreover, we have to take note that he was writing with his fingers, on the ground. Most likely, Jesus just wrote down something concise and illustrative, and even though it was soon erased from the ground long ago, the message is good for all times.




Here then, is my guess:

1 + 1 is > 1

and

1 is > 0

/

On (in)Tolerance

Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I".
"Go, and from now on sin no more".
(John 8:11-12)
/

One simply cannot be tolerant if one is not grounded in religious or moral beliefs.

Tolerance means to put up with a burden, a disposition to endure other people's beliefs and practices that one finds either false or immoral. Tolerance is morally worthwhile precisely because, although the beliefs of the other are devalued, the tolerant person values the person who holds those beliefs. The tolerant person wills to treat the other as intrinsically valuable in spite of his rejection of the others fundamental human concerns. The tolerant person will not allow the disrespect he accords those beliefs to correspond to devaluing of the persons who hold them. If the person would devalue the persons involved, tolerance would give way to intolerance and the inclination would be to treat the holders of opposing beliefs as subhuman.

It is easy to see why we human beings seem so inclined to intolerance. We invest ourselves in the things we care about. Those who disagree with us are claiming that what we care about is unworthy of care and, in so doing, they denigrate our investment (even as we denigrate theirs). Within the limits of the no-harm principle, tolerance is key to human interaction, yet ultimately the tolerant person must be moved by the higher order of truth and charity.

The problem for the secularist, however, is that such people hold strongly adamant beliefs, and are often loath in tolerating contending beliefs. Likewise a moral relativist cannot coherently exercise tolerance toward moral or religious absolutism because of a lack of commitment to a concept of the objective good and true. It is always uncomfortable to be continually challenged by the truth. The relativistic ethos of our modern society tends to frown upon statements of objective truth because it assumes that growth in intellectual maturity runs with growth in skepticism. The "modern" mind appears to be beholden to an air of sophistication associated with systematic doubt, without committing to any one point of view. That is why a dyed-in-the-wool secularist is bound to disparage religious and moral commitments. They simply cannot bear the beliefs and practices of people with strong and deep religious and moral convictions. Thus, they will work for the elimination of such beliefs and practices from the public, and eventually, private arena. This, it seems, is the not-so-covert intention of some secular liberals.

And that is why after the recent Miss USA tilt, gay pageant judge Perez Hilton calls Miss Carolina a "dumb bi@7#".

Surprised by sin

To capture the breadth, depth, and pervasiveness of sin, I propose that sin is simply the failure to bother to love".
- James F. Keenan, SJ

In his book "Moral Wisdom - Lessons and texts from the Catholic tradition", Jesuit theologian Fr James Keenan has the above interesting proposition.
He cites biblical support as he further expounds.
/
As the medieval theologians understood well, every narrative in the Gospel is not about sinners sinning out of their weaknesses, but out of their strengths.
When the publican and the Pharisee are praying in the temple, the sin of the Pharisee is in his strength (Luke 18:9-14). He specifically considers what he has. When the rich man steps over Lazarus and ignores Lazarus at the gate and in need, the rich man's sin is not in his weakness, but in his strength (Luke 16:19-31). He could have done something, he did not - he sinned, precisely out of his strength. The steward who asked forgiveness for his debt is forgiven, but he is punished because he does not forgive the minor debt by his own employee. Out of his strength, the steward is convicted (Mat 18:21-35). Think of the parable of the Good Samaritan: Where is the sin? Even the robbers who committed the crime of beating the poor man on the road to Jericho are ignored: the focus is on the Levite and the priest: they could have acted but they did not (Luke 10:25-37). They sinned precisely out of their strength. Or think of the Last Judgment. Note that the sheep and the goats are separated by what they could have done, and whether they did it. The goats ask: "but when did we not feed you? when did we not visit you?" (Mat 25:31-46)...

Our sin is usually not in what we did, not in what we could not avoid, not in what we tried not to do. Our sin is usually where you and I are comfortable, where we do not feel the need to bother, where, like the Pharisee...we have found complacency, a complacency not where we rest in being loved but where we rest in our delusional understanding of how much better we are than others. It is at that point of self-satisfaction that - like Speer, the Pharisee, the prodigal's older brother, or the rich man - we usually do not bother to love.
/
Some food for thought in this period of Lent.

Did God create evil?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
- Isaiah 45:7 (King James Bible)

Based on the above passage, an acquiantance in a group mailing list concludes that: "apparently, God did create evil."
/
Well...

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. The KJV translation of this passage seems to present a semantic problem. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shalom, which has many meanings, mostly related to the well-being of individuals. The original Hebrew word Ra'ah translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity.

Here is the NAB version of Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Thus, when taken into account, the opposite of well-being (of peace in this context) is woe or calamity, not evil.

When biblical passages seem confusing, it is the bible reader's recourse to compare scriptures against scriptures, as the bible does not contradict itself. Thus, in Genesis 1:31, we read:

"God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good."

God is not the author of evil, but allows it because God created free will. Evil is borne out of man's abuse of free will. However, God does reward and punish on the basis of good and bad behavior. There has been instances in the bible where God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through human authorities) as a consequence for those who sin. Woe and calamity is the consequence of man's actions, but ultimately, God will judge all people.

As a further reference for Catholics, here is section 311 of the Cathechism:

/CCC 311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it./

Of inequitable distribution and the rich man

(Received in the mail...)
/
If the population of the Earth was reduced to that of a small town with 100 people, it would look something like this:

57% Asians, 21% Europeans , 14% Americans (northern and southern) , 8% Africans

52% women, 48% men

70% coloured-skins, 30% caucasians

89% heterosexuals, 11% homosexuals

6 people would own 59% of the whole world wealth and all of them will be from the United States of America

80% would have bad living conditions, 70% would be uneducated, 50% underfed ...
/

There were corny comments after that last item but I excluded it. It ended with the usual pass this on to blah, blah.

Anyway, it looks like a fair representation of today's 6.8 billion earth inhabitants.
The inequity of it all says that mankind did not understand Gods plan for him to "have dominion over the fish, birds, etc..". It means thoughtful stewardship for everyone. Maybe mankind extended it to mean: have dominion over your fellowmen too. Too bad. That is why we have so much inequity and injustice in this world. People just look after their own selfish interests. That's why we are having this global crisis.

Oh well. The lesson in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man should even it out in the end. The prevailing interpretation says that the rich man's sin was neglecting the plight of Lazarus: it was more a sin of omission when he had the capacity to help. I was reading this book on Moral Theology wherein the Jesuit author proposes that the only sin is the failure to bother to love. Interesting. Speaking further about that parable, there is some discussion in Catholic circles whether or not the rich man really ended up in hell. Whatever, we can be sure that God's justice prevails.

The Erroneous Conscience

Are we called morally good or bad when in striving to follow our conscience, we err?

There is an interesting development of theological opinion on the question.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) , distrusted human knowledge and believed that the root of sin is ignorance. He emphasized the virtue of humility and adherence to the law. Actions contrary to the law and its teaching, even though done out of ignorance, were according to Bernard, bad. Thus if we accept that telling a lie is always wrong, Bernard would say if we told a lie, regardless of our motivation, we sinned.

Theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142), taught differently. He held that the will, in particular its consent, determines actions as good or bad. If we are in error, but we do not consent to it, there is no sin. Thus if we told a lie in order to protect the life of another, Abelard would call us and our action, good. Faced with the question whether the action from a sincerely erroneous conscience is a sin, Bernard says yes, and Abelard, no.

Upon the powerful influence of Bernard, who accused Abelard of 19 errors, the Council of Sens (1140) condemned Abelard, although his sentence was later lifted.

Later, Thomas Aquinas entertained the question whether a person is good when following an erroneous conscience. For Thomas Aquinas, conscience is the act of applying our knowledge of good and evil to what we do (or might do). So in order to know what is a good action or a bad one, one needs to understand how things are naturally ordered by God -- primarily what human nature is, and what things it needs and deserves. Thomas' question concerned sincerity and understanding regarding the error: Could one have known otherwise? Interestingly, Thomas did not call the person good who despite striving to know the right, followed an erroneous conscience; rather, Thomas argued that such a person is "excused" from blame.

By the 16th century, most theologians agree with Thomas, that a dictate of conscience must be followed under pain of sin and that an erroneous conscience in good faith is, at least, excused from blame. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned all those who taught that an invincibly ignorant conscience did not at least, excuse. Implicitly, Bernard's attack on Abelard is rejected.

We now see Vatican II upholding the dignity of the moral conscience, even when it errs from invincible ignorance. But it goes on to caution: "The same cannot be said of the man who cares little for truth and goodness, or of a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin" (Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Finally, Cathechism states:

1790. A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."
In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1755. A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

In conclusion, it must be noted that describing erroneous actions as "good", as contemporary relativists do, is rejected. Relativists rightly find goodness in the integrity of conscience, but they grossly overlook the need to evaluate what we do out of conscience and how we live. This simplistic description is favored by many in society today who praise people for following conscience but who refuse to measure the resulting activity; that each of us is considerably free from objective evaluation. A person who errs in good faith is a person who has struggled to find the right, has searched heart and mind, and in firm good faith and free will acted with conviction, albeit in error. This person is good, and what differentiates this person from another who strives in the same way but whose conduct is recognized as right is precisely the evaluation of the conduct as wrong. Calling the conduct wrong is the sufficient negative description for the activity of the erroneous conscience.
/

Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

(Mark 12:28-31)



That is how the Love of God is commanded: with ALL of one's heart, soul, mind and strength. Everything. Total. Absolute, no-holds barred commitment.

Do we think anyone among us today can rightfully claim before God of strictly following the first and foremost commandment? Much less the second which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves? Do our constant thoughts, actions, feelings, words and deeds attest to total obedience? Maybe the most pious among us tries their best to do so, but then Jesus didn't say "You shall TRY to love..." rather, "You SHALL love...". In other words - Huwag mong subukan, gawin mo!

Impossible? If we read along further, we see that the scribe understood Jesus' words clearly and even confirmed it by repeating His words, as well as acknowledging that it "..is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices". Now lets pay attention what happens next. When Jesus saw that the scribe understood intelligently, He said:

"You are not far from the kingdom of God.".

The first step is understanding. An understanding that comes with acceptance. Only then can we attempt to reconcile it with our constant thoughts, actions, feelings, words and deeds. Then, like the scribe - we should not be far from the Kingdom of God.

But - it will take His mercy and gifts of grace to bring us completely there.

I think about that as we approach the second Sunday of Easter: the Divine Mercy Sunday.

Conscience and the Denial of Sin

I once heard it said that if there is one thing worse than sin, it is the denial of sin.

But how does one come into a denial of sin?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, states:

“1792. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”,

herein which I will attempt to parse:

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel

I surmise that ignorance is brought about when you are in the boondocks and isolated from the rest of humanity and civilization. No TV, no books, no teachers, and no Google. But for the greater mass of people, especially those who are in a position to make a difference in this day and age, ignorance can only be decidedly voluntary. One is supposed to be obliged in conscience to seek the truth and not be content with what is personally comfortable from a conveniently “practical” point of view, yet it is so convenient and comfortable to make a shortcut. I therefore call this conscience a quick and easy “Do-It-Yourself” conscience.

Enslavement to one’s passions

All slaves have masters, and in this case, the master is one’s passions. The distinction being that this is a self-inflicted slavery that shuts out discernment and with it – freedom. Indeed the flesh is weak, and that is why the Lord instructed us to pray “lead us not into temptation…”. On the other hand those who become slaves by choice invite temptation and then wallow in it, and therefore I call this conscience, a “pawned” conscience.

Bad example given by others

When “everybody” is doing it, it must be acceptable and therefore “right”. This is heightened by peer pressure within the close confines of one’s social circle, or even of one’s subjective and personal perception of what is considered acceptable by the larger social sphere. Notions of acceptability prevails and liberal fad rules. I call this conscience a “Popularity Contest” conscience.

Autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority

The conscience exists in a vacuum, whose discernment does not include an outside point of reference.
As a case in point, it is dangerous to choose a car without dutifully consulting car-buying guides and mechanics. In the spiritual sense where the stakes are much higher, it should be imperative to be even more conscientious in seeking guidance from external authorities, especially from those whose knowledge and wisdom is drawn upon a studied foundation of more than two-thousand years of consistent teaching. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong, the problem is much more likely with us. Maybe I’ll call this conscience a “clueless” conscience.

Lack of conversion and of charity

I have stated at the onset that the denial of sin may be worse than sin itself, and come to think of it, the only sin might be denial itself. The adamant refusal to be open to correction could be in fact the only barrier to conversion and charity. This is characterized by a spirited self-righteousness that can only be perhaps corrected by a bolt of lightning, which is not entirely impossible, to those of us who have heard of the road to Damascus. Anyway, a less dramatic conversion could just as well be effective, which is what all of us should be working at in this season of Lent. Also, the first among the St. Matthew’s Beatitudes is something to ponder at, as we all evaluate our spirited selves.

/