Sin, The Mafia, and Us—A Reflection

When adoration of the Lord is substituted by adoration of money, the road to sin opens to personal interest ... When one does not adore the Lord, one becomes an adorer of evil, like those who live by dishonesty and violence. Your land, which so beautiful, knows the signs of the consequences of this sin. The ‘ndrangheta is this: adoration of evil and contempt of the common good. This evil must be fought, must be expelled. It must be told no. The Church, which is so committed to educating consciences, must always expend itself even more so that good can prevail. Our children ask this of us. Our young people ask this of us, they, who need hope. To be able to respond to this demands, faith can help us. Those who in their lives have taken this evil road, this road of evil, such as the mobsters, they are not in communion with God, they are excommunicated! (Pope Francis)

----------------------------------------

Dearly beloved, my wish is that, as the deacon just said, you may go in peace and find peace in your land…. In the wake of so much suffering, you have the right to live in peace. Those who are guilty of disturbing this peace have many human victims on their conscience. They must understand that killing innocent human beings cannot be allowed. God once said, “You shall not kill.” No man, no human association, no mafia can change or trample on this most sacred right of God…. In the name of the crucified and risen Christ, of Christ who is the Way and the Truth and the Life, I say to those who are responsible for this: “Repent! God’s judgment will come some day!” (St. John Paul II. May 12, 1993)

The public finds the Pope's words condemning the Mafia to be exciting: the Church is taking a public stand against those who do great evil.

The public, on the other hand, finds the words of the Church to be unimportant—or even offensive—when the Church speaks out on sexual or economic sins.

I find that curious. When the Church speaks about the crimes of the Mafia, he is warning the members that their actions are wrong in the eyes of God, and they will pay the price on the day of judgment unless they repent of their evil--they cannot think that their other actions mitigate the evil done.

But when the Church speaks out about the evil we do, the result is to either dismiss the message about our need to repent, or else to respond to the message with hostility.

But the same authority—given to the Church by Christ—that speaks out against the Mafia, also warns us that our own sins are wrong in the eyes of God and that we will pay the price on the day of judgment unless we repent of our evil. We cannot think that the other actions we do mitigate the evil we do.

I believe we can fall into the same error as the Mafia. We justify what we do, or don't think of it. Or we get angry at the messenger. (When St. John Paul II condemned the Mafia in Sicily, their response was a car bomb near a Church.) But these responses do not change the fact that if we choose to do evil, we put our soul in jeopardy.

Then there's the irony of the fact that a people who like to misuse Matthew 7:1 by saying "we should never judge sins," having no problem with the Church speaking against the sins of the Mafia. If the Pope can speak out on these issues, he can certainly speak out on the sins of the rest of us. Yet, the modern world cheers when the Pope says something they like, and ignores him when he says something they don't.

Perhaps people should think on that. Does one think that he is a person of holiness?  If so, why not consider his holiness and wisdom when he speaks on other issues? If one thinks he's just an old coot in a bathrobe who should mind his own business, why care about what he says on anything?

I think the ultimate problem is that we only want to hear the Church go after other people. Liberals want to hear the Church denouncing the evils of Republicans and their politicians. Conservatives want to hear the Church denounce the evils of liberals and their politicians.

Nobody wants to be reminded of our own behavior being contrary to what God calls us to be. But this is what we need to hear. Just as the Mafia members need to hear that their sins endanger their souls, we need to hear about our own.

Sin, The Mafia, and Us—A Reflection

When adoration of the Lord is substituted by adoration of money, the road to sin opens to personal interest ... When one does not adore the Lord, one becomes an adorer of evil, like those who live by dishonesty and violence. Your land, which so beautiful, knows the signs of the consequences of this sin. The ‘ndrangheta is this: adoration of evil and contempt of the common good. This evil must be fought, must be expelled. It must be told no. The Church, which is so committed to educating consciences, must always expend itself even more so that good can prevail. Our children ask this of us. Our young people ask this of us, they, who need hope. To be able to respond to this demands, faith can help us. Those who in their lives have taken this evil road, this road of evil, such as the mobsters, they are not in communion with God, they are excommunicated! (Pope Francis)

----------------------------------------

Dearly beloved, my wish is that, as the deacon just said, you may go in peace and find peace in your land…. In the wake of so much suffering, you have the right to live in peace. Those who are guilty of disturbing this peace have many human victims on their conscience. They must understand that killing innocent human beings cannot be allowed. God once said, “You shall not kill.” No man, no human association, no mafia can change or trample on this most sacred right of God…. In the name of the crucified and risen Christ, of Christ who is the Way and the Truth and the Life, I say to those who are responsible for this: “Repent! God’s judgment will come some day!” (St. John Paul II. May 12, 1993)

The public finds the Pope's words condemning the Mafia to be exciting: the Church is taking a public stand against those who do great evil.

The public, on the other hand, finds the words of the Church to be unimportant—or even offensive—when the Church speaks out on sexual or economic sins.

I find that curious. When the Church speaks about the crimes of the Mafia, he is warning the members that their actions are wrong in the eyes of God, and they will pay the price on the day of judgment unless they repent of their evil--they cannot think that their other actions mitigate the evil done.

But when the Church speaks out about the evil we do, the result is to either dismiss the message about our need to repent, or else to respond to the message with hostility.

But the same authority—given to the Church by Christ—that speaks out against the Mafia, also warns us that our own sins are wrong in the eyes of God and that we will pay the price on the day of judgment unless we repent of our evil. We cannot think that the other actions we do mitigate the evil we do.

I believe we can fall into the same error as the Mafia. We justify what we do, or don't think of it. Or we get angry at the messenger. (When St. John Paul II condemned the Mafia in Sicily, their response was a car bomb near a Church.) But these responses do not change the fact that if we choose to do evil, we put our soul in jeopardy.

Then there's the irony of the fact that a people who like to misuse Matthew 7:1 by saying "we should never judge sins," having no problem with the Church speaking against the sins of the Mafia. If the Pope can speak out on these issues, he can certainly speak out on the sins of the rest of us. Yet, the modern world cheers when the Pope says something they like, and ignores him when he says something they don't.

Perhaps people should think on that. Does one think that he is a person of holiness?  If so, why not consider his holiness and wisdom when he speaks on other issues? If one thinks he's just an old coot in a bathrobe who should mind his own business, why care about what he says on anything?

I think the ultimate problem is that we only want to hear the Church go after other people. Liberals want to hear the Church denouncing the evils of Republicans and their politicians. Conservatives want to hear the Church denounce the evils of liberals and their politicians.

Nobody wants to be reminded of our own behavior being contrary to what God calls us to be. But this is what we need to hear. Just as the Mafia members need to hear that their sins endanger their souls, we need to hear about our own.

Loss of Logic, Loss of Freedom: Reflections on the American Situation

Read more »

Loss of Logic, Loss of Freedom: Reflections on the American Situation

Read more »

Reading What the Magisterium Says Critically

Introduction

I mentioned the other day that I had problems with certain bloggers who were Catholic—ones who presumed they had superior knowledge to the ones they criticized on whatever topic. One of my offhand comments could be summed up as "...and your qualifications to judge are...?" A person must know about the subject he or she is speaking about and also must know what the subject intended to say. Otherwise, the reliability of the critic is very much in doubt--even if he or she is knowledgeable in other areas.

I can say this because I have been there. In the early Xanga days of this blog, I was quite contemptuous of the American bishops. I thought they were largely idiots with a liberal bent. I bought into and spread that attitude. (Those articles have been no longer available ever since the original Xanga went defunct, and though I recovered my files, those particular articles will never see the light of day again).

My conversion of attitude came from a combination of reading Christus Dominus and witnessing the response of the bishops to the 2008 visit of Pope Benedict XVI. In these events, I was reminded that the bishops are the successors to the Apostles and I saw that the bishops were strengthened by the visit of the Pope—that they had been previously demoralized by their facing continuous dissent.

From that perspective, I found that many of their documents which I previously dismissed as worthless did have good things to say.  I recognized that my problem was I accepted what others said about the bishops without evaluating if what they said was correct.

I think it's a real issue to consider: the concept of critically assessing what members of the Magisterium say vs. what bloggers and news sources think they say.

Context

The first issue is context. When facing news reports or a blog speaking on what the Pope or bishops said on an issue, my first question is to ask "What is the context of what was reported?" The thing is, even news agencies and bloggers of good will can only quote so much. So they try to pick what they think is the most important part.

The problem is, the quote might require some more of the article to get the full sense of what was said. The news reporter or blogger might actually be editing in good faith. He or she might think that the quote represents the whole statement accurately.  But, if you ever come across a WTF? moment where a quote sounds bizarre, the odds are very good that something got left out.

Interpretation and Intention

Another part of critical assessment is making sure that the interpretation of what was said matches the intent of what the speaker or writer was trying to say.

It is a problem today that people try to interpret a statement based on what they believe.  But that's exactly the opposite of what we must do. When a person uses a term, we have to understand what it means to the writer/speaker.

Here's an example. When St. John XXIII wrote his encyclical Pacem in Terris, many interpreted what he had to say on the topic of peace as if he was supporting the Soviet meaning of the term because the Soviets spoke constantly about peace in a way that benefited them. But that wasn't what St. John XXIII meant.

Or consider how people interpret Matthew 7:1ff. People who don't want to have their behavior declared wrong interpret judging to mean saying something is right or wrong. But that's a meaning imposed by the reader. It would be wrong to blame the Scripture verses for a meaning not intended.

The thing is, we interpret a text or speech based on what  the speaker/author intends and critique it based on our own views. This means that before we critique, we have to make sure that we interpret correctly. Bad Interpretation, bad critique.

Conclusion

The thing we always have to remember is when we read an article written about a bishop or about the Pope, we have to consider whether the person who wrote the article has fully addressed what the bishop or Pope actually had to say about the subject or whether or not the author omitted something important—it doesn't have to be malicious omission.

We must also remember that even when we do see the quotes do exist in context, we have to ask whether the blogger commenting or the reader of the Papal statement has in fact interpreted the article as saying what the Pope intended it to say. If the critic or reader has not correctly interpreted the article or statement, then the criticism is starting from a false assumption. If the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven true.

Recognizing these things, we have to realize our responsibility as a reader to accurately understand what was actually said and what was intended before judging the Magisterium for doing wrong—it might turn out the fault is not with the Pope or Bishop after all.

Reading What the Magisterium Says Critically

Introduction

I mentioned the other day that I had problems with certain bloggers who were Catholic—ones who presumed they had superior knowledge to the ones they criticized on whatever topic. One of my offhand comments could be summed up as "...and your qualifications to judge are...?" A person must know about the subject he or she is speaking about and also must know what the subject intended to say. Otherwise, the reliability of the critic is very much in doubt--even if he or she is knowledgeable in other areas.

I can say this because I have been there. In the early Xanga days of this blog, I was quite contemptuous of the American bishops. I thought they were largely idiots with a liberal bent. I bought into and spread that attitude. (Those articles have been no longer available ever since the original Xanga went defunct, and though I recovered my files, those particular articles will never see the light of day again).

My conversion of attitude came from a combination of reading Christus Dominus and witnessing the response of the bishops to the 2008 visit of Pope Benedict XVI. In these events, I was reminded that the bishops are the successors to the Apostles and I saw that the bishops were strengthened by the visit of the Pope—that they had been previously demoralized by their facing continuous dissent.

From that perspective, I found that many of their documents which I previously dismissed as worthless did have good things to say.  I recognized that my problem was I accepted what others said about the bishops without evaluating if what they said was correct.

I think it's a real issue to consider: the concept of critically assessing what members of the Magisterium say vs. what bloggers and news sources think they say.

Context

The first issue is context. When facing news reports or a blog speaking on what the Pope or bishops said on an issue, my first question is to ask "What is the context of what was reported?" The thing is, even news agencies and bloggers of good will can only quote so much. So they try to pick what they think is the most important part.

The problem is, the quote might require some more of the article to get the full sense of what was said. The news reporter or blogger might actually be editing in good faith. He or she might think that the quote represents the whole statement accurately.  But, if you ever come across a WTF? moment where a quote sounds bizarre, the odds are very good that something got left out.

Interpretation and Intention

Another part of critical assessment is making sure that the interpretation of what was said matches the intent of what the speaker or writer was trying to say.

It is a problem today that people try to interpret a statement based on what they believe.  But that's exactly the opposite of what we must do. When a person uses a term, we have to understand what it means to the writer/speaker.

Here's an example. When St. John XXIII wrote his encyclical Pacem in Terris, many interpreted what he had to say on the topic of peace as if he was supporting the Soviet meaning of the term because the Soviets spoke constantly about peace in a way that benefited them. But that wasn't what St. John XXIII meant.

Or consider how people interpret Matthew 7:1ff. People who don't want to have their behavior declared wrong interpret judging to mean saying something is right or wrong. But that's a meaning imposed by the reader. It would be wrong to blame the Scripture verses for a meaning not intended.

The thing is, we interpret a text or speech based on what  the speaker/author intends and critique it based on our own views. This means that before we critique, we have to make sure that we interpret correctly. Bad Interpretation, bad critique.

Conclusion

The thing we always have to remember is when we read an article written about a bishop or about the Pope, we have to consider whether the person who wrote the article has fully addressed what the bishop or Pope actually had to say about the subject or whether or not the author omitted something important—it doesn't have to be malicious omission.

We must also remember that even when we do see the quotes do exist in context, we have to ask whether the blogger commenting or the reader of the Papal statement has in fact interpreted the article as saying what the Pope intended it to say. If the critic or reader has not correctly interpreted the article or statement, then the criticism is starting from a false assumption. If the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven true.

Recognizing these things, we have to realize our responsibility as a reader to accurately understand what was actually said and what was intended before judging the Magisterium for doing wrong—it might turn out the fault is not with the Pope or Bishop after all.

Thoughts on What I Hate About Catholics Blogging

During the last year, I have noticed some Catholics who are bloggers have gotten downright nasty in their behavior. Whether it's a case of making oneself the judge of bishops (or the Pope) or a case of making oneself a judge of other Catholics who act differently than the blogger in places where individual discretion is allowed, these bloggers have a tendency to talk condescendingly about those they disagree with. For example...

• Those silly bishops who think that the current minimum wage is unjustly low! Don't they get economics? (Maybe not, but why should we think YOU know as much or more than them?)
• Those stupid right wing dupes who thought the Iraq War was just! How can they call themselves Catholic? (Umm, because then Cardinal Ratzinger said that St. John Paul II's words on that war was not intended to be understood as a binding teaching?)
• Those heretical neo Catholics who like the "Novus ordo" Mass! Don't they know what Pope X said about the Mass? (Listen pal... I rather doubt you know anything more about what Pope X said or even who he even was outside of the information you got on a radical traditionalist website.)

These are exaggerations of positions taken by some Catholic blogs—but unfortunately not as exaggerated as you might think.

I think people should remember that the authority to bind and loose is given to the Pope (Matt 16:19) and the bishops in communion with him (Matt 18:18). The blogger does not have the authority to loose what the Church has bound, nor bind what the Church has loosed. So when the blogger writes on such matters he or she should seek to distinguish between what is Church teaching and what is the blogger's personal opinion.

The reason I say that is there are Catholics out there who are seeking to be faithful and are looking for Catholics they trust to help them understand their faith. The Catholic who blogs needs to make clear that while he (for example) dislikes the Ordinary Form of the Mass, his views on it being harmful are his opinion and not the Catholic teaching.

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between "Catholic Blog" and "Blogging by a person who is Catholic." The former seeks to discuss the Catholic faith in whatever area their blog focuses on, doing his or her best to express the faith accurately and helpfully. The latter can blog whatever the hell he wants, but his opinions should not be considered as necessarily reflecting the Catholic position.

If the blogger will not do this, and abuses the association of being Catholic to promote his or her own view as if they had more authority than they actually do. Otherwise, perhaps the Bishops might have to invoke Canon 216 when it comes to people calling their blogs "Catholic." (I hope it does not come to that):

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

The readers will have to decide for themselves whether I practice what I preach. All I can say is this is what I try to do when I write.