What Can Separate Us from the Love of Christ?

In today’s 2^nd reading St. Paul asks, “What can separate us from the love of Christ?” He goes on to answer that nothing external can separate me from Christ’s love, i.e. famine, nakedness, persecution, angels, or any creature – can separate us from Jesus. I wish to take a little liberty with Paul’s passage. I want to go a little further and ask, not just those things that are external to us, but also thing internal, i.e. my very self.

As Catholics we are taught that there are different kinds of sins all varying in degree of depravity and consequences. The Church teaches there are venial sins, these sins are “lesser” types of sins that hurt our relationship with God but do not break our relationship with Him. We believe in “deadly sins” which describe vice, our sinful disposition-weakness, they can be venial or mortal depending on the act and its circumstances. Finally, we believe in mortal sins which sever our relationship with God; they destroy charity in us given by God.

The problem we have in the Church is that people sometimes think they have committed mortal sin when in reality they have not, they are suffering from old school Catholic guilt. Then there is the opposite danger, where people no longer believe that there is such a thing as mortal sin or at least they never committed one.

First off, what constitutes a mortal sin? Three factors are necessary. One) the person must know the act is grave; Two) the person must have given it sufficient thought; Three) the person’s free will must not be hampered in any way. If these three conditions are met then the person has committed a mortal sin, at least that is what we can say objectively, but as always, the person is judged according to their own conscience before God.

As you can see for the Christian it would be difficult to commit a mortal sin, though not impossible. Some may not agree with me. But here is the problem. Let’s say you are in relationship with God, i.e. in good graces on Monday morning. Then on Monday evening you commit a mortal sin, now you are damned, but on Tuesday morning you go to confession, now you are saved, but on Tuesday evening you commit the same mortal sin, now you are damned, but on Wednesday morning you go to Confession, now you are saved, you get the point – saved in the morning, damned in the evening. It’s silly.

Our relationship with God doesn’t solely work that way, i.e. on conditions. Our relationship with God starts simply with that- relationship. One cannot escape conditions in life, even with God, but they are secondary to relationship. When a person’s disposition is one of faith in order for a person to be separated from God one must make a conscience choice to do so, just as a child would make a conscience decision to separate themselves from their parents. A child’s relationship from its parents is not severed because they may have done something bad or even awful, it may hurt the relationship, but not break it, it is only broken when a child decides either through one act or many that he or she no longer wants any part of them. An act of that nature would require sufficient thought, a free choice, and knowledge that the choice is indeed severe. You can see how difficult that is, so too with mortal sin.

Please do not misunderstand me, mortal sin is possible, even in one single act, I am just saying it’s not as easy to commit as people believe. Let’s take missing mass for example. Missing mass is wrong and sinful and it “could be” a mortal sin depending on the choice of why not to go. Here are two examples.

One) A person is on vacation having a great time, they wake up a little late on Sunday, they suddenly remember its Sunday, they quickly decide not to go to mass since they got up a little late, they are away, etc. In this case the person did not give the matter sufficient thought, they are still guilty of sin, but of a lesser nature, though it could lead to worse sins and to more grave vice. Remember if you play with fire you get burned, no pun intended.

Two) A person wakes up early Sunday morning, thinks for a while about not going to mass, can’t stand going actually, knows that the Church teaches one must not deprive themselves of the assembly, but has decided freely in his or her own mind I can worship God my way, hence I will no longer go to mass. In this case the probability of mortal sin has increased and could very well have been committed. The person gave the matter sufficient thought, knows the Church’s teaching and still makes a free choice not to go.

The second example is not most Catholics, but the first example is, and that needs to be changed, mass is not a luxury, but a calling of us to a wedding, who would refuse to go the Jesus’ wedding, especially when he is wedding us.

Back to Paul’s original question, “What can separate us from the love of Christ?” I don’t think that much can separate us from the love of Christ. It is improbable, but not impossible to be separated from Christ’s love. Do you think Jesus would go through what he did so that he would lose? No, Jesus is a winner and one either believes he is beating Satan or losing to him. You either believe positively or negatively, you either have more people going to hell or heaven, which one are you?

Think of the love parents have for their children and how much it would take for their relationship to be severed? It would take a whole lot. If that is the case for weak human beings then how much more is it so for a powerful God? Is it logical to think it less? No.

Again, I am not giving people license to sin, all sin is wrong, some of it even deadly, but it would take a lot more than we think to separate us from the love of Christ. Amen.

Fr. John

picture of Peter (us) sinking in doubt and even sin and still God holds on!, picture taken from: http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/Jesus_Pictures/Jesus_Christ_Pictures.htm

Letter from Bishops to Congress on Budget Cuts

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economy/upload/budget-debate-letter-to-house-2011-07-26.pdf

Wisdom: Not "Me" but in the "You"

When we pray do we ask God how He can help us or do we ask God how we can help Him? In today’s 1^st reading from the 1^st book of Kings, King Solomon does not ask God for more land, more gold, more soldiers, or anything of that type. Rather, King Solomon asks God, “Give your servant, therefore, an understanding heart to judge your people and to distinguish right from wrong. For who is able to govern this vast people of yours?” In return King Solomon is blessed a hundred fold,

“Because you have asked for this—not for a long life for yourself,
nor for riches, nor for the life of your enemies, but for understanding so that you may know what is right—I do as you requested. I give you a heart so wise and understanding that there has never been anyone like you up to now, and after you there will come no one to equal you.”

We are well aware of the saying, “As wise as Solomon,” or “With the wisdom of Solomon.” A saying handed down for generations over spans of millennia. There is a great lesson here for us. Blessings only come when we are more concerned with others than ourselves.

There is much that concerns us in life and preoccupies us with the proverbial “me.” One such question which is at the root of all questions is, “Will I be successful?” Much of our efforts in life are centered on that question. We prepare ourselves through education and practice in finding a career and then succeeding in that career. We put ourselves through school, college, all sorts of training to obtain our goals and desires. We will work, work, work, until we reach our goal, both in financial security and prestige in the work place.

Another concern or preoccupation is to find a vocation and be successful at that as well, be it married life, the single life, or a call to ministry. Many moments are given to. “What will I be in life,” “What road will I take,” or the more practical, “How will I get there?” People will beat themselves up over life questions such as these, always falling back to the, me, me, me. And that is where the danger lies, in the “me.”

Goals in life are not necessarily bad, they are actually something good. The Lord wants us asking questions, he wants us to be organized, to have direction, to be efficient, and most of all to be virtuous. However, God does not want us to get lost in there and only have our world revolve around “me.”

King Solomon had a tough job, a thankless one at that. Being a king, president, prime minister, is indeed sometimes thankless, if not downright awful. The scrutiny one undergoes is horrific and the reward does not fit the sacrifice. And yet, King Solomon is concerned more about right judgment so that his people will be treated fairly, well, and compassionately. His main concern is for his neighbor and not so much for himself.

When we seek accomplishments in life, whatever they may be, for whose benefit do we seek such things, for our own or for others?

Scripture tells us, “With the measure you have measured, it will be measured out to you . . . and the least you have done to your brothers or sisters you have done unto me.” God hates sin; He hates pride obviously, but also greed. When I look only to “me” I am greedy, when I look to others, then I am selfless.

If you look at what got us into the economic mess that we are in today, it’s because of greed. It wasn’t only the politicians and bankers, but it was me and you as well. We all wanted to know, “What can I get for me?” It seemed like the more I can get the better. You see, I have to have that dream house with the white picket fence, 2.1 children and a family dog. I also have to have three televisions, a cell phone for my 2.1 children – even for the dog. When that’s not enough, I also need to rebuild the home, take out a 2^nd mortgage, and with the left over cash from the 2^nd mortgage buy a boat. All of it for, “me.” And then when it goes bad, I ask God for help. Greed only compiles sin upon sin until everything comes crashing down, and why, because the house was built on sand and when a good strong wind came, that house of greed came tumbling down. King Solomon was like you and I, a faithful man, started off on the right foot, with a great blessing, but one palace was not enough, nor was one wife enough. Eventually there were multiple palaces; hundreds of wives and concubines, until it all came crashing down. And before the end Solomon remembered, it was never supposed to be just for “me.” Blessings are granted a hundred fold when I turn to God and ask Him, “What can I do for you?”

The house that stands on a firm foundation or on a loose one is you and I. How and where will we build our house? Will we build it with the proverbial “me” or will we build it for others, especially for God?

Happiness, it’s what we all want and strive for. That is what is really at the root of all of this conversation. The answer is simple; it comes from God and service to Him and neighbor. It occurs when we move from “me” to “you.” It will never rest in material things, but always in service. That is the heart of Christianity, service. Pray then with me that we will all respond to the call for others and sacrifice our own benefits. If we do then we will be in good company with King Solomon, and in God’s heart we will always stay, and our blessings will be a hundred fold.

Fr. John

Image from http://amalku.blogspot.com/2011/05/king-solomon-and-baby.html

God is Merciful, Am I?

God is merciful. We all expect that and more. We are always ready to have God forgive us for our wrongs, evil deeds, and sins – yes there are still sins, not everything can be explained away by behavioral psychology as good as that practice and science is in its service to humanity.

When we sin, hopefully we feel some type of conviction to seek God and ask for His mercy. The first reading from Wisdom reminds us that, “you gave your children good ground for hope that you would permit repentance for their sins.”

I want to discuss two things with you today, the Sacrament of reconciliation and since God forgives us everything, does that mean that I too must forgive those who have wronged me of everything?

There has been and continues to be huge drop off in Confession over the last twenty years or so. This is for a number of reasons, the first being, society has deemed many behaviors as not sinful, it has even gone so far as declaring that what we believe to be sinful is actually something good, and something we should all do. For example, it is no longer sinful to engage in premarital relations, to cheat on my IRS return, - actually some will claim that has never been sinful. Remember give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. It is ok to miss mass for the kid’s soccer games, vacation, or just to sleep in. I can go on and on. And just to be fair I too am a sinner and have justified many things in life, it doesn’t make them right or good.

Since we justify our actions and are tricked into believing we are not sinning therefore gives us ample reason not to go to confession, since I don’t need it. There are other reasons people don’t go, i.e. I can go directly to God, I am too embarrassed to go, or I don’t have time to go.

None of those reasons are sufficient. The sacrament of confession is an integral part to healing and forgiveness. It helps us to become humble and rely on God. It brings healing when we can speak out loud our actions; it feels as if a heavy burden has been lifted from our shoulders. Confession stands as part two of forgiveness, part one is when we immediately ask God to forgive us and He does, but to be reconciled to the Church – His body, we must declare our sins out loud, c.f. James 5:16, and remember that our first Pope declared his sins or at least his threefold penance out loud.

It is easy for God to forgive us, and we have great opportunities to do so, why not make use of such graces?

Back to our second point, if God is quick to forgive and to forget my sins, must I also do the same? Yes! This might actually be harder for us. Scripture tells us he who hates his brother is a murderer, and who is my brother? EVERYONE!

People will always bring up extreme cases in which logic supposedly dictates that forgiveness should be withheld. I won’t get into them here and it is a struggle to forgive extreme evil and evil persons, we must be honest. What I am talking about is the hurt we do to one another, when families are broken apart through divorce, betrayal, some money dispute, etc. Family members will ignore one another for years out of principle. Let me ask you, “Is it worth it to take that principle and stand before Almighty God declaring our own righteousness in the matter?” Scripture says, “No one is righteous, no not even one, they have all fallen short of the glory of God.” C.f. Romans 3.

I know it is hard to forgive sometimes, but just remember how hard it was for Jesus to forgive us, it took 40 lashes, beatings, mockery, a crown of thorns, a few miles walk with a heavy cross, three nails, and finally a spear – though already departed. If Jesus can give us that, can’t we give some mercy to our neighbors? Unless we thought carrying a cross was just a nice pious statement.

It’s a cross to go to confession sometimes, it’s a cross to forgive those who have hurt me, but unless I embrace both those crosses I am only a Christian in name and not at heart. We can’t lift those crosses alone, but together with me helping you and you helping me those crosses will be a little lighter.

Fr. John

Two Cases for the Death Penalty or Not

I would like to present you with the two following cases and ask you what you would do, how would you decided, guilty - therefore the death penalty, or not guilty or at least no death sentence.

The first case was of a very zealot KGB agent from the former communist regime, USSR., now Russia. His goal was to find Christians out and have them deny their faith or at least renounce it and pledge loyalty to the Party. He went from town to town, spying, gathering information, turning brother and sister against one another. When he found Christians he had them put on trial, even bringing false witnesses against them claiming they spoke against the government. He put one after the other to death in terrible ways.

Fast forward now, Communism collapses, this agent is found out by the allies, they have him arrested. So, what do we do now?

The second case is of a ruler of a small country, but one of great prestige and history. This ruler is seduced by his own passions, makes up rules for himself, and winds up becoming a slave of vice. His vice knows no limits, he lives in debauchery, wages war, takes woman after woman either as concubines or wives. He even takes the wife of one of his best and loyal soldiers. Eventually he plots to have him killed so that it will be easier to take this woman as his wife.

Fast forward now, the ruler is exposed, his countrymen turn on him and have him arrested. What are we to do with this man, should he punished by death or not?

Thinking on this the book the Lord of the Rings came to mind and a scene in which Frodo approaches Gandalf in the mines of Moria and says, "Something is following us." "I know," says Gandalf, "its Gollum, he's been following us for three days." Frodo replies, "It's a pity that Bilbo didn't kill the vile creature when he had the chance." Gandalf turns to Frodo and says, "Pity, it was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Some people who live deserve to die, some who die deserve to live. Can you give it to them Fordo? Don't be so eager to deal out death and judgment, not even the very wise can see all ends. And we don't know what part Gollum has yet to play in all of this. There are other forces at work in this world besides the will of evil, there is also good." (paraphrased)

The two cases I put before you were that of a man named Saul of Tarsus, later to become St. Paul, the greatest missionary in the Church. First a man who condemned Christians, putting them to death via kangaroo trials, then later giving everything he had even his own life in proclaiming the mercies of God.

The second person was that of a young boy named David born in Bethlehem, later to become King of Israel, a man who committed adultery, murder, and other acts of grave sin, and still a man who repented, and was found to be after God's own heart. Now recognized as one of the world's greatest rulers in the annals of history.

Lesson: Don't be so eager to deal out death and judgment, some who live deserve to die, while some who die deserve to live- can you give it to them?

Fr. John

Does God Exist

Does God exist? That is the question. There are three possible answers: Yes, God does exist; No, God does not exist; and lastly, I don’t know if He exists (i.e. maybe).

An argument, which is circular and needs to be avoided is: I believe in God because the Bible tells me so. Why do you believe in the bible? Because it’s God’s Word. How do you know its God’s Word? Because God told me so.

You can see how weak that type of reasoning is. This does not mean we cannot glean anything from Scripture in trying to prove God’s existence. We can use Scripture to help us but we must also employ reason, intellect, and sound judgment when discerning the “is there a God?” question. There is an old saying, “Faith without reason is superstition, and reason without faith is dead.” (The saying is derived from Albert Einstein’s notion of religion and science working harmoniously.)

First we will look at the Atheist position/premise. An atheist is someone who believes or claims, “God does not exist.” One usually draws this conclusion by pointing out seeming discrepancies in Sacred Scripture or religious corruption, particularly that of religious institutions, deducing that science is the best explanation for our existence, i.e. science proves there is no God. There are probably other factors that lead one to the conclusion that there is no God and many times these are very personal and usually centered on morality.

The atheist is in a very precarious position since he must prove a negative: for example, I will prove that I did not lie, cheat, or steal, etc. Proving negatives are difficult since no action has occurred, (i.e. I did not do it, meaning the action does not exist, as opposed to I did do it, where the action does exist). The greater dilemma is that when an atheist states, “There is no God”, he is declaring an absolute. The problem here is that the atheist cannot believe in absolutes, since there are no absolutes. Allow me to explain.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, influenced by ancient Greek philosophy, there are absolutes: something that is good is always good, and that which is evil is always evil, regardless of an individual’s opinion. Let us take an extreme example. Murder is always wrong for it is an evil action. It violates justice, that which I owe my neighbor for the simple reason that he is a human being and deserves the respect and dignity of his person. If I murder him, I have violated justice. It does not matter if I believe murder to be good or if society begins to shift its opinion – it will always be wrong, a moral absolute. The atheist cannot defend the evil of murder through absolutes since he does not believe in them. He must therefore tweak the reasoning on the morality of murder according to the norms of society. We decide good and evil. The major difficulty here is what happens when society does not judge well? And who does society think it is anyway telling me what is right or wrong. Am I not the captain of my own destiny? Am I not my own arbiter of what is good or bad for me? Since there are no absolutes, don’t you dare tread on me. Unless there are absolutes!

The issue at hand is that the atheist violates the principle of contradiction, which basically states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. On the one hand, the atheist claims there is no God (to be) and yet there are no absolutes (to not be). Reason and logic are violated. By his own premise the atheist contradicts himself. The principle itself is an absolute, i.e. A is A and not B, because B is B and not A. Logic 101.

Some will argue that absolutes, especially in morality, are much more fluid than rigid, and that is true. Every act has circumstances (did you steal the food because your children were starving or because you did not want to pay for the food?). Circumstances must be measured to determine culpability or, if the act was good, the reward. It does not, however, take away objective reasoning in determining if an act is good or evil.

Back to our point, however, about atheists. They will sometimes point out discrepancies in Scripture, the mingling of other cultures’ stories and myths which have influenced the bible, etc. One thing they ignore is this – in every culture, in every part of history, no matter where or when, people in one way or another have looked to something greater than themselves. Also, these people always seemed to be sacrificing in one way or another for their transgressions and to appease the gods. I ask, “Why would they all do this?” Is it by chance? Is it because we share one common beginning and therefore the original story passed down has reached us and helps explain the similarities shared between cultures and history? Or is it that God himself has given us a natural instinct or desire to search him out, regardless of our origin? In some ways, it’s all of the above. To be clear, Scripture is not to be read like a police report; it is a work of theology, written in a certain time, influenced by its own culture, time, and place, and it contains theological Truth. Its history is true but it does not contain every iota of what happened, painting a picture from point A to point B in a nice linear line. The authors were not so much concerned with that type of data. Rather their concern was passing on Sacred Truth which was the same in the past, now, and forever.

There is also Aristotelian logic that St. Thomas Aquinas used to prove God’s existence. St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica gave 12 proofs for God. One of the more famous ones is cause and effect. Nothing can put itself into motion – a match cannot light unless someone strikes it. Also, a human being cannot come into existence on his own – he needs parents. The logic here is two-fold: there cannot be infinite cause and effect; and something cannot come from nothing.

Let’s take human generation as an example. I came to be through my parents. I am the effect, and they were the cause. I know they are also the effect of their parents, who were their cause, going all the way back to the beginning, whatever and whenever that was/is. That chain of events did not start on its own; it was put into motion. Hence, there had to be a first cause. Does it make sense that a baby can come from nothing? No it does not - it needs parents. That whole process had to start somewhere. There cannot be infinite cause and effect, an eternal chain of events without a beginning point. It could not have always been since everything I observe is put into motion, nothing starts itself, therefore it cannot be eternally in motion, except for God – the First cause, or the primary mover of everything, but who himself as Aristotle and St. Thomas called Him, the Unmoved Mover, hence the question, the chicken and the egg, which came first? It does not matter, what does matter is that they did not appear out of thin air.

The atheist will usually argue that all of the above is a construct of the mind, just ideas – nothing more, therefore not real or at least not proofs for God. If that is the case then so, too, is the idea/statement that God does not exist. Again, the atheist defies his own reason in claiming there is no God. The atheist is asking me to live in a world of chaos, one that defies logic and yet at the same time they look to science and reason for the answers in declaring that God does not exist.

Usually the biggest problem for atheists is due to moral issues or the corruption in religious intuitions. If one is atheist, what is their moral standard? Who sets the bar, and what if you don’t agree with society? As far as religious corruption, that should have no bearing on whether God exists or not, since that kind of argument is based on feelings. I admit there will always be corruption, not only in religious intuitions, but even among atheists as well. It is true when the Church does not live up to the bar it causes scandal, but God’s existence does not rely on whether we are good or bad.

The deeper question is, “How did one become an atheist and why?” Usually not because they have a bone to pick with St. Thomas Aquinas, logic, or sound judgment, but usually because of some moral dilemma, growing tired of old-time religion, therefore replacing God with science – since science does not judge.

There are also agnostics who do not answer the question of God’s existence, but simply respond, “I don’t know if He exists or not.” We’ll look at that at a later time.

Christians must logically and scripturally defend the position that God exists. We can make good arguments to that effect. I must note, however, proving God’s existence is one thing, but the more important thing is being in relationship with Him. God is the Unmoved Mover, but more importantly He is my Father, and isn’t it absolutely incredible, wonderful, and reassuring to not only know it, but to believe it with every fiber in one’s body? That question can only be answered by you.

Fr. John

Picture is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church who wrote on many doctrinal and philosophical themes, the existence of God being one one of then, picture from http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/June-2010/Spirituality-The-Influence-of-Thomas-Aquinas.aspx