The Traditions of Men

One of the more annoying misinterpretation of Scripture is that of Matthew 15:1-8, which reads:

^{1 }Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,

^2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? ^They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.”

^3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God ^for the sake of your tradition?

^4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’

^{5 }But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,”

^6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

^7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

^8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;

^9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”

The argument put forth is:

1. [Jesus] condemned [traditions]
2. The [Catholic Church] promotes [Tradition]
3. Therefore [Jesus] condemns the [Catholic Church].

This is to entirely miss the point of the Scripture reading.

History and Context

The Pharisees, in Jesus time, had their own code of laws which were put on the same level as the Torah, indeed claimed that one could only follow the Torah through their interpretation, and the one who violated the rules of the Pharisees were considered as one who broke the Torah.

Jesus, in opposing the Pharisees, pointed out that these laws were focused on the legalism, and ignored the intent of the Law.  They would pay tithes on the very small plants mint, cumin and dill (See Matt 23:23) in observance of Lev 27:30 and Deut 14:22–23, but they were missing the point, by neglecting "judgment and mercy and fidelity."  They would strain the gnat (the gnat was the smallest of the unclean animals) pouring what they were to drink through a cloth to avoid accidentally swallowing one, but Jesus describes them as swallowing the camel, again missing the big picture (see Matt 23:24).

In other words, what Jesus was condemning was a rigid observation of religious requirements in the Law, while ignoring the greater parts.  Jesus didn't say Pharisees were not to keep the law (See Matt 23:23, "these you should have done, without neglecting the others.")

The idea of Qorban/Corban which Jesus condemned involved the donation of the individual's wealth to the Temple (sort of like a living trust today) after his death, and claiming that because the man did this, he was not obligated to use his wealth to support his parents in their need.  Thus for the claim that Qorban negated the obligation of the son to the parents was to make a human tradition go against the command of God.

When one considers this, one sees that the objection to Catholic disciplines and practices as being condemned by Christ by the very fact they are small-t traditions is to miss the point.  He did not condemn the authority of the religious authorities to make regulations on the governing of worship (See Matt 23:2-3), but on the wrong they did in thinking their laws were equal to the law of God, and could even circumvent the laws of God.

A Look at Tradition (παραδόσεις): Meaning and the Fallacy of Equivocation

There is a logical issue here over equivocation: Assuming a different meaning than the speaker intends.  Tradition has a range of meanings going from mere customs to Sacred Doctrine.  One needs to look at what Jesus meant by παραδόσεις and compare what He denounced to the Catholic use of the word.

Keep in mind that not all uses of a word in Scripture hold the same context.  Jesus is described as the Lion of Judah (Rev. 5:5).  Satan is described as a 'roaring lion" looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).  In one sense, the use of lion is used in a dangerous sense.  In another in a majestic sense (and yes, it is the same word in Greek: λεων [leōn]).  Likewise, Scripture speaks of tradition in numerous ways.

Let us not forget that St. Paul has also invoked Tradition.  In 2 Thessalonians 2, he says:

^15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Oops.  Either Paul is contradicting Jesus, or else what Paul is praising is not what Jesus is condemning.  Paul is speaking as an Apostle sent to take the teachings of Christ to the world.  We believe he had authority.

So let's look at the word for tradition.

The word Paul uses is παραδόσεις (paradoseis) which means:

"that which is handed down or bequeathed, tradition, doctrine, teaching"

Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996." (Rev. and augm. throughout) (1309). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

Meanwhile, the word Jesus uses is… the same word.  The phrase he uses is τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν (Tēn paradosin umōn), literally "the tradition of you (Second Person plural)."

Paul also speaks favorably of traditions in 1 Cor 11:2, saying "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions [παραδόσεις], just as I handed them on to you."

He speaks of these traditions in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 when he says "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition [παράδοσιν] they received from us. "

Thus the difference between Paul's παραδόσεις and the Pharisees' παραδόσεις is the authority they have to make it binding and whether or not it contradicts God's law.  The Pharisees traditions are self created laws which go against God's laws and indeed allow one to get around God's commands.

Now, while there are disputes about which Church is the Church Christ established, we do know that the Church created by Christ did have the power to bind and loose (see Matt 16:19 and Matthew 18:18), that it spoke with His authority and to reject the Church was to reject Him (See Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16).

Tradition and the Catholic Church

This seems to be the underlying dispute over the Catholic traditions that certain Protestants label as condemned, the denial that the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus established.  One can see a certain logic in their objection.  If the Catholic Church does not have the authority which it claims, then yes, any traditions they make binding would be condemnable as the traditions of the Pharisees which Christ denounced

However, if the Catholic Church does have this authority, if it is the Church established by Christ, then she does have the authority to bind and to loose with the authority Paul invokes when writing to the Thessalonians and the Corinthians.

Now this article is not the place to delve into the arguments on what the true Church is.  Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows I remain in the Catholic Church because I believe she is the Church established by Christ.  Anyone who is interested can look at our Catechism to see what we believe and why, and investigate many defenses of the Church.

However, it is not enough to say "I don't believe the Catholic Church is the Church created by Christ."  What do you believe Christ's Church is?  Do you consider its teachings and interpretations of Scripture binding?  If so, you are invoking Tradition, even if you claim you interpret the Bible through the Bible.

Conclusion

Before one can condemn the Church teaching on account of a word in Scripture, one has to assess the meaning of the word within context, and be certain that the meaning and intent is the same.  Otherwise, one could create all sorts of alleged "contradictions" in Scripture and turn the Inspired Word of God into a partisan tool to advocate a position or bash another based on one's own personal reading.

Reflections on Free Will, Sin and Discipline in the Church

"If anyone wants to damage the Landlord's [That is to say, God] character… he ought to say that the Landlord is an inveterate gambler.  That would not be true, but it would be plausible, for there is no denying that the Landlord does take risks….

The Landlord has taken the risk of working the country with free tenants instead of slaves in chain gangs: and as they are free there is no way of making it impossible for them to go into forbidden places and eat forbidden fruits.  (CS Lewis.  Pilgrim's Regress.  page 180)

Introduction

One of the difficult things to remember is that because God has made man with free will, he has the ability to use this free will to choose things which are against the command of God.  This does not mean man has the right to use his free will for good or for evil, but because God has made man free, the approaches the Church can use in dealing with the sinners are limited.

I believe this is a point which is forgotten.  We see notorious sinners within the Church and we want to know why they aren't thrown out.  We forget that the cases where the Church does declare excommunication are limited to certain sins of extreme gravity, and not for every mortal sin.  This seems to be especially forgotten today, where the spirit of rebellion is so defiant against Church teaching, and many grumble that Vatican II "caused this."

The Church is not Becoming More Lax with Vatican II

For those who would argue a division of before and after Vatican II where before all was well and after it was a disaster, I think it useful to cite from the Pre-Vatican II book The Question Box [Sadly out of print] which was originally published in 1903 and republished in 1929 (original spellings, syntax and grammar of that time are maintained):

If your Church is a Holy Church, why do you allow adulterers, drunkards and corrupt politicians to be members in good standing?  Should not moral character be insisted upon as a qualification of church membership?  Why are there so many poor and ignorant in your Church?

Because the Church is the universal Kingdom of God, divinely commissioned to teach Christ's Gospel to all men — sinner and saint, rich and poor, cultured and uncultured — alike.  "There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female.  For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal iii. 28).  The Church is not a Church of the elect, as Wyclif taught or Calvin; nor is she an exclusive club for the outwardly respectable and the well-to-do.

Sinners are rarely excommunicated from her fold, and only for some flagrant sin, just as traitors and convicted criminals are debarred by the state from citizenship.  The adulterer, the drunkard or the corrupt politician is not in "good standing" for he is not permitted to receive Communion until he manifests a heartfelt sorrow for his sins in the Sacrament of Penance.

Christ came into the world for sinners: The angel Gabriel said to Mary: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. i. 21).  Christ Himself said: "The Son of Man is come to save that which is lost" (Matt. xviii. 11).  "I am not come to call the just, but sinners" (Matt. ix. 13).  In spite of His conscious preeminence as the sinless Son of God, our Lord spent His life by choice among the poor and ignorant, without ever humbling them by His condescension.  One of the signs whereby He was recognized as the Messias was the fact that He was to preach "the Gospel to the poor" (Matt. xi. 5)

Christ always speaks of the Church as a Society composed of the good and the wicked.  He compares it to a field in which cockle grows with the wheat (Matt xiii. 24-30); to a net containing good and bad fishes (Matt xiii. 47); to a barn containing chaff as well as wheat; to wise and foolish virgins (Matt xxv. 1-12).  St. Paul also speaks of a "great house having vessels not only of gold and silver, but also wood and earth; or honor and dishonor" (2 Tim. ii. 20).  And St. John writes to remind us we are all sinners: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8)

(The Question Box.  page 124-125)

The question, presented in 1929 sounds very much like what a person scandalized today would ask.  The reply certainly cannot be considered "Spirit of Vatican II."

As we can see, the Church recognized that there were sinners within her, but also that the role of the Church was not merely the expulsion of the sinner, but the seeking of the redemption of the sinner within her.

Two Opposite Errors We Must Beware

Now, does this mean that those who are offended by the public obstinacy of certain fellow Catholics are to just "shut up and take it?"  By no means.  However this is one of two errors which people are deceived by to question or reject the idea of submission to the Church.  The other error is, "Stop judging us.  We can do what we want!"

The first error is an error because it assumes an either-or position.  We must either drive out all the sinners from the Church or else tolerate all sin in the Church.  This is not the case.  We must recognize that the existence of unrepentant sinners and weak ministers within the Church is not a new phenomenon.  The free will, tainted by original sin, means that people will be inclined to selfishness and concupiscence.  The Church exists to lead all people both within and without to Christ.  Some members of the Church may ignore her teachings to their peril, but the only way the Church could prevent this would be if she had the power to overwrite the free will God has given humanity.  In other words, the Church would have to treat free men like "slaves in chain gangs" (as CS Lewis put it).

The second error is the error because because it assumes that from the fact we have free will, there is no moral problem with doing anything we wish.  Christ has shown us the error of this view: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15).  God has taught certain things are never to be done and certain things are right only in certain conditions.  What God has decreed, man may not overturn on his own.  This is why dissent is so foolish.  It argues that the Church gets it wrong while the individual knows better… ignoring the requests for the basis of authority of their claim.

The Issue of Enforcement

I suspect what makes this so contentious is the issue of enforcing the teachings of the Church.  Yes indeed, we have some people who create vapid, and sometimes heretical "liturgies."  We have politicians who openly support things the Church condemns as evil, and people want to know "Why doesn't the Church excommunicate these people?"

The problem is, this question indicates a misunderstanding on when and where excommunication is used.  The Church has reserved excommunication for very few cases.  Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters writes about it as follows [links to canons added]:

Under current canon law, only certain crimes are directly punishable by excommunication.  They are: apostasy, heresy or schism (c. 1364); desecration of the Eucharist (c. 1367); physical attack on the pope (c. 1370) absolution of an accomplice (c. 1378); simulated celebration of Mass or confession (c. 1378); the unauthorized consecration of bishops (c. 1382) violation of the sacramental seal by the confessor or others (c. 1388) and procuring abortion (c. 1398).  One can easily see that these types of offenses are those that could cause great disturbance in the Church….

…the main point is that excommunication is limited to only a few, very serious and well-defined offenses. (Excommunication and the Catholic Church page 12)

This shows that people are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church for every sin.  However, this does not permit people in mortal sin from presenting themselves to communion either.  Canon Law says:

Can.  916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

The reader is reminded that perfect contrition means being truly sorry for having done these acts and wanting to turn away from them.  So for the pro-abortion politician to be repentant, it means he regrets what he has done and will seek to make amends for the evil done.

Now it is true that when the public sinner does not exclude himself, the Church is to turn away the person who is persisting in grave sin:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It is tragic that not all the priests or bishops carry out the enforcement of this requirement (it is witness that there are sinners within the Church).  However, we must remember that this is a failing on the part of the individual priest or bishop and is emphatically not a Vatican policy.

Is it frustrating to see certain sinners behaving in this way publically without being seeing a correction?  Of course it is.  However, our lack of awareness as to what is done does not mean nothing is done (That's an argument from silence fallacy). 

We do have to remember what St. Paul has said in Galatians 6:

^7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows,

^8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.

Even if the Church is unable to bring about the conversion of the manifest sinner, the unrepentant sinner will indeed answer for the sins they commit.

The Danger to the Catholic Seeking to Follow Christ

Now of course no faithful Catholic should approve of or remain silent over abuses and dissent within the Church.  However, when we consider the view we should take, we need to be aware of a real danger we need to avoid.

There is a danger to the faithful Catholic who sees the public scorning of Church teaching by dissenters and grows angry, and that is the danger of forgetting his own need of salvation.  We must be on guard against the Devil whispering to us about how "everybody but us" is a sinner and the Church would be better if it was run as we would have it. 

Instead we must remember that God desires the salvation of the dissenter as well.  This doesn't mean "ignore the sin."  It does mean we must not become prideful or contemptuous to other sinners even when we must oppose the wrong that they do.

This is something Christ warned us of in Luke 18:

^10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

^11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.

^12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

^13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

^14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Pharisee did the things he spoke of.  The tax collector was a sinner.  That wasn't the point.  The point was the tax collector recognized his sinfulness.  If we are faithful in our service to Christ, we do need to recognize our sinfulness and to repent, depending on God.

Another danger we need to beware of is the resentment that the sinner seems to be treated lightly instead of "getting what they deserve" as Christ pointed out in Luke 15:

^25 Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing.

^26 He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean.

^27 The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

^28 He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him.

^29 He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.

^30 But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’

^31 He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.

^32 But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’”

The "Older Brother Syndrome" has the case where the one who was faithful feels resentment over all the commotion concerning the sinner.

Those who are faithful to God will of course be rewarded for their fidelity, but the danger is becoming so angry at the sins of the prodigal that one forgets God does not desire the death of the sinner, but their salvation.  If God calls on us to be merciful with the sinner because He has been merciful to us, it will go badly for us if we will not merciful to those who offend us, as He pointed out in Matthew 18:

^23 That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants.

^{24 }When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.

^25 Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt.

^{26 }At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’

^27 Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan.

^28 When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. ^He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’

^29 Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

^30 But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt.

^31 Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair.

^32 His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.

^33 Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’

^34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.

^{35 }So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

We must not forget, when dealing with scandals and dissident behavior within the Church that God has forgiven us, and we must forgive others as well.  This doesn't mean let them walk over you unrepentant, or ignore those who seek to distort what the Church teaches.  Heresy and disobedience must be opposed always.

However it does mean we cannot take the attitude that we can simply throw out those who are sinners and consign them to Hell and all will be well.

Conclusion

The person who thinks I am calling for indifference within the Church when it comes to the obstinate sinner, or dismissing the concerns of those troubled by dissent within the Church has missed the point of what I wish to say. 

I am not saying this at all.  I am pointing out that the Church exists to bring Christ's salvation to the world, and that all of us are sinners.  As Christians, our task is to pray for the sinner that he might have a change of heart and be saved.

If we follow the example of the prayer of the Pharisee, if we refuse to show compassion like the Debtor Servant, if we think the Prodigal Son should be forever excluded, we are not following the way of our Lord.

We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which means that we are not to look disdainfully down on them, but rather, by our prayers and actions, seek to help each other.

The Church is not an exclusive club for the perfect, and we should not denounce the Magisterium for not treating the Church as if it was.  It may bother some of us to see that the wicked seem to act without repercussion.  However, when stirred to anger.  There are some things the Church cannot do simply because Christ has not given her the power to do so.  In these cases, where it pains us to see the dissenter flaunting his defiance, let us trust in God's power and authority to judge the wicked and remember Psalm 37:

^1 Of David.

^Do not be provoked by evildoers;

do not envy those who do wrong.

^2 Like grass they wither quickly;

like green plants they wilt away.

^{3 }Trust in the LORD and do good

that you may dwell in the land and live secure.

^4 Find your delight in the LORD

who will give you your heart’s desire.

^5 Commit your way to the LORD;

trust that God will act

^6 And make your integrity shine like the dawn,

your vindication like noonday.

^7 Be still before the LORD;

wait for God.

Do not be provoked by the prosperous,

nor by malicious schemers.

^8 Give up your anger, abandon your wrath;

do not be provoked; it brings only harm.

^9 Those who do evil will be cut off,

but those who wait for the LORD will possess the land.

^10 Wait a little, and the wicked will be no more;

look for them and they will not be there.

^11 But the poor will possess the land,

will delight in great prosperity.

^12 The wicked plot against the just

and grind their teeth at them;

^13 But the LORD laughs at them,

knowing their day is coming.

^14 The wicked draw their swords;

they string their bows

To fell the poor and oppressed,

to slaughter those whose way is honest.

^15 Their swords will pierce their own hearts;

their bows will be broken.

^16 Better the poverty of the just

than the great wealth of the wicked.

^17 The arms of the wicked will be broken;

the LORD will sustain the just.

^18 The LORD watches over the days of the blameless;

their heritage lasts forever.

^19 They will not be disgraced when times are hard;

in days of famine they will have plenty.

^20 The wicked perish,

the enemies of the LORD;

Like the beauty of meadows they vanish;

like smoke they disappear.

^21 The wicked borrow but do not repay;

the just are generous in giving.

^22 For those blessed by the Lord will possess the land,

but those accursed will be cut off.

^23 Those whose steps are guided by the LORD;

whose way God approves,

^24 May stumble, but they will never fall,

for the LORD holds their hand.

^25 Neither in my youth, nor now in old age

have I ever seen the just abandoned

or their children begging bread.

^26 The just always lend generously,

and their children become a blessing.

^27 Turn from evil and do good,

that you may inhabit the land forever.

^28 For the LORD loves justice

and does not abandon the faithful.

When the unjust are destroyed,

and the children of the wicked cut off,

^29 The just will possess the land

and live in it forever.

^30 The mouths of the just utter wisdom;

their tongues speak what is right.

^31 God’s teaching is in their hearts;

their steps do not falter.

^32 The wicked spy on the just

and seek to kill them.

^33 But the LORD does not leave the just in their power,

nor let them be condemned when tried.

^34 Wait eagerly for the LORD,

and keep to the way;

God will raise you to possess the land;

you will gloat when the wicked are cut off.

^35 I have seen ruthless scoundrels,

strong as flourishing cedars.

^36 When I passed by again, they were gone;

though I searched, they could not be found.

^37 Observe the honest, mark the upright;

those at peace with God have a future.

^38 But all sinners will be destroyed;

the future of the wicked will be cut off.

^39 The salvation of the just is from the LORD,

their refuge in time of distress.

^40 The LORD helps and rescues them,

rescues and saves them from the wicked,

because in God they take refuge.

Reflections on Free Will, Sin and Discipline in the Church

"If anyone wants to damage the Landlord's [That is to say, God] character… he ought to say that the Landlord is an inveterate gambler.  That would not be true, but it would be plausible, for there is no denying that the Landlord does take risks….

The Landlord has taken the risk of working the country with free tenants instead of slaves in chain gangs: and as they are free there is no way of making it impossible for them to go into forbidden places and eat forbidden fruits.  (CS Lewis.  Pilgrim's Regress.  page 180)

Introduction

One of the difficult things to remember is that because God has made man with free will, he has the ability to use this free will to choose things which are against the command of God.  This does not mean man has the right to use his free will for good or for evil, but because God has made man free, the approaches the Church can use in dealing with the sinners are limited.

I believe this is a point which is forgotten.  We see notorious sinners within the Church and we want to know why they aren't thrown out.  We forget that the cases where the Church does declare excommunication are limited to certain sins of extreme gravity, and not for every mortal sin.  This seems to be especially forgotten today, where the spirit of rebellion is so defiant against Church teaching, and many grumble that Vatican II "caused this."

The Church is not Becoming More Lax with Vatican II

For those who would argue a division of before and after Vatican II where before all was well and after it was a disaster, I think it useful to cite from the Pre-Vatican II book The Question Box [Sadly out of print] which was originally published in 1903 and republished in 1929 (original spellings, syntax and grammar of that time are maintained):

If your Church is a Holy Church, why do you allow adulterers, drunkards and corrupt politicians to be members in good standing?  Should not moral character be insisted upon as a qualification of church membership?  Why are there so many poor and ignorant in your Church?

Because the Church is the universal Kingdom of God, divinely commissioned to teach Christ's Gospel to all men — sinner and saint, rich and poor, cultured and uncultured — alike.  "There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female.  For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal iii. 28).  The Church is not a Church of the elect, as Wyclif taught or Calvin; nor is she an exclusive club for the outwardly respectable and the well-to-do.

Sinners are rarely excommunicated from her fold, and only for some flagrant sin, just as traitors and convicted criminals are debarred by the state from citizenship.  The adulterer, the drunkard or the corrupt politician is not in "good standing" for he is not permitted to receive Communion until he manifests a heartfelt sorrow for his sins in the Sacrament of Penance.

Christ came into the world for sinners: The angel Gabriel said to Mary: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. i. 21).  Christ Himself said: "The Son of Man is come to save that which is lost" (Matt. xviii. 11).  "I am not come to call the just, but sinners" (Matt. ix. 13).  In spite of His conscious preeminence as the sinless Son of God, our Lord spent His life by choice among the poor and ignorant, without ever humbling them by His condescension.  One of the signs whereby He was recognized as the Messias was the fact that He was to preach "the Gospel to the poor" (Matt. xi. 5)

Christ always speaks of the Church as a Society composed of the good and the wicked.  He compares it to a field in which cockle grows with the wheat (Matt xiii. 24-30); to a net containing good and bad fishes (Matt xiii. 47); to a barn containing chaff as well as wheat; to wise and foolish virgins (Matt xxv. 1-12).  St. Paul also speaks of a "great house having vessels not only of gold and silver, but also wood and earth; or honor and dishonor" (2 Tim. ii. 20).  And St. John writes to remind us we are all sinners: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8)

(The Question Box.  page 124-125)

The question, presented in 1929 sounds very much like what a person scandalized today would ask.  The reply certainly cannot be considered "Spirit of Vatican II."

As we can see, the Church recognized that there were sinners within her, but also that the role of the Church was not merely the expulsion of the sinner, but the seeking of the redemption of the sinner within her.

Two Opposite Errors We Must Beware

Now, does this mean that those who are offended by the public obstinacy of certain fellow Catholics are to just "shut up and take it?"  By no means.  However this is one of two errors which people are deceived by to question or reject the idea of submission to the Church.  The other error is, "Stop judging us.  We can do what we want!"

The first error is an error because it assumes an either-or position.  We must either drive out all the sinners from the Church or else tolerate all sin in the Church.  This is not the case.  We must recognize that the existence of unrepentant sinners and weak ministers within the Church is not a new phenomenon.  The free will, tainted by original sin, means that people will be inclined to selfishness and concupiscence.  The Church exists to lead all people both within and without to Christ.  Some members of the Church may ignore her teachings to their peril, but the only way the Church could prevent this would be if she had the power to overwrite the free will God has given humanity.  In other words, the Church would have to treat free men like "slaves in chain gangs" (as CS Lewis put it).

The second error is the error because because it assumes that from the fact we have free will, there is no moral problem with doing anything we wish.  Christ has shown us the error of this view: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15).  God has taught certain things are never to be done and certain things are right only in certain conditions.  What God has decreed, man may not overturn on his own.  This is why dissent is so foolish.  It argues that the Church gets it wrong while the individual knows better… ignoring the requests for the basis of authority of their claim.

The Issue of Enforcement

I suspect what makes this so contentious is the issue of enforcing the teachings of the Church.  Yes indeed, we have some people who create vapid, and sometimes heretical "liturgies."  We have politicians who openly support things the Church condemns as evil, and people want to know "Why doesn't the Church excommunicate these people?"

The problem is, this question indicates a misunderstanding on when and where excommunication is used.  The Church has reserved excommunication for very few cases.  Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters writes about it as follows [links to canons added]:

Under current canon law, only certain crimes are directly punishable by excommunication.  They are: apostasy, heresy or schism (c. 1364); desecration of the Eucharist (c. 1367); physical attack on the pope (c. 1370) absolution of an accomplice (c. 1378); simulated celebration of Mass or confession (c. 1378); the unauthorized consecration of bishops (c. 1382) violation of the sacramental seal by the confessor or others (c. 1388) and procuring abortion (c. 1398).  One can easily see that these types of offenses are those that could cause great disturbance in the Church….

…the main point is that excommunication is limited to only a few, very serious and well-defined offenses. (Excommunication and the Catholic Church page 12)

This shows that people are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church for every sin.  However, this does not permit people in mortal sin from presenting themselves to communion either.  Canon Law says:

Can.  916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

The reader is reminded that perfect contrition means being truly sorry for having done these acts and wanting to turn away from them.  So for the pro-abortion politician to be repentant, it means he regrets what he has done and will seek to make amends for the evil done.

Now it is true that when the public sinner does not exclude himself, the Church is to turn away the person who is persisting in grave sin:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It is tragic that not all the priests or bishops carry out the enforcement of this requirement (it is witness that there are sinners within the Church).  However, we must remember that this is a failing on the part of the individual priest or bishop and is emphatically not a Vatican policy.

Is it frustrating to see certain sinners behaving in this way publically without being seeing a correction?  Of course it is.  However, our lack of awareness as to what is done does not mean nothing is done (That's an argument from silence fallacy). 

We do have to remember what St. Paul has said in Galatians 6:

^7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows,

^8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.

Even if the Church is unable to bring about the conversion of the manifest sinner, the unrepentant sinner will indeed answer for the sins they commit.

The Danger to the Catholic Seeking to Follow Christ

Now of course no faithful Catholic should approve of or remain silent over abuses and dissent within the Church.  However, when we consider the view we should take, we need to be aware of a real danger we need to avoid.

There is a danger to the faithful Catholic who sees the public scorning of Church teaching by dissenters and grows angry, and that is the danger of forgetting his own need of salvation.  We must be on guard against the Devil whispering to us about how "everybody but us" is a sinner and the Church would be better if it was run as we would have it. 

Instead we must remember that God desires the salvation of the dissenter as well.  This doesn't mean "ignore the sin."  It does mean we must not become prideful or contemptuous to other sinners even when we must oppose the wrong that they do.

This is something Christ warned us of in Luke 18:

^10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

^11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.

^12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

^13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

^14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Pharisee did the things he spoke of.  The tax collector was a sinner.  That wasn't the point.  The point was the tax collector recognized his sinfulness.  If we are faithful in our service to Christ, we do need to recognize our sinfulness and to repent, depending on God.

Another danger we need to beware of is the resentment that the sinner seems to be treated lightly instead of "getting what they deserve" as Christ pointed out in Luke 15:

^25 Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing.

^26 He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean.

^27 The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

^28 He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him.

^29 He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.

^30 But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’

^31 He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.

^32 But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’”

The "Older Brother Syndrome" has the case where the one who was faithful feels resentment over all the commotion concerning the sinner.

Those who are faithful to God will of course be rewarded for their fidelity, but the danger is becoming so angry at the sins of the prodigal that one forgets God does not desire the death of the sinner, but their salvation.  If God calls on us to be merciful with the sinner because He has been merciful to us, it will go badly for us if we will not merciful to those who offend us, as He pointed out in Matthew 18:

^23 That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants.

^{24 }When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.

^25 Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt.

^{26 }At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’

^27 Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan.

^28 When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. ^He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’

^29 Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

^30 But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt.

^31 Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair.

^32 His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.

^33 Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’

^34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.

^{35 }So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

We must not forget, when dealing with scandals and dissident behavior within the Church that God has forgiven us, and we must forgive others as well.  This doesn't mean let them walk over you unrepentant, or ignore those who seek to distort what the Church teaches.  Heresy and disobedience must be opposed always.

However it does mean we cannot take the attitude that we can simply throw out those who are sinners and consign them to Hell and all will be well.

Conclusion

The person who thinks I am calling for indifference within the Church when it comes to the obstinate sinner, or dismissing the concerns of those troubled by dissent within the Church has missed the point of what I wish to say. 

I am not saying this at all.  I am pointing out that the Church exists to bring Christ's salvation to the world, and that all of us are sinners.  As Christians, our task is to pray for the sinner that he might have a change of heart and be saved.

If we follow the example of the prayer of the Pharisee, if we refuse to show compassion like the Debtor Servant, if we think the Prodigal Son should be forever excluded, we are not following the way of our Lord.

We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which means that we are not to look disdainfully down on them, but rather, by our prayers and actions, seek to help each other.

The Church is not an exclusive club for the perfect, and we should not denounce the Magisterium for not treating the Church as if it was.  It may bother some of us to see that the wicked seem to act without repercussion.  However, when stirred to anger.  There are some things the Church cannot do simply because Christ has not given her the power to do so.  In these cases, where it pains us to see the dissenter flaunting his defiance, let us trust in God's power and authority to judge the wicked and remember Psalm 37:

^1 Of David.

^Do not be provoked by evildoers;

do not envy those who do wrong.

^2 Like grass they wither quickly;

like green plants they wilt away.

^{3 }Trust in the LORD and do good

that you may dwell in the land and live secure.

^4 Find your delight in the LORD

who will give you your heart’s desire.

^5 Commit your way to the LORD;

trust that God will act

^6 And make your integrity shine like the dawn,

your vindication like noonday.

^7 Be still before the LORD;

wait for God.

Do not be provoked by the prosperous,

nor by malicious schemers.

^8 Give up your anger, abandon your wrath;

do not be provoked; it brings only harm.

^9 Those who do evil will be cut off,

but those who wait for the LORD will possess the land.

^10 Wait a little, and the wicked will be no more;

look for them and they will not be there.

^11 But the poor will possess the land,

will delight in great prosperity.

^12 The wicked plot against the just

and grind their teeth at them;

^13 But the LORD laughs at them,

knowing their day is coming.

^14 The wicked draw their swords;

they string their bows

To fell the poor and oppressed,

to slaughter those whose way is honest.

^15 Their swords will pierce their own hearts;

their bows will be broken.

^16 Better the poverty of the just

than the great wealth of the wicked.

^17 The arms of the wicked will be broken;

the LORD will sustain the just.

^18 The LORD watches over the days of the blameless;

their heritage lasts forever.

^19 They will not be disgraced when times are hard;

in days of famine they will have plenty.

^20 The wicked perish,

the enemies of the LORD;

Like the beauty of meadows they vanish;

like smoke they disappear.

^21 The wicked borrow but do not repay;

the just are generous in giving.

^22 For those blessed by the Lord will possess the land,

but those accursed will be cut off.

^23 Those whose steps are guided by the LORD;

whose way God approves,

^24 May stumble, but they will never fall,

for the LORD holds their hand.

^25 Neither in my youth, nor now in old age

have I ever seen the just abandoned

or their children begging bread.

^26 The just always lend generously,

and their children become a blessing.

^27 Turn from evil and do good,

that you may inhabit the land forever.

^28 For the LORD loves justice

and does not abandon the faithful.

When the unjust are destroyed,

and the children of the wicked cut off,

^29 The just will possess the land

and live in it forever.

^30 The mouths of the just utter wisdom;

their tongues speak what is right.

^31 God’s teaching is in their hearts;

their steps do not falter.

^32 The wicked spy on the just

and seek to kill them.

^33 But the LORD does not leave the just in their power,

nor let them be condemned when tried.

^34 Wait eagerly for the LORD,

and keep to the way;

God will raise you to possess the land;

you will gloat when the wicked are cut off.

^35 I have seen ruthless scoundrels,

strong as flourishing cedars.

^36 When I passed by again, they were gone;

though I searched, they could not be found.

^37 Observe the honest, mark the upright;

those at peace with God have a future.

^38 But all sinners will be destroyed;

the future of the wicked will be cut off.

^39 The salvation of the just is from the LORD,

their refuge in time of distress.

^40 The LORD helps and rescues them,

rescues and saves them from the wicked,

because in God they take refuge.

Reflections on Fruits

Two men, a priest and a skeptic were walking down the street.  The skeptic was complaining about the problems of religion, arguing it helped nobody.  "It doesn't change a person's behavior, so what good is it?"  The priest said nothing until he walked past a dirty unkempt individual.  "Look, soap didn't change that person's appearance, so what good is it?"  The skeptic objected.  "That's not fair.  Soap could help him, but he just didn't use it."  The priest nodded.  "And that's my answer to you as well."

—Origin Unknown

The Question

I recently received a question, expressing concern for the state of the Church, about the concept of "By their fruits, you will know them."  Given the troubles in the Catholic Church, I was asked, is it possible that these are the fruits which indicate this is not God's Church? 

The Consideration

The verses which seems important to consider are largely from Matthew.  The first is from Matthew 7:

^15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ^16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? ^17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. ^18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ^19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ^20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

In context, we see Jesus is speaking of individuals, and is speaking of hypocrisy and of false prophets.  People who may invoke the name of God, but their actions do not follow what they claim to hold.  The sound tree vs. the bad tree.

The second verse comes from Matthew 12, when Jesus was accused of doing his miracles through demons:

^33 “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. ^34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ^35 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

In both cases, Jesus is speaking of the behavior of individuals.  Those who show good fruits cannot be called evil, while those who show evil fruits cannot be called good.

The Analysis

With each individual within the Church, the question is whether or not the person hears God's message and keeps it in his or her heart.  If he does, he will bring forth good fruit.  If not, he will bring forth bad fruit.  Since the verse was applied to an individual and not to the Church, it seems to be taking it out of context to apply the verse to the Church, unless it can be established that the person bearing bad fruit is doing so because he is following the true teaching of the Church.  Otherwise, to claim "Person X is a Catholic, and he is doing bad things, therefore the Catholic Church is bad" is in fact a post hoc fallacy.

So if "Sister Mary Loony," or "Father Harry Tik" is saying or doing things which shows bad fruit, we need to analyze whether or not the Catholicism they teach is in fact in line with the teaching of the Pope and those in communion with him.  If it is, the accusation is valid.  If it is not, then obviously it is unjust to blame the Church for those who teach their own views instead of the Church.

Remember in Matt 12:15, Jesus spoke of false prophets: People who teach a false teaching and present it as God's.  Reading the Prophets in the Old Testament, we see many incidents of false prophets who sought to teach a message not from God.  They claimed that God would not forsake Jerusalem to the nations because His temple was in Jerusalem, and to let Jerusalem fall would show God to be weak.

The true prophets however spoke the truth, that God would not tolerate the wickedness of His people, and they would be held to account for their sins (Ezekiel is very powerful in this respect)

The Application

Certain things, such as art, architecture and music do reflect the influence of faith in a society.  A society which practices its faith will be more inclined to produce works of deep spiritual meaning, while a society which does not, will be less likely to produce people who are inspired to create.

It would be false however to think that the Western decline in ideas of art is due to the Church being in decline, unless one can make a case that the Church itself is responsible for the decline in its official teaching (as opposed to people who imposed their own interpretation on to what the Church has taught).

Indeed, when we look at the path of Western society, we see a tendency against God and faith and towards secularism.  In other words, a society which is rejecting Christ and is marginalizing faith.

Does the Church embrace this?  No, in fact it is setting itself in opposition to this secularism, and calling for a return to Christ, making Him the center of our lives individually and in society.

So it cannot be said that The Church is the cause of this aesthetic collapse.

Nor can it be said to be the cause of any moral or spiritual collapse.  These collapses are caused by man moving away from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

The Church cannot compel the individual to obey however.  It can only teach what is, and to speak out against what is false.  But as Humorist Dorothy Parker once remarked (and was wrongly attributed to Mae West): "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." If people will not listen to the Church, and will reject its authority, there is not much one can do to make them listen.

The Obligation for US as Individuals to Bear Witness

This is of course where those of us who claim to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church come in.  We are indeed called to transform our culture by our living witness to Christ.  Perhaps this means preaching.  But not all of us are called to preach, but all of us are called to bear witness.

The primary way we can do this is by our actions.  As St. James has said in chapter 2 of his epistle:

^14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? ^15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, ^16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? ^17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

^18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

If we, if you as an individual or I as an individual, are not showing our faith by our works, are failing to bear witness to the world.  Yes, many non-Christians and many people who reject all concepts of religion are scandalized by our behavior, who profess the belief in Christ but by our works seem to show nothing but bad fruit.  Who is to blame in such a case?

We are.  We are whenever we fail to bear witness to the faith we have within us by living our lives according to that faith.  I know the faults I have to work on, and I don't always succeed in the struggle against them.

Sinners in the Church… are Us

we need to remember Matthew 7 when we see sinners within the Church:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

When we pass judgment on what others are failing to do for the Church

All of us are obligated to remove the log in our own eye, and whether or not "the other guy" removes the speck from their eye does not change the obligation we have before God.

If we want the Church to show good fruits, we need to start with ourselves.  If we are offended by the behavior of others, are we ourselves exemplary in our own behavior?

If our objection is others promoting error, are we speaking out for the truth?

If we do not, we fall into the category of the hypocrites Jesus spoke out against.  "the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get" is a sentence I would not want applied against me, but Christ has told us, this is how we will be judged.

Not Judging Does Not Mean Staying Silent

This does not mean we need to be silent against evil of course.  As the book of Ezekiel, chapter 33, has related:

^The word of the Lord came to me: ^2 “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman; ^3 and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; ^4 then if any one who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. ^5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. ^6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

So, the question to be directed against those who wonder if the Church has bad fruits, on account of her members, is: Does the Church warn against the sword on the land?  Does it speak out against the evils the land is committing?

Note, I did not say "Does the individual priest or layman."  It is quite possible for individuals to fall short of their obligation before God.  But does The Church as a whole fail to teach?

Actually no.  it stands up against the evil of the world, it condemns the evil, and tries to lead us to the good.

Conclusion

Now, if I lie to you the reader about what the Church teaches, or if I fail to understand what the Church teaches, is this the fault of the Church?  Or is it my own fault?

This is ultimately what we need to consider about whether "The Church" produces good fruits or bad.

1. Who has the authority to teach for the Church? (As Catholics, we hold it is the Magisterium)
2. Who is responsible for following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church)
3. Who is responsible for not following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church without obeying the teaching of the Church)
4. When is "the Church" (In contrast to the individual) responsible?  (Only if the individual does evil because he follows what the Church teaches, and not his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches)
5. Is the Church responsible for a misunderstanding? (Only if it fails to teach properly)

Ultimately, to demonstrate "the Church" has bad fruits, it has to show that the actual teaching of the magisterium, properly understood, is the cause of these bad fruits, avoiding post hoc and straw man fallacies.  It requires a knowledge of what the Church has taught, in context, and a demonstration that this evil was intended by the teaching of "the Church," as opposed to overzealous or overlax individuals who distorted or misinterpreted it.