… continues to impress.
BEND — We live in an age which places a very strong emphasis on tolerance, mutuality, and acceptance. I have heard repeatedly over the years that “Jesus never judged, condemned or excluded anyone.” I wonder if Peter would agree as the words of Jesus, “Get behind me you Satan,” rang in his ears. I wonder if the Scribes and the Pharisees would agree as they rankled at being called whitened sepulchers or broods of vipers. I wonder if those who heard Jesus say, “Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better if he had a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea,” nodded approval and said, “He is so tolerant and accepting.” This verse is included, virtually verbatim, in each of the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I certainly have no qualms about the image of Jesus as kind and gentle, or with Jesus’ own description of Himself as “meek and humble of heart.” I see and appreciate the great appeal of one of the most recent devotions fostered so powerfully by our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, that of Divine Mercy. Each of these attractive and reassuring aspects of Jesus needs to be remembered. These are aspects of Jesus that we cannot afford to forget and to which we can and must cling. At the same time we do well not to forget that the Lord is also a “God of power and might.” Jesus stood up to the guards who came to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He stood courageously before Pilate. He bore His cross with noble, unflinching determination. He is not a God of weakness. He is strong and He defends His people. This accounts for the strong language used when the “little ones” of His flock are put at risk.
In our “compromising age” we are loath to name something too strongly. If we do, we are accused of harshness, judgmentalism, perhaps arrogance, certainly intolerance and possibly pharisaism. While it is always necessary to speak the truth with love, the Church also believes and teaches that it is also necessary to speak the truth with strength. It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers. There is a point at which passive “tolerance” allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church. There is a very strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too “gentle” to use. The word is “heresy.” We perhaps think that heresy is a thing of the past. We think perhaps of the Arian heresy or the Pelagian heresy or the Manichaen heresy. We might even maintain that there are no longer any heretics because that conjures up images of inquisitions and burnings at the stake. I do not, in any way, seek to validate or justify any kind of “vigilante” theology, but we do need strong words to combat erroneous and fallacious teaching.
[Via AMDG]
One of the great modern errors is via the conduit of tolerance to avoid calling a sin a sin. That this should be done with prudence and great love is a given because true love of neighbor requires it of us. Truth shouldn’t be used as a blunt instrument to pound, but as a scalpel delicately used to remove damaged tissue. The Parable of the Good Samaritan could be retold today along these lines. If the man had fallen in with a bad crowd as he journeyed from Jerusalem to Jericho and was in objectively grave you can easily imagine the situation.
Now by chance a progressive priest walked by and when he saw him he tolerated his sin and walked to the other side. So likewise a theologian in a Catholic university saw him and he did the same in the name of tolerance. Another man disgusted by the man’s sin also walked to the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and rebuked him for his sin and then prayed for him and preached the Gospel and the redemption of sin. Through his love he helped to bind his wounds and lead him to a Church for confession so that the wounds would not remain mortal. Which of these, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers of eternal life with God?" He said, "The one who showed mercy on him." And Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
15 comments
Excellent. Looks like someone has been reading Chesterton. Or perhaps the New Testament!
“The Church can reasonably be justified therefore if she turns the most merciful face or aspect towards men; but it is certainly the most merciful aspect that she does turn. And the point is here that it is very much more specially and exclusively merciful than any impression that could be formed by a man merely reading the New Testament for the first time. A man simply taking the words of the story as they stand would form quite another impression; an impression full of mystery and possibly of inconsistency; but certainly not merely an impression of mildness. It would be intensely interesting; but part of the interest would consist in its leaving a good deal to be guessed at or explained. It is full of
sudden gestures evidently significant except that we hardly know what they signify; of enigmatic silences; of ironical replies. The outbreaks of wrath, like storms above our atmosphere, do not seem to break out exactly where we should expect them, but to follow some higher weather-chart of their own. The Peter whom popular Church teaching presents is very rightly the Peter to whom Christ said in forgiveness, “Feed my lambs.” [Jn 21:15] He is not the Peter upon whom Christ turned as if he were the devil, crying in that obscure wrath, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” [Mt 16:23] Christ lamented [Mt 23:37] with nothing but love and pity over Jerusalem which was to murder him. We do not know what strange spiritual atmosphere or spiritual insight led him to sink Bethsaida lower in the pit than Sodom [Lk 10:12-15]. I am putting aside for the moment all questions of doctrinal inferences or expositions, orthodox or otherwise; I am simply imagining the effect on a man’s mind if he did really do what these critics are always talking about doing; if he did really read the New Testament without reference to orthodoxy and even without reference to doctrine. He would find a number of things which fit in far less with the current unorthodoxy than they do with the current orthodoxy.”
Check it out for yourselves – this is the chapter “The Riddles of the Gospel” from GKC’s The Everlasting Man.
Or else read the New Testament again – as if it was the FIRST time.
One of the spiritual works of mercy that the Church teaches us to perform is to “admonish sinners.” No doubt we should do so with charity, but to do nothing is neither kind nor merciful.
To love someone is to want the greatest good for that someone — and there is no greater good than to be with God forever in heaven. As such, allowing others to continue in sin that could separate them from God without trying to show them the Way is one of the most unloving things we can do. How much, then, must Satan enjoy ‘tolerance’ and ‘political correctness’ because they work so well to his advantage. As more and more of us become afraid to call a sin a sin, we inadvertently support Satan in his work of deluding the sinful into thinking that they are not so.
If it weren’t immoral, I’d like to clone the guy.
Excellent modernization of the parable! 🙂
Loved it!
Jeff
I think this was your best post I have seen in my short time on this blog. Truly admirable and something I need to practice as a “sinner”
Here in Salt Lake we are now without a bishop. Is it sinful to covet the bishop of Baker?
Fr. Richtsteig,
FWIW, I covet Arbishop Burke (I’m in Detroit) and I had once asked a priest from St. Louis if it was a sin to covet a bishop. He replied, “No, but it’s a sin to covet MY bishop.” So, I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.
😉
I’m lucky to be from St. Louis, and thankful for Abp.Burke, so hands off. Bp. Vasa is coming to speak in St. Louis, so I better alert the Swiss Guard that extra precautions should be taken, with these two in the same town and all.
Lovely post.
We love people that much as Christians, that we just don’t sit back and allow for them to make an idiot out of themselves.
It would be excellent to see a new bishop of Vasa’s cut in Salt Lake City, and possibly up this direction (Boise) as well.
Yes calling sin a sin and declaring sin as an imoral act is so not cool to do these days. Pathetic isn’t it? I have friends who get disgusted if I say the word sin or say things like, “Satan is alive and well these days.” Oh they get ruffled, but oh well, too bad. Tolerance of evil is the overiding code today. Just what Satan wanted. Satan is so patient, isn’t he?
geez my spelling stinks today….old eyes again…
Yes, Bishop Vasa is a great person with great insight. He is just one of three recently installed Bishops from the great Diocese of Lincoln, NE. Bishop Ohlmstead (Arizona) and Jackels (Wichita, KS) are the other two. Even though I hate to lose these fine priest, I’m glad that they are spreading the true faith. We do have several, well qualified priest waiting in the wings to step up and fill positions that become available within the church.
I have notices that the penitential rite is becoming a rare occurance in my diocese. No longer do we pray, “And I confess to Almighty God….” more frequently there is a brief silent moment not even long enough to say the prayer to oneself and then a rapid launching in to a raucous hand clapping, hip wagging Gloria.
Even stranger, this week instead of praying in a spirit of repentence and reflection the presider gave an entry asking for “Healing”- as though we have not sinned but are merely ill or need healing. It goes hand in hand with associating alcoholism and any other vice as a physical illness.
You are indeed talented, Jeff; thanks for yet another thought-provoking post. You always put my thoughts/frustrations into words.