Have We Forgotten Our First Love?

Reading Scripture this morning, I came across this passage from Revelation 2:1-5 (NABRE).

The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this: I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors. Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

The reason this stood out for me this time through the New Testament was how it might tie in to the infighting going on in the Church at this time. With all the focus on the policies of the Church and which faction they benefit, it seems to me that we are in danger of losing our first love of Christ that should be our motivation in dealing with others. Our Lord didn’t give us a church. He gave us The Church under the headship of Peter and his successors. In defending the Church, some treat it as an institution that we either favor if we agree with it, or get angry with if we disagree with it.

But if the Church is God’s gift to us to be the visible means of carrying out His mission, then reducing our participation to fighting over what we want the Church to be is forgetting our first love of God. That doesn’t mean we keep silent when there is a problem in the Church. But it does mean we need to handle these problems in light of our love for God and His for us.

Do we believe that God established what we know of as Christianity? Then let us live it out of love for Him, not as a collection of bylaws for membership. Do we believe that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ created and continues to protect? Then let us handle our affairs in the Church out of love for The Lord who built it on the rock of Peter, giving all due obedience out of love, not out of reluctance or legalism. If we make known our needs (see canon 212 §3), then let us do so out of love of God and each other as the Greatest Commandment (cf. Matthew 22:36-40) was formulated, and not “The Pope/Cardinal/Bishop/Priest is a jerk and a moron!”

It’s unfortunate that the different factions in the Church seem to think the Greatest Commandments is suspended when dealing with those we think are wrong. For example, I’m unhappy with the anti-Francis attitude in the Church. But I have to constantly remind myself that my dislike for their behavior does not merit treating them contemptuously†. Those who dislike the Pope, or those who dislike the “dubia cardinals” and other critics (along with all other factions out there) should remember that treating these people as enemies goes against the One who must be our first love.

Yes, sin is wrong and must be opposed. But we cannot treat sinners as those to be despised. That was the attitude of the Pharisee that our Lord condemned. Jesus taught, “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you” (Matthew 7:2). We need to remember that if we love Jesus, we will keep His commandments (cf. John 14:15). That means we must look at ourselves and see how we have transgressed. But love and mercy (even when correcting) is part of His commandments. 

No, loving the sinner does not mean calling the sin good. But too many think it does. Both the “conservative” and “liberal” Catholics think the Church calling for moral laxity when it calls for mercy. They merely differ over whether they think it is good or not. But both are wrong. The sins we tolerate—disguising our partisanship as mercy for the sinner—are wrong just as wrong in the eyes of God as the ones we abhor (and show no mercy for the sinner).

So, to regain our First Love that we have lost like the Ephesians, we need to start acting out of love for God and our neighbor and not limiting our compassion to our allies and treating our enemies with evil. 

 

________

(†) One year for Lent, I gave up using sarcasm in my replies on social media. You might think that’s ridiculous (and maybe it is), but it definitely left me thinking about the charity and tone of what I said. It also changed my views of them. The further I go back in my blog history, the more cringeworthy some of my comments seem. So, what I write in this post has a particular relevance to my personal life.

What’s Wrong With the World? “Everything Except Me!”

Read more »

Signal to Noise Ratio and the Catholic Social Media

Read more »

Catholicism vs. Illogic: The Either-Or Fallacy

There was a recent NBC News article which sought to highlight some Catholics who portray their opinions as showing the authentic Catholic teaching [§] taking a stand against movements promoting active homosexuality. Both the article itself and some responses by individual Catholics tried to turn it into a decision to be made over which group to side with. There was a depressing lack of comments saying “I reject both movements as incompatible with the Church.”

The logical syllogism of determining two choices runs:

• Either X or Y.
• Not Y.
• Therefore X.

It’s a valid syllogism (called modus tollens). But using it validly in this case depends on there only being two choices where only one can be right and one must be chosen. If there are more than two choices, or if it is possible to reject both, then trying to argue “either-or” is a fallacy. And that’s what was wrong with the NBC article and the response to it.

When it comes to dealing with the evils facing the Church, people tend to fall into the trap of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” They do this by determining who supports an evil incompatible with being a Christian. Then assume that whoever opposes this evil must be morally good. But that’s not always true. Factions exist that promote platforms which only superficially resemble Catholic belief while differing from them in substantial ways.

Pointing out that these groups have serious problems often leads to accusations that one is siding with the opposite faction. The violated Church teaching is treated as a lesser matter which should take second place to the preferred teaching.

But authentic Catholic teaching is not one of the extremes. Nor is it a compromise between two extremes (that’s the fallacy of compromise). Authentic Catholic teaching is one that follows the way of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. That means opposing sin while showing love for the sinner. We don’t choose one of the two options. We choose the option that does both. If that view doesn’t fit into the modern political climate, then we work to change that climate... it’s called The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).

When we run into two extremes arguing over what is authenticly Catholic, we must not rush to take a side based on what seems right. We must look to see if either side follows the magisterium. If one side not, that side is a perversion of the Catholic Faith. But that doesn’t mean that the other side is automatically correct.

People set aside listening to the magisterium and embrace whatever faction they sympathize with, downplaying inconvenient Church teaching along the way. Ultimately, that’s why I think the Catholic climate is so confused. It’s not the Pope “spreading confusion.” It’s the Catholics who choose sides between extremes where the Catholic Faith is not represented.

______________________

[§] We should never simply accept the say so of an individual Catholic (and I include myself and my blog here). The authenticity of what an individual Catholic claims must be determined by comparing their claims to the teaching of the Pope and bishops.

When Factionalism Drives Evaluation

The latest news cycle brought out reports of scandalous things inside and outside of the Church. And of course, when wrongdoing happens, we must strive to correct it in a way that not only reflects our belief in justice, but the Christian obligation of mercy as well. That’s always hard. When we sympathize with someone, we want the mercy done but not the justice. But when we dislike someone, we want the justice done, but not the mercy. This is, of course, a corrupt attitude to take.

Making it worse, there is a tendency among some to use a scandal to target people one dislikes. Take the recent Cardinal McCarrick scandal. There are credible charges against him which—barring any exonerating evidence unexpectedly appearing—must be addressed. But some Catholics are using the scandal to target other clergy which they dislike. It’s the “guilt by association” fallacy. The question asked is, “is it really possible that [disliked clergy member] could have been ignorant about this?”

It attempts to imply that because a disliked cardinal (for example, Wuerl, Farrell) knew or were friends with McCarrick, they must have known and were complicit in covering up the abuse. The problem is, most people who commit shameful crimes don’t boast about it. They keep it hidden. The victims also keep it hidden out of shame, humiliation, or feelings of guilt (I understand it is common for the innocent victims of rape or other sexual crimes feel guilt over what they suffered). So, yes, it is possible that his friends didn’t know. Association does not prove knowledge and coverup. That has to be proven. Repeating the insinuation without proof is at the very least rash judgment.

But it is interesting that the cardinals targeted in this way were already hated by certain factions. So the fact that members of these factions are also insinuating that complicity exists should be noted. There may be a bias that seeks to misuse a scandal for the purpose of discrediting someone unrelated. On the other hand, we can’t simply argue from the fact that the person is hostile that the accusation is automatically a lie either. What this means is, we can’t draw an accusation against someone simply because of their affiliation with someone who does wrong. 

If we want to do what is right and avoid either false accusations or letting the evildoers get away with their evil, we must evaluate accusations. Is there any basis to them? Would I be willing to tolerate an accusation of evil if it came from someone I opposed? Would I be willing to accept that accusation if directed against someone I supported? How one answers these questions may indicate a factional spirit instead of a desire for justice.

Acting rightly when it comes to accusations can be real struggle sometimes. For example, when the Fr. Maciel story broke, I remember thinking that the accusations sounded so extreme that they had to be a lie being made to attack the Church. I was dead wrong about that. I remember being angry at the news stories about certain bishops taking a stand against Church teaching—only to discover the stories were false and my anger was misplaced. We can be wrong about what another is capable or incapable of and we have to be careful not to let our assumptions get in the way of our seeking out what is true, whether that truth is guilt or exoneration.

Rash judgment and calumny are sins. If we repeat as true what we do not know to be true, it is rash judgment. If we repeat what we know is false as if it were true, we commit calumny. We must not commit either. Instead, we must seek out truth and apply justice with the mercy Our Lord requires of us. If we presume the person we oppose must be guilty or the person we support must be innocent and refuse to seek out the truth, we do wrong in the name of our ideology.

Competing Tunnel Visions of the Church

Pope Francis’ emphasis on mercy doesn’t put him in opposition to St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI—it puts him in opposition to those who think the Church is about condemning rather than evangelizing.

This is not an indictment of only one faction. It’s a sign of tunnel vision among Catholics. Yes, some conservative Catholics think that the Pope’s emphasis on mercy is a moral laxity and they are wrong in thinking that way. But some liberal Catholics think that Church teaching on moral obligations is rigorism, and they are also wrong.

The fact is, the Church is about saving souls. This involves both the admonishing of sinners when they choose to do evil, and the reaching out in mercy to bring them back to God. Unfortunately, the lax Catholic sees this as condemnation of people while the rigorist Catholic sees this as winking eyes at sin.

Both errors view certain aspects of the Church teaching as a distraction or a sign of political bias. Conservative Catholics see social justice teaching as a sign of politically liberal bishops who do not care about teaching on moral issues. Simultaneously, liberal Catholics see Church teaching on moral—particularly on sexual morality—teachings as a sign of politically conservative bishops who do not care about social justice.

Obviously, if the bishops are accused by both sides of teaching only the other side, it shows they are teaching the whole faith and the critics want to silence them on the side they disagree with. It is their own bias that leads them to think that the Church supports the other side.

The unspoken assumption is that the critics’ own side is true and whoever disagrees with them is presumed to be endorsing all the evils of the other side—even if that person is Pope or bishop. That’s the either-or fallacy. One doesn’t have to support A or B. One can support option C, support elements from both A and B, or reject both A and B altogether.

The fact that there are sinners in the Church is indisputable because human beings are in the Church. No person is immune from personal sin, even the members of the Magisterium. But the fact of personal sin in the shepherds of the Church does not mean that, when they teach, that they have a 50-50 chance of teaching error. We believe that the charism of infallibility for the Pope and indefectibility of the Church means we can trust that when the Church teaches, she is protected from teaching error, even if the Pope is personally a notorious sinner (which is not the case today).

But, if one holds a vision for the Church that says it is moving “left” or “right” on the basis of how one views the world politically, their vision is blinding them to the truth and leading them to error. If Popes and bishops can personally sin, you had better believe that we can personally sin too. We need the Church as God’s chosen means of bringing His salvation to the world. That means when she observes the sins present in our society, she must speak out against it, even if that sin is embraced by our preferred political party.

But instead of heeding the Church, we tend to say that the Church should work on “saving souls” and not “meddle in politics.” But when she speaks out on injustice or immorality, she is working at saving souls. People in society do embrace the sins of that society. Sometimes they think that because a thing is done by a government, it cannot be questioned. The Church teaching that this thing is morally wrong should serve as a warning that participating in it is risking our souls.

What people don’t realize is that when they shout for the Church to be silent when speaking out on evils they commit, they undermine their appeal to Church teaching on societal evils that they oppose. If the Church should shut up when you wish, you really have no basis on which to rebuke your foes when they do the same. You might argue that your interpretation is correct while there’s is in error. But guess what—they think the same way about your views.

We break out of this tunnel vision when we stop using ourselves as the standard of right and wrong and start using the teaching of the Church to form our conscience. Once we look to the teaching of the Church as it is—not as we desire it to be or fear it might become—and use it to guide us into living rightly, loving God and our neighbor as ourselves, that we walk with God. But if we continue to use our own ideology as a means to judge the Church, we will be misled by our tunnel vision and end up fighting the Church when she is right.