Is it sin or "personal preference"? Why it's so hard to evangelize today.

When I posted "We are not dogs" a few weeks ago, I knew I wanted to showcase more gems from our holy, faithful priests. So today, even though I have not yet created my "Priests Speak" icon for this new little feature, ha ha, I want to present you with the priestly wisdom of Fr. John S. Grimm*. Thanks to Nicole C. at Mom and Then Some for bringing the words of her priest to my attention. 

+++++++

Fr. John S. Grimm

Holy Spirit Parish

New Castle, Delaware

September 2011

READINGS FOR SEPT. 4 23RD SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME 

(Ezekiel 33:7-9; Romans 13:8-10;

Matthew 18:15-20)

In his homily to begin the conclave of cardinals that would elect him pope, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said that the world was laboring under a “dictatorship of relativism.” By that he meant moral relativism specifically, the notion that moral truth is subjective, that is, totally dependent on one’s intention and external circumstances.

Moral relativism denies that any action is always wrong; moral choices are mere expressions of one’s feelings about certain behavior. Thus, actions that in previous generations were condemned as sinful are in our time considered a matter of personal preference, above all in the area of sexual morality.

Modernity’s embrace of moral relativism is not only a rejection of Catholic morality, but of the morality of all previous eras. For instance, the hearers of the Apostles knew and accepted an objective moral law called the natural law. And they knew that they failed to keep it, at least perfectly. As a result, the ancients knew they needed a savior and the Apostles’ message was experienced as “Good News.” But under the influence of moral relativism, modern people are told that there is no objective standard with which to make moral choices. In this setting, our Lord’s message that we must repent sounds strange to some people. They ask: repent from what? Recent popes have said that the modern world has lost its sense of what sin is. Without a sense that we are sinners, why do we need a redeemer?

Therefore, the church finds itself needing to preach the “bad news” that we are sinners in need of forgiveness before she can preach the Good News that Christ offers us forgiveness.

Today’s readings presuppose an objective moral order and man’s need for reconciliation with God and neighbor for failing to act in accordance with that order.

In the first reading, Ezekiel is appointed watchman for God’s holy people and instructed to warn the people when they stray from the path of holiness. Should he fail to warn them of their misdeeds, the guilt of their sins will fall upon him. St. Augustine taught that this duty to warn the faithful is now placed upon all the bishops and priests of the church. The preacher who fulfills this duty is likely to meet a cool reception in some quarters because of the relativism in our culture. Nonetheless, as the Holy Father taught in his 2009 encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate” (“Charity in Truth”), the proclamation of the truth is an essential way of charity.

Our Lord’s words in today’s Gospel are similarly in conflict with the spirit of our times. One must believe in objective right and wrong in order to have the grounds to confront another with the injustice of his behavior; otherwise, it degenerates into a contest of wills. Moral relativism puts an end to moral dialogue since moral judgments are only expressions of one’s feelings.

Our Lord instructs us to do more than dialogue with others, we are to confront a brother or sister with his misbehavior if he falls into sin. This can only be done in a way pleasing to God if it is motivated by charity. Notice that if our brother offends us, we are to tell him about it, not everyone but him. Even if someone truly wrongs us, we must be mindful of not sinning through detraction, which is the revealing of our neighbor’s defects to others without a just cause.

As St. Paul in the second reading says: love does no evil to the neighbor. Paul means even when the neighbor has first done evil to us. All that we do is to be done for the sake of charity; when the church is forced by the sinner’s recalcitrance to “treat him as you would a gentile or tax collector,” this is done for a charitable purpose. The hope is that once made aware of his injustice he will repent and be healed.



*Fr. Grimm's article is found on page 20 










.

You're such a hypocrite! Or maybe not….

+++++++

When one of our regular commenters, Mary, mentioned that her friends on the left viewed "hypocrisy" as the worst of sins, it gave me pause.

First, I have long known that the word "hypocrite" is misused generally, and misused against religious folks in particular: "Look at those self-righteous Christians! They are no better than anyone else, they sin all the time, preaching one thing and doing another… hypocrites!!"

The word "hypocrites" in this context never made sense to me. Are we sinners who are falling all the time? Yes. But "hypocrites"? No. It just didn't sound right.

So, in responding to Mary's comment, I looked up the definition of "hypocrite" online, and up popped something from Wikipedia, which is worthy of sharing [all emphases mine]:


Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself. 

Those who hold "hypocrisy" as the worst of all sins (which it isn't) should work to get the definition right and apply it correctly. There are certainly lying frauds in every religion and every walk of life (these would be true hypocrites!), but chances are that most people do hold their beliefs sincerely and wish to do good, even when their efforts fall scandalously short.

It seems to me that the benefit of the doubt should always be extended, and that the kindest reaction one can have to someone falling short of a professed standard is sadness at his fall, and hope for his redemption, not a sneering accusation of "hypocrite!" at the perception that his actions do not match his stated beliefs.


Speaking for myself and other faithful Catholics I know, we might be sinning, but we don't want to be. And we don't lower the bar or excuse our behavior because Catholic morality is "just too hard" or unrealistic in today's world. We pick ourselves up, get to Mass and confession, and try again with the help of God's grace. 


It's a slow and laborious road to holiness, so much so that when we finally get to the point where our actions perfectly match our deeply held beliefs, we will already be in Heaven. 


Until that point, please consider that we aren't hypocrites, only sinners.






.

What was your excuse?

I guess this is a "Just Curious" of sorts, but only relevant to those who believe in sin, have lived a life of sin, and who now strive to live in a state of grace.

If that's you, I am curious about your excuses at the time.

When you were in your sin, what mental exercises, justifications, rationalizations or philosophies did you use to continue on in your sin?

Here's mine:

In my life, I never tried to justify or deny sin. From a young age, I knew right from wrong, virtue from vice. I got that part pretty easily. But once sin was habitual, my will was not prepared to go along with what my head and heart always knew. It was too hard to change, and I was living a happy life, after all.

It might seem a strange place to be. I never claimed my sin was not sin. I didn't try to make my sin look like it was virtuous, or even regrettably necessary. If someone had told me that what I was doing was sinful, I would have been the first to agree. I never used the "my sin isn't sin" excuse.

Nope, my particular line was: "But I'm a good person! Yes, I am definitely sinning. But God understands. He knows me."

Maybe that's the worst disposition of all: To know without doubt that one is sinning, yet to keep on.

In my short, perfunctory prayer every night, I asked forgiveness for all my sins (literally, this: "God, forgive me for all my sins. Amen."), but never did I think to approach a confessional. I'm sure I knew that a sacramental confession would require me to give up my sins, and since that was not in my plan, I simply confessed "straight to God". Because He understood me, unlike some pesky priest who might call me out and expect me to amend my ways. God and I were buddies, after all, our own secret little clique (though I barely talked to Him), and my sins weren't nearly as bad as all those other people's.

I was sinning in full knowledge and believing I was "special" enough to be given a a big, fat pass.

Yep, it was the sin of presumption, and it's as awful as it sounds.

Okay, your turn*: What was your excuse? Did you deny your sins were sins? Or did you justify them (make them seem "just")? Or rationalize them? Did you declare that they served a greater good (i.e., the ends justify the means) so that you were allowed, or even morally obligated, to commit them? Did you normalize them by choosing a crowd which sinned in the same way? Did you pretend that God didn't exist? Or that He didn't care? Or maybe you really, truly never knew that your sin was sin?

I'm interested.



*Feel free to post anonymously if you feel more comfortable.
-

Catholic freedom of choice is freedom from anxiety

As I spend some time with my newly-returned-from-abroad daughter, I thought I would repost something from April 15, 2010 (with slight modifications). This post ran before I had a lot of readers, and yet it's had steady, positive feedback. 

Knowing God's Will, and Catholic Freedom

Among my real life friends and my blogger friends, I've noticed that many devout Catholics get extremely stressed when trying to discern God's will: Should I adopt this particular baby, should I marry this particular man, should I quit my job, should I move, should I (fill in the blank)? How do I make sure that this choice is God's will and not my own? Ack!! Help!

It's a very great thing to want to do God's will in all things, and it's nothing short of inspiring to hear and feel the sincerity of these pure-hearted women (and men, but it's mostly women who worry like this). My friends are my spiritual mentors in so many ways. I have learned and grown so much from them! Hugs and kisses to you all!!

However, I started to notice that many faithful, Magisterium-loving Catholics are so afraid they might somehow step outside of God's will that they become anxiety-ridden. The angst they feel in not wanting to offend God by making the "wrong" choice is severe, and it can be debilitating.

But we are Catholics, and that kind of burden is unnecessary! Here is what is so freeing about our Catholic Faith: When our intentions are good and the choices before us are moral, we are free!

Let me restate it another way: As long as we are not choosing something evil, we are free to embrace any path that God opens before us. So, you are free to choose to adopt that baby, to marry that man, to take (or quit) that job, to move to that city, to buy that house, or any other morally licit option. You are also free to choose not to adopt that baby, marry that man, etc.

This is the beauty of Catholicism. Our free will is the greatest gift God gives us, allowing us the dignity to choose our own path, as long as we do not choose sin. Sin is the only thing that offends God, the only thing that he will not bless, and the only thing that is not within His will for us. If we are not choosing sin, then we remain in a state of grace. This is a beautiful, liberating truth, which leaves little room for fear and anxiety!

But then, of course, the question becomes: How do we choose between two moral options?

Well, remember, we are talking about two moral and licit options (immoral choices are never acceptable). If God places two or more moral choices before us, then we should go with the choice which brings us the most interior peace. If we feel more tranquility at the thought of choosing Option A, then we go with Option A. Option A may actually cause us more external suffering or hardship, but that is of no consequence. It's about the peace we feel in our soul.

But wait! This is important! Even if a soul should "miss" whatever path God may have originally laid out for him (i.e., some people do miss their calling as a priest or religious), that person still has not committed a sin if his intentions were good! This is so important for people to know, especially the scrupulous. God will work with whatever path we have put ourselves on. He is pleased to honor our choices. He is not a puppet master pulling our strings. He is a loving Father who delights in seeing His children choose freely.

Think about it in earthly terms: If I am a healthy parent, I will be happy to support my child whether he chooses to be a doctor or an artist or a carpenter. Those are all honorable goals, and though I might prefer he pick one career over another, it's not my choice to make. (Of course, I will not support my child's decision to be an abortionist, or a prostitute, or a loan shark.)

So, instead of agonizing over every movement and decision, enjoy the authentic freedom of being a Catholic! We are so blessed! We are not shackled slaves whose every move is orchestrated and monitored (as so many people think of Catholics...ugh!). We know that the only slavery is slavery to sin. If you are not choosing sin as an option, then put aside your anxiety, and enjoy your God-given freedom!


"The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted; precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden." — G.K. Chesterton






____

Question for atheists: Sin

To my atheist readers:

What is your opinion of "sin"? Do you think there is such a thing? If so, what are the criteria?

I see sin all around me, every day.

I also see sin in my own life, all the time.

Do you believe in personal sin?

Thanks. I truly am curious.

Mortal Sin and Venial Sin

All right fellow sinners, let's get right to it!

The Bible speaks of degrees of sin:

1 John 5:16-17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

Some translations read "deadly" instead of "mortal," but since deadly and mortal are synonymous, we're good.

Did you know that was in the Bible?* Neither did I, until just a few years ago. Since it is explicit, I don't have an explanation for why most Protestants have a problem with the concept of mortal sin. At the very least, the concept of degrees of sin is there, right? Clearly, some sins are more serious than others.

And that leads us to the actual point of this post. 

The Catholic Church teaches that some sins are mortal (serious) and some are venial (less serious). 

Mortal sin is what the name implies: Mortal sin = spiritual death. A mortal sin severs our friendship with God and kills the sanctifiying grace in our souls. Without sanctifying grace in our souls, we are not fit for Heaven. 

Venial sin is less serious sin, which does not destroy our friendship with God. Venial sins do not kill the sanctifying grace in our souls, although they do weaken the will and darken the intellect. A million venial sins won't "add up" to a mortal sin, but a habit of venial sin does make it easier to begin to commit mortal sin.

There are three conditions that must be present before a mortal sin is committed:

1. The sin in question must be of a grave matter

2. The sin must be committed with full knowledge of its gravity

3. The sin must be committed with full consent of the will

Please note: If any of those three conditions do not apply, the person is guilty only of a venial sin. One cannot "accidentally" commit a mortal sin and fall into hell, as mortal sin requires a deliberate choice on the part of the sinner. And, if you suffer from scrupulosity, I beg you to read this post next.

The next logical question people ask is: "Where is the list of mortal sins?" The Church does not provide a definitive list, but there are helpful guidelines to aid in discernment. Some are obvious (i.e., murder; adultery) and some less so (i.e, taking advantage of the poor; extreme anger). If you suffer from scrupulosity, I would suggest you not agonize over the list of mortal sins. That's kind of like consulting Dr. Google instead of a doctor -- it's ill-advised for an anxious soul and might do more harm than good! 

In summary: Mortal sin kills the life of grace, venial sin wounds the life of grace.

Remember, I call these "Little Teachings From the Bubble"! That's all I've got for today! 

*We Catholics don't subscribe to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (i.e., the Bible is a Christian's only authority), so it wouldn't be a deal-breaker even if it were not explicit in the Bible. More on sola scriptura in a future post. 




.