Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part IV - Immigration

[This is part IV of a series I began here. Part II is here Part III is here.]

We have already discussed that the consistent ethic of life, which follows naturally from being a Christian, demands that we always uphold the dignity owed to every person, if we truly wish to grow in holiness. This is because each person is a beloved child of God, regardless of their age, race, ethnicity, religion, or legal status. Just as it is wrong to treat people who are black as inferiors, it is also morally unacceptable to treat those from other countries as inferiors or as having fewer rights.

Frequently the issue of immigration is over-simplified. We often hear that “they” come here illegally to steal our jobs and our money; they drain our welfare and taxes, and cause crime rates to increase. Also, whenever we hear talk of immigration we always hear the term “illegal aliens” or simply “illegals.” However, Katerina Ivanovna explains how utterly un-Christian this phrase is:

I can personally attest as to how the debate always boils down to this: illegal immigrants are breaking the law when they enter the country illegally; therefore, they should not be given any type of ‘pardon’ or ‘amnesty’ or special treatment for that matter. It is as if entering the country “illegally” automatically transforms these people into criminals. No distinction is even given to what type of law these individuals are breaking—a civil law. Even so-called “Christians” have no problem saying that “lay and clergy– assert that they have moral license to break the law in order to hide illegal immigrants.” When I run a red light or drive over the speed limit and I am given a ticket, I do not automatically turn into an “illegal” driver or “illegal” citizen. The problem and controversy around the immigration debate has to do exactly with the adjective itself: “illegal” immigrants. In other countries, “undocumented” or “out-of-status” migrants are more proper qualifiers for individuals who are “in transition” within the immigration process.

Sadly, in the debate there is no question as to whether our current immigration laws are fair or whether the treatment of processed “illegal” immigrants is just or not. No question about why “illegal” immigrants do not receive medical treatment while in prison before being deported to their native countries. No question about why “illegal” immigrants die in their prisons before ever reaching their final destination. Hence, we see how the adjective “illegal” applied to the migrant subliminally gives a law primacy over a person within the immigration debate.

As Katerina correctly pointed out, we never hear anyone ask why so many Mexicans (for example) feel the need to risk their lives coming to the US. The majority of them are not in drug or human trafficking. The majority of them are not leaving a pleasant living situation with the intent of draining our economy or getting rich. Rather, their governments are not giving them the opportunity to support themselves or their families. Furthermore, we must realize that a majority of the governments from which the immigrants are coming (with the exception of Cuba) are governments which the US had a large role in putting into place. Also, US companies turn to factories in these countries to get cheap labor, but in doing so they take advantage of the poor and downtrodden, making them work long hours for very low wages, in effect breaking up families.

As we can see, we cannot simply call them illegals and throw them in jail. The majority of these people - and we must always remember that they are people - do not want to leave their home and their family but are forced to leave because of abusive governments, inhumane working conditions, and no living wage. Furthermore, a person cannot be illegal! An action is illegal, like theft or dunk driving, but those actions do not make the person illegal. That person remains a person with God-given dignity. This holds true for people who immigrate to America. They may break civil laws by doing so, but they are not, generally speaking, breaking any moral laws, and they certainly are not "illegal". They are persons created in the image and likeness of God, and they are good.


It is because of the plight of immigrants and their desperate need for Christian love and care that the Church (and Jesus) has always called on the faithful to be the hands and feet of Christ.

Some authoritative examples from the Word of God and from the Teaching of the Church should express the point more clearly than I ever could. Let's begin with the Old Testament:

"When an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him. You will treat the alien who resides with you no differently that the natives among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the Lord, am your God." (Leviticus 19:33-34)

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God!

Clearly, we can see the command of God to love immigrants even in the early Old Testament, and remember, just as the Hebrews were once aliens in the land of Egypt, so were our ancestors once aliens in America.

As one would expect, Jesus is more decisive on the matter, not only commanding us to love immigrants, but directly associating loving them with loving him:

"For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed me; naked and you clothed me; sick and you visited me; in prison and you came to see me... Amen I say to you, in so far as you did this for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me." (Matthew 25:35-40)

This is the Gospel of the Lord. Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ!

We as Christians, not Americans, are called to welcome those who are strangers in our land. We are called to care for them and to love them as we would love our Lord and Savior. Anything less is a rejection of our call to holiness.

Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Centessimus Annus explains:

"The Church's love for the poor, which is essential for her and a part of her constant tradition, impels her to give attention to a world in which poverty is threatening to assume massive proportions in spite of technological and economic progress. In the countries of the West, different forms of poverty are being experienced by groups which live on the margins of society, by the elderly and the sick, by the victims of consumerism and even more immediately by so many refugees and migrants." (emphasis mine)

John Paul II speaks of the Church's love for the poor. (Need we be reminded that "the Church" does not refer to a building or to "those old guys in Rome"?) By virtue of our Baptism we are the Bride of Christ, the Church, and to be part of the Church means to love the poor, the sick, and the immigrants.

Adding to this, Pope John Paul II says in his 1996 Message for World Migration Day:

"Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that "stranger" in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself."

Notice again that our Shepherd, the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, associates welcoming and loving the immigrant with being a Christian. Regardless of what any political pundit may say or think and regardless of the stress immigrants may put on our economy, the people of the God have always been taught, first by the Word of God in the Old Testament, then by the Word made Flesh in Jesus Christ, and most recently by our beloved Pope John Paul II, that we must love the immigrants, recognizing their plight and making efforts to comfort them, to welcome them, and to help them meet their needs.

Lent

Lent begins tomorrow with Ash Wednesday. As cradle-Catholics from New Orleans most of us know, at the very least on a shallow level, what that means: giving up something, no meat on Fridays , and crawfish boils. But what is the meaning of Lent? Why does the Church find it prudent to give this period of time before Easter.

Lent is supposed to be a time of conversion emphasizing prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. During lent we are supposed to be identifying and joining with Jesus' forty days of fasting in the desert before he began his public ministry. Lent is supposed to be a time during which make real and intentional efforts to rid ourselves of those habits and activities which hinder or break our relationship with Jesus.

Prayer is essentially conversation, relationship with Jesus.
Fasting is meant to discipline our bodies so that we learn that we are not required to scratch every itch. It teaches us the self-control requires to resist the temptations of sin, especially sins of the flesh (those sexual or gluttonous in nature).
Almsgiving is to remind us of the solidarity we have with all, especially the poor and marginalized. In giving to the poor we are giving to Jesus.

I will attempt to post further Lenten reflections over the next 40 days, but in the meantime, the following websites have some good reflections:
US Bishops
Growing in Virtue during Lent
Lent: FAQ's
A Catholic Life: Everything Lent
A Former Atheists Perspective on Lent

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part III – Racism

[This is part III of a series I began here. Part II is here]

We have briefly considered the universal call to holiness, to which we should all, by virtue of our Baptism, respond with an honest effort to be saints. We have spoken of the consistent life ethic which reminds us of the inherent and irrevocable dignity of every person and serves of the foundation of all moral issues; now we can proceed to consider some of those issues that the US Bishops have spoken of as being problematic.

In its Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the USCCB lists racism as intrinsically evil, something that can never be supported. In this reflection I shall follow the lead of our shepherd, Archbishop Hughes, in his recent document, Made in the Image and Likeness of God: a Pastoral Letter on Racial Harmony. Archbishop Hughes indicates that, although the term “racism” generally draws forth wide ranging emotions and is often avoided in conversation, the Church has not hesitated to define it “as both a personal sin and a social disorder rooted in the belief that one race is superior to another.” Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that "every form of social or cultural discrimination of fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."

Based on the Church’s characterization of racism as both a personal and a social problem, Archbishop Hughes adds that when it occurs on the personal level it generally takes the form of slurs, unprovoked fear, unfair stereotypes, etc., while institutional racism takes place in educational systems, judicial systems, and our housing and living situations. I think we are all on some level aware of these problems, even if we are much more comfortable ignoring them and forgetting about our own participation in them than confronting them. However, it is not enough for us to know in our heads that racism is wrong and what it looks like, we must understand why it is wrong and, if we are to take Christ’s call to holiness seriously, we must work to eradicate it from our own lives and to help those who are victims of it. Let us therefore consider in more depth the Church’s teaching on the issue.

The Word of God in Sacred Scripture teaches us that God created all humanity, male and female, equal and “very good.” Due to the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve, all humanity, white, black, yellow, red, brown, etc., have fallen into a state of separation from God, which we daily live out in our selfishness and sinfulness. But, just as through one man, Adam, all of us inherit Original Sin, so through one man, Jesus Christ, all of us, brown, red, yellow, black, white, etc., have been redeemed and offered the gift of salvation. Christ does not differentiate by color, sex, age, wealth, health, etc. We are created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore we are all very good. As people who are part of the Body of Christ through our Baptism, we are called to be His hands and feet, which means we are called to be color blind, to love all other members of the Body of Christ and the Body of Adam (all humans including non-Christians) equally and without reservation. That is what Jesus would do.

Certainly, no serious political candidate supports racism or overtly racist policies. But I think we need to dig a little beneath the surface, especially given the appalling history of racism in the United States (Archbishop Hughes calls it our nation’s Original Sin!), where up until a few decades ago it was considered the norm for blacks to be treated as inferior. For what was once overt (obvious) in political and social discourse still lurks in the background, but remains covert (hidden), only rearing its ugly head occasionally– think of the Jena 6 scandal. This all begs an important question: if racism is real, but not overt, does this make it any less evil? Does this diminish our responsibility as Christians? I think not.

In fact, I think most (if not all) of us can see undercurrents of racism active at different times and situations in our schools, jobs, and relationships with others. We tend to be more fearful around black men than white men. Why is that? The implication is that we believe that people who are black are more violent than people who are white. This is scientifically and morally false. We tend to assume, again generally speaking, that people who are black are less intelligent than people who are white. Again, this is patently false. It is true, however, that nutrition, family environment, parental expectations, and perceived safety play large roles in academic achievement. Because of the Original Sin of our nation, people who are black also tend to have a lower socio-economic status. Therefore, people who are black tend to come from families who are less able to provide good nutrition (this is especially relevant during pregnancy), stable family situation (parents are more likely to be forced to work long hours to support the family), and safe environment (poor neighborhoods breed desperation which leads to crime).

Many people also claim prison statistics -- based on percentages of the national population, people who are black are more likely to be criminals and to be on death row -- to support their belief that people who are black are more violent, criminal, even more evil than people who are white (although we would never say it this way). However, the statistics are very misleading, and such a belief is again absolutely untrue and offensive to our God who loved each one of us into creation. Regarding the statistics, we first must not reduce the issue to merely an issue of skin color. Human behavior does not change based on skin color, but it does change based on poverty and living conditions.

“Ironically, one of the few areas of racial equality in the United States is drugs. Americans who are black and Americans who are white use them at essentially the same rate. The shocking disparities come in enforcement—from arrests, to charges being filed, to convictions, to length of sentences—where African American males go to prison at far higher rates for the same crimes than everyone else. We know this from systematic studies as well as the many examples of white conservative politicians whose own drug crimes, or those of their kids, result in no prison time, the same crimes that send thousands of young, poor, black males to prison for shockingly long sentences (see the Bishop’s “three Rs” statement on criminal justice for more on systematic injustice in sentencing generally). On the death penalty, even different rates of violent crime don’t explain differences. Just among those who commit murder, African Americans murders are far more likely to get the death sentence than white murders. The even greater disparity, however, is in the race of the victim—murdering a white person is many times more likely to get you the death penalty than murdering a black person. “ (from a comment by David Cochron on the blog Vox-Nova)

The point is twofold: 1) Most of our preconceived notions which denigrate people of races are often false and are misguided by overly simplified views of complex situations. 2) Jesus Christ demands that we move beyond the implied racism of our society. Regardless of race all persons are children of God and, as Christians, we are called to love all persons as ourselves. We are called to stand up for the dignity and rights of those who are subject to discrimination and prejudice. Again, it is what Jesus would do and it is what we, as Christians are called to do as we strive to live as saints.

"Going Green" and the Pill

As I watch all the efforts of corporations to "go green" and the craze in our country to consume organic, natural, or more healthful products, I can't help but see a paradox. Over 30% of women in the U.S. were on the Pill in 2002 (see here), presumably more now. The Pill uses artificial hormones to control a woman's fertility. So as we worry over what hormones are in the meats and milk we consume (see here), we willingly pump our bodies full of hormones to control fertility. I honestly don't get it. 

My husband's and my reasons for using natural family planning have more to do with our understanding of the meaning of human sexuality as God-given than not wanting extra hormones coursing through my body to "fix" my unbroken reproductive system, but there is a growing trend of health-conscious people - especially vegans and vegetarians - who recognize the paradox and are using some form of natural family planning or fertility awareness method.

As many are "going green" because they want to prevent global warming, I wander how many people are aware of the possibility of global infertility. Aside from the low fertility rate, that is the reproducing at such a low rate (less than 1.5 children per woman in most first-world countries, as far as I know) such that whole countries are in danger of not replacing themselves, there is another, scarier potential problem. With the high numbers of women on the Pill in addition to the tendency to "flush" pills down the toilet, there has been documented such high levels of synthetic estrogen in natural waterways that there are male fish becoming infertile and producing eggs! The question is how high the levels have to be to effect male humans. (See here, here, and here.) 

It's one thing to make a conscious decision not to reproduce, but it is another altogether to have your reproductive capabilities stolen from you. This is the stuff of science fiction. (Has anyone seen Children of Men?) It also reminds me of a hypothetical situation posed in one of my moral theology classes about a tyrant who puts some kind of contraceptive chemical in his country's water supply to prevent his people from reproducing. We tried to determine the moral licitness of actions of different people in such a situation (i.e. the couple who is aware there is contraception in the water and wants to contracept, the couple who is aware but does not intend to contracept, the couple who is not aware, the tyrant). Such a scenario may be less hypothetical than I realized. I wonder if the Culture of Death has become the tyrant.

Family Planning among Christians

I found a blog post from last year titled "providentialism, NFP, and contraception" in which the author discusses "the attitudes towards family planning and married sexuality" among Christians, which fall into three basic groups - giving the post its title. She makes several good points, and I would like to hear your thoughts!

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part II – A Consistent Life Ethic

[This is part II of a series I began here.]

In my last post I briefly discussed our universal call to holiness and the idea that all of us are called by our God to honestly try to become saints. This call to holiness and any desire we might have to answer that call should not stem merely from some command of an authoritative Church. Rather we should be motivated to strive for holiness by our love for our God. Jesus indicated this to us when he sums up the whole Old Testament with His two commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Mark 12:30-31)

This idea of loving the Other, be it God or neighbor, lies at the heart of all Catholic teachings on the political issues at hand. Be it abortion, embryonic stem cells, immigration, marriage, torture, war, etc., the Church’s understanding of these issues flow out of love. To help educate us on the universal implications of this love the Church teaches a consistent life ethic, which the U.S. Bishops describe in this way:

“Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, each person’s life and dignity must be respected, whether that person is an innocent unborn child in a mother’s womb, whether that person worked in the World Trade Center or a market in Baghdad, or even whether that person is a convicted criminal on death row. We believe that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it protects and respects the life and dignity of the human person.” (USCCB, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, p. 13)

This means that in all that we do as individuals and in our institutions (families, businesses, communities, countries, etc.) we must always uphold and fight for the dignity of every human being involved. Jesus emphasizes the dignity of every person by associating all with him:

“Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'” (Matt 25:34-40)

Because we are all one body in Christ, because of our love for Christ, because of our universal call to holiness, we have the holy duty of upholding the dignity of all persons in all that we do. This makes things difficult for those of us who are trying to determine which candidate to vote for because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans uphold this consistent ethic of life. Stereotypically each party pushes their agenda on certain life issues, but both are also notoriously bad on other life issues. For example, one party claims to be pro-life but also pushes the death penalty and torture, while the other claims to stand for the poor while advocating pro-choice policies.

As we continue to investigate and consider the intrinsically evil acts which the bishops warn us about, we must strive to move beyond whatever preconceived notions we have developed after following the political leanings of our party of choice. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are living up to the call of holiness. Therefore, in educating ourselves about these issues we must move beyond these somewhat shallow political teachings and listen to the voice of Truth, Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. Let us continue to keep in mind Jesus’ consistent ethic of life and examine our consciences and our thoughts.

Part III: Racism]

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part I - Introduction

I am writing this in response to a call given by Archbishop Hughes, our shepherd and a successor of the Apostles, at a conference I recently attended. What follows is a reflection meant to help each of us examine and form our consciences to better enable us to live our lives as faithful Christian Catholics in America, specifically in preparation for the upcoming elections. I do not claim to have complete knowledge or understanding of the truth, but I do claim to be repeating what the Church teaches and demands of us as members of the Body of the Christ.

In his homily at the opening Mass for the 2008 Hoffinger Conference, Archbishop Hughes spoke of the universal call to holiness. He, as our shepherd, wants to remind each one of us that we are all, every single one of us, called to be a saint. Holiness is not reserved for a chosen few. God loves us unconditionally and wants us to respond to His gift of self with our own limitless gift of love for He who is Love. We all need to honestly strive to rid ourselves of our sinful tendencies, prejudices and preconceived notions, and to work toward sainthood.

This requires, among other things, that we learn to identify ourselves first and foremost as Catholics, as members of the Church which is the Bride of Christ and which is guided “in spirit and in truth” by the Holy Spirit. We must pray for the humility to submit ourselves to the wisdom and prudence of the Church’s teachings. We should not ignore or belittle the wisdom of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church in favor of the beliefs or standards or our nation, our political party, our school, or ourselves. We are not primarily Republican or Democrat, American or New Orleanian. We are Catholic, which means we are members of the body of Christ along with millions of other people from all over the world. Our primary love and allegiance belongs to Jesus Christ, our Savior and King
The Archbishop of Denver, who was also at the conference, put it this way,

“Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=953)

As Christians we should be the leaven which raises the morality and holiness of our community, indeed of our country, to higher levels of holiness. However, if we examine American society we cannot noticeably see the good witness of Christians in our culture. Instead of being witnesses to the Truth of Christ as the apostles were, we have tended to blend in with the rest of our society which can NOT rightly be called good or virtuous. Because of our Catholic identity and our universal call to holiness we must always inform and examine our consciences on the issues in our country and never settle for the opinions of the authorities in our preferred political parties or talk shows.

In light of this, the successors of the Apostles, our American Bishops write the following, “There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions” (http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf). The bishops include the followings actions in this category: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genocide, torture, racism, unjust war and unjust immigration laws.

In the following days and weeks I shall attempt to offer reflections on some of these issues in order to better educate myself, and all of us, on them and to challenge to submit to the wisdom and guidance of Mother Church. I invite you all to participate in these reflections by sharing your thoughts in the comment boxes.

Part II: Consistent Life Ethic
PartIII: Racism
Part IV: Immigration

The Anthropological Structure of Faith

Below is my first esay submitted for my Fundamental Theology class....

“On the Anthropological Structure of Faith”

In The Nature and Mission of Theology, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger defines theology as “faith seeking understanding”, implying that theology necessarily entails faith.[1] But, does faith also entail theology? Despite the objections of Heidegger and Jaspers, who claim that because theology is connected with philosophy, and that faith has already answered all the questions, faith excludes philosophy, Ratzinger answers yes. Moreover, he claims that the anthropological structure of faith necessitates his assertion.[2]

Faith is one of the capacities of man which set him apart from the rest of creation. Because man (homo sapiens) can grow in wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, he can also be convinced that something is a truth or a falsity. He can believe. Generally, when we speak of knowing something, we mean we are certain of its truth. We have assented to it. In many cases, this certainty is gained through a convincing experience, or set thereof, or by some scientific demonstration, which presents enough evidence to compel us into assent. However, faith must always be a free response of the will, not a forced reaction to evidence. Therefore, the assent of the believer occurs differently in the structure of faith, than assent to other forms of knowledge.

A Concise Dictionary of Theology refers to three different types of assent, taking its distinctions from John Henry Cardinal Newman. Many of today’s Christians “believe” with notional assent, meaning they accept the abstract ideas of the Truth, but without fully being touched and changed by it, or, put more practically, without living according to the Truth. However, the belief of true faith requires “full assent to truth, especially concrete rather than abstract truths”.[3] This real assent is the assent of faith which the early Christians claimed when they stated “I believe.”

When the Church fathers composed their statement of faith, they used the Latin word credo, “I believe.” Etymologically credo comes from the Latin words cor (heart) and do (to give).[4] Therefore, when they stated their belief in Jesus as Christ, they were giving their heart to him. Moreover, biblically, the word for heart corresponds with what St. Thomas Aquinas refers to as the will.[5] In other words, the ancient Christians testified that in believing in Jesus, they were giving their hearts, their wills, indeed their entire selves, to him, God enfleshed. But from what does this assent of faith come? To what exactly are we assenting?

Contrary to scientific knowledge or other types of certainty, the assent of faith comes from a personal encounter with God. He reveals himself to us, and we respond with the assent of faith. “Through being touched in this way, the will knows that even what is still not ‘clear’ to reason is true” and it assents to faith in God. “When the heart comes into contact with God’s Logos, with the Word who became man, this inmost point of his existence is being touched.”[6] Or, put another way, “just as a person becomes certain of another’s love without being able to subject it to methods of scientific experiment, so in the contact between God and man there is a certainty of a quite different kind from the certainty of objectivizing thought.” [7]

Therefore, in opposition to Heidegger and Jaspers, Cardinal Ratzinger rightly explains, “in the act of believing the assent comes about …by an act of the will, in connection with which the thought process remains open and still under way.”[8] In other words, although the heart has assented to give itself fully to the truth, because the assent has not come by means of reason, the thought process, the search for understanding, must strive to catch up with the assent of the heart and is therefore open, and, furthermore, spurred on, to search for deeper understanding. Within this search, what Thomas calls a contrary motion (motus de contrario), arises, which can either mislead the search for understanding and distract from the assent or can further “be the challenge summoning forth a deeper knowledge.”[9]

Reviewing the good Cardinal’s thoughts and reflecting on our own experiences of faith, we can see the uniquely human structure of faith, which requires those human capacities which indicate to us that we are indeed made in God’s image: willing, loving, and knowing. God has spoken his Word into our hearts. In response, we, being unable to deny the depth of his love, assent in our heart, our will, to faith in him. But, because our assent has been given by our heart and not based upon reason, our thought is ever striving to catch up to our assent of faith. In this striving to understand what the heart knows, thought must overcome this motus de contrario. In order not to get lost in our search, we must always refer back to the light of faith and Word of Truth, lest our seeking of understanding become errant. For, any movement which is contrary to the Eternal Word of Truth, which therefore will inevitably be of worldly thought, will, whenever viewed in perspective of the Eternal Word, be “motion in reverse after all.”[10] Therefore, wherever there is the assent of faith, and thus the contrary movement, there must also be theology so that we may overcome the motus de contrario and grow in knowledge and wisdom in support of our faith. Consequently, the assent of faith, which jumps ahead of thought inexorably “challenges thought and sets it in a restless motion that produces results,” that produces theology.[11]


WORKS CITED

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. “Faith and Theology.” In Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005.

____________________. The Nature and Mission of Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995.

Guengerich, Galen. 2003. “Living by Choice.” New York, NY: All Souls NYC. On-line. Available from the Internet, , accessed 19 September, 2006.

O’Collins, S.J., Gerald and Farrugia, S.J., Edward G. A Concise Dictionary of Theology, rev. and expanded ed. Macwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000.


[1] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995), 16.
[2] Id., “Faith and Theology,” Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005).
[3] Gerald O’Collins, S.J. and Edward G. Farrugia, S.J., A Concise Dictionary of Theology, rev. and expanded ed., (Macwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000): 20.
[4] Galen Guengerich, Galen. “Living by Choice” [sermon on-line] (New York, NY: All Souls NYC, 2003, accessed 19 September 2006,); available from http:// www.allsoulsnyc.org/publications/sermons/ ggsermons/living-by-choice.html; Internet.
[5] Ratzinger, “Faith and Theology,” 23.
[6] Ibid., 24.
[7] Ibid., 19.
[8] Ibid., 22.
[9] Ibid., 28.
[10] Ibid., 26.
[11] Ibid., 27.

Introductions...

I am the aforementioned husband and best friend. I've been married to the lovely, unique, and beautiful body-person who is my wife for a little over a year. I've been teaching at an all boys Catholic high school since fall of 2004. This year will be my first year teaching primarily religion/theology, which will focus on New Testament and Sacraments. I'm also working on my MA in Theology and am interested in systematic theology. I enjoy reading Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II, among others and have interests in holistic Catholic living, non-violence, Theology of the Body, Christology, and soteriology, among other things. Hopefully I will have the discipline to post my thoughts on a farely regular basis. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Thanks for reading.

Pax Christi!

Starting Again...

I started this blog while I was at the University of Dallas, in exile from New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. A Religious Studies major at Tulane University and a Catholic, I was taking theology courses at Dallas, which probably caused me to start posting. It's been about a year and a half since I last posted, and much has happened since. I graduated from Tulane, got married to my best friend, began working on my masters in theology, and taught religion for one year at an all-boys Catholic high school. I am now a graduate assistant to the head theology professor in my program and have, with my husband, made it through half of the course work for the masters. We are practicing Natural Family Planning to postpone having children until we have finished our degrees, and I will be be getting trained to teach the sympto-thermal method soon. I am most interested in moral theology and bioethics, and I may work on a Ph.D. in one of those areas. I imagine that most of my posts will be of a theological nature, especially as it relates to sex, love, and medical practices. I welcome any input on the issues on which I post, especially since I am young and naive in some senses, jaded in others. I have invited my husband to contribute to this blog as well. Thanks to all who take an interest in what we have to say. God bless!

sola fides? je pense que non!

What happened to love and hope? If faith alone is all you need to assure you of salvation, why should I bother loving God, myself, and others or having hope in the mercy and justice of God and his salvific plan? I should not bother, n'est pas?

So, to be blunt as possible, je dis ca: works matter!


The fundamental option theory in traditional Catholic thought holds that we have a free choice at the core of our being that orients us toward God or away from God. That is to say, at our ontological core, we each make a decision to orient our lives toward God as the Summum Bonum, or we decide to make a created good our highest good and consequently orient ourselves toward it rather than God. When we act in accordance with a created good as our highest good, we sin, for we have demoted God. In that we can sin and do decide this fundamental option for ourselves alerts us to our freedom. This decision for or against God is inextricable from our actions (those are the "works").

Understanding the fundamental option can help us to distinguish mortal sin from venial sin. The particular acts that can change our fundamental option are the acts designated as mortal sin: the object is grave matter, and the person must fully know it is grave matter and deliberately consent to it. All three of these conditions together make a sin mortal; such mortality, if you will, obliterates the fundamental option for God because it shifts that choice held at the core of our being. However, a venial sin is not defined by these three conditions; it cannot move that core choice and therefore cannot change our fundamental option for God.

The Catholic view of human nature is that, while we were fallen due to original sin, Christ’s redemptive act both healed our nature and elevated it; we call this redeemed nature. Although we, as Christians, may fall from grace when we choose to follow our concupiscent tendency to sin, we will never return to a fallen nature mired in sin. We have sanctifying grace that dwells within us. Venial sins cannot dislodge this grace, but mortal sins are a rejection of that grace.

On the other hand, classical Protestantism views the human as totally depraved; there is nothing but sin in him, and sin is what defines his nature (simul iustus et peccator, as Martin Luther put it). The redemptive act of Christ works to justify man in that Christ declares man righteous, although man actually remains in a state of depravity. To the Protestant, Christ did nothing to heal or elevate human nature; Christ merely covers man’s sin so that God does not see man’s utter depravity but sees his righteous Son instead. In that man is depraved, every sin cuts man off from grace (in the sense that the Catholic understands grace); every sin is an infinite offense against the infinite God. Since they see man as depraved, mired in sin with nothing good in his nature, but simultaneously justified, Protestants dismiss the serious effects of sin on grace. They do not distinguish degrees of sin; no sin is great enough to cut man off the grace imputed by Christ, who covers all sin.

Man must recognize that he “always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 103) This grace comes through the redemptive act of Christ; it should not be rejected “so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.”(1 Corinthians 1:17 NAB) This is the danger man faces if he does not affirm the connection between his concrete actions and his fundamental option toward God.


Suggested reading: Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor

1 Corinthians 13:13

nunc autem manet fides spes caritas tria haec maior autem his est caritas (Vulgate)

so faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love (NAB)