Are you justified?

The term “justification” is a term that is discussed often in ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants.    The basic question asked is “how is sinful man and woman  justified?”   In other words, how can a sinful person become righteous before God?   All orthodox Christians believe that nothing unholy can enter the presence of God.   Man, wounded by original sin, in and of himself, is not holy.   Therefore, he, in his natural state alone, is not righteous, not worthy to be in the presence of God. 

Catholics and Protestants both believe that the redemptive death of Jesus Christ on the cross paid the price for our sins, and makes it possible for man to receive the justification he needs, to become righteous, and to be worthy to enter the presence of God.   It is through this death that justification is merited.   We read in the Catechism (p.1992)  Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.  Most Protestants would agree with that statement.

Protestants would also agree with Catholics that justification frees us from the power of sin.  We read in paragraph 1990:   Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.   Most Protestants would have no problem with that statement, either.

There are some, however, important difference between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of justification.

1)      Protestants tend to explain justification as God declaring us righteous.  We are righteous because we accept the forgiveness of Christ.    Catholics go beyond that, and say God makes us truly righteous, not just righteous because he says so.   We become righteous on the inside.   We are not just “bathed” in the blood of Christ.  We are not just clean “on the outside”.   No, we are made clean and justified on the inside, too.  We read in the Catechism (p. 1989) a quote from the Council of Trent:  "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”   

2)      Protestants tend to focus justification on the saving action of Jesus Christ.  Catholics agree that without that act, salvation and justification would be impossible.  However, Catholics state that justification goes beyond just receiving the forgiveness of Christ from the Cross.   We must do that, but also, the Holy Spirit has to come into us.  The normal way for the Holy Spirit to make his entrance into the soul is through Baptism.   In its discussion on justification, the Catechism several times notes how Baptism is just as crucial to justification as is faith in Jesus.   Paragraph 1987 reads:   The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.  In paragraph 1992 we read:  Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.   Baptism is necessary for justification, not just receiving Christ as Lord and Savior.  Justification is merited on the Cross, but not granted there.  It is granted at Baptism.

3)      Protestants tend to believe that we receive God’s own righteousness when we are justified.  Catholics do not agree with this.   They believe as the Catechism says that when we are justified we accept the righteousness of God.    Paragraph 1991 states: Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.  Nowhere in the Catechism, nor in the Bible for that matter, does it say that we receive the righteousness of God.  We become righteous, yes, in justification, but in our own way, not the same way God is righteous.

4)      Protestants believe that justification is a one-time thing, that we are justified forever when we accept the forgiveness of Christ and that eternal justification never changes or develops.   We are no more justified, they say, when we enter heaven than we are when we first accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.   Catholics believe, however, in progressive justification, that we become more justified the more holy we become.  For Catholics, conversion and sanctification is a lifelong thing. In paragraph 1995 we read: (Justification) entails the sanctification of (man’s) whole being.   Since sanctification (becoming holy) is a lifelong process. so, therefore, is justification.

5)       Finally, Protestants believe that justification can never be lost once it has been received.   Once a person receives Jesus as Lord and Savior, he is justified forever.  Catholics, on the other hand, believe that justification can be lost by mortal sin, but also that it can be reattained through the grace of receiving the Sacrament of Penance.  If you recall in the last post on grace, we spoke of the possibility of sanctifying grace being lost through mortal sin, but then reattained through the Sacrament of Penance.  When we are not in a state of sanctifying grace, we are not justified.   If we die and are not in a state of grace, we go to hell.  If you recall earlier, we said that Catholics and Protestants agree that justification detaches us from sin, and frees us from enslavement to sin.  However, justification does not remove sin from our experience.  We still have to fight it, and once in a while, we may lose a battle, but with the grace of Christ through the Sacraments, we can ultimately win the war.

So, are you justified?   To answer that question, you need to ask yourself a few more questions:

1)      Have I been baptized?  If so, you at least were justified, and could very well still be.  Baptism is the only normal means of justification.  If you have not been baptized, you are not justified.   Please seek Baptism ASAP.

2)      Have I committed serious sins since Baptism?  If so, please get to Confession ASAP.  If you have committed serious sin that has not been repented of, you are not justified.

(I would recommend rereading my posts in Baptism and Penance in the recent series on the seven Sacraments to see why they are important, and tips for celebrating them worthily.)

Even after answering these questions, and doing what we need to resolve them, while we can have great assurance that we are justified, we cannot ever be 100% rock certain that we are  (This may be one more area where Catholics and Protestants disagree.)   Only when we see God face to face, and everything becomes visible, will we know for sure one way or the other.  But, if we have done everything we can:  if we have been Baptized, if we have done what we need to get in a state of sanctifying grace, then we can indeed be at peace, and have assurance of our justification, and therefore, our salvation.

We do not become righteous on our own efforts alone.  The Catechism (p.1993) states:  Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent.   Justification necessitates cooperation with the Holy Spirit.  God and us work together for our justification.  In response to his love, we in turn do acts of love that increase our sanctification, and therefore, increase our justification.   This is what becoming justified is all about.  In the end, being justified is not some dry legal concept.  It is about becoming new men and new women on the inside, filled with the Holy Spirit, and as a result, living a life of holiness.

Are you justified?

Let’s do what we can to be able to say, “By the grace of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, I believe I am.”

Joseph most just, pray for us.

Grace: its meaning, and the two types

We have talked a lot in this blog about the supernatural help God gives us to live a supernatural life.



(All of the examples that follow I have discussed in my blog before.)  He reveals himself in Divine Revelation.  He establishes His Church, through which he gives us the seven Sacraments, and the gift of the Magisterium.  He sends the Holy Spirit to be with us and guide us, through the seven gifts, which produces the twelve fruits.   There are also the nine charisms of the Spirit which bear fruit, through us, for the Church.  He infuses in us the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.   In all of this, he gives us what we need to live divine life, in the love of the Holy Trinity forever.  



What gifts!  So many of them, so powerful!



When God, through these means, or any other means, touches our soul, and it produces an effect, we call that a grace.  You have probably heard that term, but let’s give it a precise definition.  We read in the Catechism (paragraph 1996)  that grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.



Grace takes us beyond where we can naturally go.   Without grace, we can live a life with some good, some bad, and then we die.   That is all we can hope for with natural life.  Grace, however, gives us the strength to live not just a natural life, but a supernatural one.   We live with supernatural virtue, supernatural desire, and supernatural gifts.  Above all, we have a supernatural destiny, life in the Holy Trinity.  



Grace is not something we have earned. It is a free gift from God.  Yet, we are called to cooperate with it, and whether we cooperate with it or not is something we will be judged on.



There are two types of grace, sanctifying and actual.   Both are good gifts of God, but there are important differences.

1)      Sanctifying grace comes from within, actual grace comes from without.  Sanctifying (sometimes called habitual grace) is something that is within us, a stable presence that allows us to live with, and in the power of the love of God.    Actual grace is a direct intervention of God from him to us, such as at the beginning of conversion (for example, what happened to wicked Saul when he was knocked off his horse), or in the course of one’s Christian life (such as a special insight from God that one receives when on a retreat, or during some other dedicated prayer time).    

2)      Sanctifying grace is a permanent disposition, whereas actual grace produces temporary effects. 

3)      We can lose sanctifying grace only through serious sin, whereas actual grace comes and go as God ordains. 

4)      Sanctifying grace can only be experienced by one disposed to receive it, not one in a state of serious sin.  Actual grace can be operated on anyone (such as the aforementioned Saul when he was persecuting Christians).  It can inspire one to conversion (as it did with Saul who became Saint Paul), but it cannot effect salvation.  Saint Paul was not saved due to the actual grace that led to his being converted.  He was saved, rather, because of the sanctifying grace that came into him once he repented, accepted Christ’s forgiveness, and did good works. 

5)      Only sanctifying grace can produce, or be a result of, meritorious works that result in salvation.  Actions done as a result of actual grace are not necessarily merit bearing, since the person may still be in a state of sin.   They can lead to conversion, but they do not in themselves earn us any merit for heaven, like works done through sanctifying grace do.  The good works themselves can in turn help build up the sanctifying grace.  However, actual grace has no intrinsic connection to good works as  either their cause or fruit.

6)      Those who have sanctifying grace are adopted children, and friends of God.  Those who receive actual grace only, on the other hand, may or may not be adopted children of God.  It may be God’s intervention to lead them to become a child of God at some point.  However, just because one receives an actual grace, it does not mean that one is or will be a friend of God, or saved.   God loves all, but only those who love in return, those whom God knows, will be let into heaven. 

7)      To sanctify means to be made holy, so that type of grace, sanctifying, is ultimately what is the most important, because becoming holy, becoming like God, is our destiny.   Actual graces are interventions designed for specific circumstances in life that while they can be an aid to growing in holiness, are not directly tied into growth in holiness.  For example, we could receive an intervention from God, some insight, and decide to do nothing with it.  Sanctifying grace, on the other hand, since it is an interior disposition to be like God, is basically a part of us, and ties so much into our mind and will, it cannot help but be directly tied into our holiness.

8)      The holy cannot exist alongside the unholy.  If we are not holy, we cannot be in heaven.   We cannot be holy without sanctifying grace.   Therefore, sanctifying grace is necessary to get into heaven.   We can receive all the actual graces we want, and they are great, trust me, but if there is no interior disposition in us to be holy, which is only a fruit of sanctifying grace, then there is no chance of salvation.

9)      The usual means to receive sanctifying grace are the gifts of Baptism and Penance (if we have lost the divine life through mortal sin).   It is nourished by the other Sacraments.    This is the only way that has been revealed that God can infuse supernatural life in our souls.   God can act in all kinds of way to effect actual grace, but sanctifying grace is normally more limited in the means it is delivered.

Actual graces, which can produce spiritual “highs”, are indeed something wonderful, and can inspire us.  We should never fear them, nor be afraid to ask for them.   However, it is sanctifying grace that we truly need to live divine life, and be saved.  That is what we should be after most of all.



To receive this new life, which is only a result of sanctifying grace, let us run to the Church, notably to the Sacraments.  Let us get baptized if we have not.  If serious sin has killed the grace of Baptism, or it has been rendered practically mute by venial sin, then let us run to the Sacrament of Penance and get a fresh outpouring of grace so that we can be disposed to the good, to God, and do good works that will bear fruit not just now, but for all eternity.


Joseph most obedient, pray for us.

The moral dilemma of the Democratic Party

With all the intense debate going on right now on issues of racism, immigration, the economy, and health care. the Democratic Party has an opportunity to become an authentic moral voice in American politics.  A side effect of this would be increased chances of representation across all levels of government, something they are seriously lagging in right now compared to Republicans.

However, they continue to drop the ball on this opportunity by making themselves beholden to the absolute abortions rights crowd, and have decided people with pro-life convictions will have no influence in their party’s platform or decision making at higher levels.  This prevents hundreds of thousands of people, Catholics and other people of good conscience, including myself, from voting for them.   

Here are some details in a recent article by Stephen Wynne on the website Church Militant.  I will have a few comments afterward.

Pro-life Democrats have again been snubbed by their party's leadership — this time by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

"The DCCC has no interest in working with Democrats for Life of America, despite their attempts," DCCC spokesperson Meredith Kelly told The Atlantic Thursday.

Party infighting over how "ideologically pure" candidates must be on abortion has been ongoing since April. The clash erupted when Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Tom Perez announced a de facto abortion litmus test for Democratic political candidates.

"I won't let anyone get in the way of our fight to protect a woman's right to choose," Perez, a self-described Catholic, declared. He continued:

Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. Every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same because every woman should be able to make her own health choices.  Period.

Perez indicated that any pro-life, office-seeking Democrat could expect no financial support from the DNC.

But the idea of an abortion litmus test provoked concern among some leading Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, for example, publicly disavowed the idea.

"I grew up Nancy D'Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland, in Little Italy, in a very devout Catholic family, fiercely patriotic, proud of our town and heritage and staunchly Democratic," she told the Washington Post on May. "Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I'm kicking them out of the Democratic Party?"

Two weeks ago, Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico underscored Pelosi's position, insisting the party would support pro-life candidates in conservative districts.

"There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates," he affirmed.

Luján is pushing for a more ideologically inclusive Democratic Party, recognizing that without pro-life votes, it will continue to lose elections. As chairman of the DCCC, his goal is to recapture the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections. To achieve this, Democrats must pick up 24 congressional seats to reach the targeted threshold: 218.

"As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America," said Luján. "We'll need a broad coalition to get that done."

A January Marist poll found four in 10 Democrats consider abortion morally wrong. Reliably blue states Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voted Republican by razor-thin margins last November. According to Google's analytics, the term "abortion" in relation to presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, was the search engine's top search item on Election Day.

All this has led some in the party to suggest that their stridently pro-abortion stance may be undermining the party's performance at the ballot box.

Democrats have suffered an almost decade-long record of electoral defeat. Since 2008, under the leadership of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, the party has lost more than 1,030 legislative seats and state governorships.

Currently, they control only six states, holding sway over the governor's mansion and both state legislative houses in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Oregon and Rhode Island.

In July 2016, after the party adopted the most radically pro-abortion platform in American political history, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards advised: "the party might be more successful in the Deep South if it allowed more pro-life candidates to rise in the ranks."

In June, representatives of Democrats for Life of America met with Perez at DNC headquarters to discuss softening the leadership's position on abortion.

They delivered a list of requests, including "a public statement on the DNC website and a letter from the chairman to all state and local party chairs, explaining that the party does not support an abortion litmus test and pressuring people to change their position on life." Their requests were denied.

Now, Kelly's statement contradicts Luján's assurances, demonstrating that Democrats are willing to go only so far in supporting pro-life advocates.

Why does the Democratic party do this?  Why is it so beholden to the abortion industry?  Others can answer that question better than I can, but the fact is they are, and until they declare at least some level of independence from it, they will not be a viable moral force in American politics, and it will be difficult for Catholics to support them.   One simply cannot have moral credibility on any issue if one is not willing to protect human life. 

Joseph, glory of home life, pray for us.

The KKK hates Catholics too

In my Twitter feed the other day, someone said to me that “extreme Catholics are just as evil as the KKK.”   I replied that Catholicism is pure goodness, and that it is impossible to be extremely Catholic, and at the same time, evil.

Neo-Nazis stance against non-white people is well known, and only more so in recent days due to the events last weekend.    Their stance and hatred for Jews is well known, as well.   However, less well known, and less publicized, is their equal hatred for Catholics.   The following is a short article by Stephen Wynne of the website Church Militant.   I will have a few comments afterward.

Founded by disbanded Confederate soldiers on Christmas Eve, 1865, the secret fraternal society quickly transformed into a paramilitary group bent on fighting Reconstruction and the advancement of African-American, Jews and Catholics.

The KKK's decidedly anti-Catholic bent appealed broadly to Protestant America. Philip Jenkins, Baylor University professor of history, writes, "The Klan was above all a Protestant movement, whose events were accompanied by beloved hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers,' but its trademark anthem was 'The Old Rugged Cross.'"

Protestant leadership, in fact, were prominent figures within the Klan. "Protestant clergy were prominent in the leadership of this 'crusade,'" he observes, "'consecrated beneath the fiery cross of militant Protestant Christianity.' Every lodge had its kleagle or chaplain who was always a Protestant minister."

The KKK's anti-Catholic bigotry sprang from a broader antipathy toward the Church. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. describes U.S. anti-Catholicism as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people."

Again, Jenkins explains:

Partly, the Klan inherited the very powerful nineteenth century tradition of militant anti-Catholic bigotry, which presented the Church as a vehicle for tyranny, paganism, immorality, persecution and every anti-Christian force. The Klan rehearsed the ancient charges of American nativism about Catholic evils, including the Inquisition, the seditious secret oaths taken by the Knights of Columbus and the conspiratorial nature of the Jesuit order. So much was familiar — but from the 1890s the U.S. experienced a mass immigration largely derived from Eastern and Central Europe, and newer groups were heavily Catholic and Jewish in character.

The KKK underwent rapid growth during the 1910s. By the early 1920s, its membership had swollen to more than 5 million, and its journal, The Fiery Cross, had a readership of 400,000.

Contrary to common perceptions, at that time the Klan was not primarily a Southern phenomenon — its greatest support was rooted in the North and Midwest. Pennsylvania alone counted more than 423 Klan lodges.

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York, Catholic Al Smith became a leading contender for the party's presidential nominee. Hundreds of Klansmen delegates responded by disrupting proceedings, shouting calls for violence against African-American and Catholics and defiling effigies of Smith. Democrats came within one vote of adopting a Klan platform plank voting against it 543 to 542.

In one notorious case in Birmingham, Alabama, Fr. James Coyle was murdered by a Klansman, shot in the head on the porch of his rectory by E.R. Stephenson — a Southern Methodist Episcopal clergyman. Months before Stephenson murdered Fr. James Coyle, his daughter Ruth had converted to Catholicism. Catholics were, in fact, subjected to acts of violence during this period.

The Ku Klux Klan paid for Stephenson's defense, and four of his five attorneys were Klansmen. Not surprisingly, Stephenson was acquitted.

Alabama, for instance, is home to half a dozen KKK affiliates and several other white supremacist organizations. In fact, the state has been bucking a national trend with a recent rise in such groups. In recent decades, overt Klan activity has become less visible, owing to overwhelming rejection of its bigotry. But the organization is still very much alive. Though fewer in number and comparatively more covert, its members remain active across the South. In the 1950s, the KKK experienced another revival in response to the Civil Rights Movement.

Well into the 1960s, the group was burning crosses in front of Catholic churches across the South.

Cullman County is the site of the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, established by EWTN's Mother Angelica in the late 1990s. Reportedly, it also nurtures persistent, anti-Catholic sentiment.

After Mother Angelica began her activities in Hanceville, Alabama, the KKK sought to intimidate her by lighting bonfires and holding meetings along the Mulberry River, opposite the nuns' enclosure.

Even today, anti-Catholicism manifests subtly but surely. Last year in Cullman County — on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday — the Klan distributed fliers recruiting new members.

In Hanceville this spring, the mayor and city council erected directional signage, pointing the way to almost a dozen different Protestant houses of worship. The one church omitted: St. Boniface Catholic Church — a 100-year-old mission located less than three blocks away.

In the town of Cullman, reportedly there is even a clogging group proudly calling itself "The KKK."

So, we can see why I, and many others, fight back when radical Catholics are equated with the KKK.   They have absolutely nothing in common.

This article may seem to put Protestants in a bad light.  Make no mistake, the majority of Protestants during the KKK heyday, and today, are against the KKK.  However, the fact remains the leadership of the KKK was (is)  Protestant, not Catholic, and its platform was (is) intentionally anti-Catholic, even though, unintentionally, it is a repudiation of all authentic Christianity.

Mother Angelica, mentioned in the article above, and whom I also did write a blog post about when she passed away last year, moved from Ohio, and established a monastery in the South, in part, to be a witness against the racism prevalent there, and to court black vocations.   This did not sit well with the local KKK.    Here is more on this from an article in America magazine written by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.:

Once she raised the money for a down payment and bought some land in Irondale, new difficulties arose. The Ku Klux Klan liked Catholics no more than blacks, so they drove by and shot up the house the sisters were using as a temporary convent. Even after they built a proper convent and chapel, a motorcycle gang attacked the place early in the morning, breaking in one door after another as the sisters kept retreating inside. A passerby noticed the motorcycles parked outside the convent and helped chase them away just before they broke down the last door.

So, as we explained in the last post, racism is in no way compatible with Catholicism, and therefore, neither are any of the stances of white supremacist groups.   Radical Catholics and radical KKK are definitely not the same.

Joseph most just, pray for us.

Real moral authority

There has been a lot of debate recently about whether the President has lost his “moral authority” by the way he has handled the recent explicit incident of racism. 

The truth is there is only one moral authority, and that is God.    No man or woman can be a moral authority on anything, unless he or she is given it by God.   A President, when he is speaking on behalf of a nation, is not speaking in the name of God.   Ideally, his words and actions should reflect moral principles, but we really should not consider him having “moral authority”.

Now parents, in their role as the primary teachers of their children, are given by God a moral authority.   Why?  The Catholic religion encompasses both faith and morals.   This is the essence of Christian life.  We believe what we have received and we live what we believe.   Therefore, part of raising one’s children is to teach them morals.   To do that, one must have a certain moral authority.   That means God must grant that person such a gift, and he does just that to parents.  They do speak on behalf of God.  Being a moral authority is intrinsic to the vocation of being a parent.

As we spoke about when we discussed Holy Orders, those who receive Holy Orders (deacons, priests, and Bishops) are given the authority to teach in the name of the whole Church.  So, they too, must be given the gift of moral authority because, as we stated, the Catholic religion entails both faith and morals. 

What I say next may be a little controversial, but we shall see.  In my opinion, deacons, priests, and Bishops (in the supernatural order) and parents (in the natural order) are the only groups of people in this world who have the ability to, and in fact do receive the divine gift of moral authority.  Now one might ask what about others such as teachers, police, and yes, even Presidents?   Those people have to exercise a certain moral authority when they do their jobs, but it is not theirs in the same way that a parent or a priest’s gift of moral authority is.  In the latter cases, it is intrinsic and fundamental to whom they are as persons.   It is not just for a job, it is for their persons.   How about pastors in other denominations and religions?  Well they, too, may exercise a certain moral authority when they do their jobs, but they do not own or possess it to the same degree as a parent or priest because being a pastor is not an ontological reality to the degree that being a parent or priest is.   Becoming a parent or priest changes one in his core, it changes him ontologically.   I do not believe the same holds true in the other cases.

So I think as a society, when we look too much to those who have not received the divine gift of moral authority, but rather, may merely try to exercise such a thing, such as Presidents, it causes us trouble.  No, we must look for genuine moral authority in the right places.

Besides these specific individuals (parents and those in Holy Orders), there is one other entity, a collective body, to which God has given the divine gift of moral authority, and that is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.   The word “magister” in Latin means “teacher” in old ecclesial Latin.   The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, which, as referenced earlier, necessitates teaching faith, and morals.   We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (p.2032):  The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth. To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."

Specifically in the Church, what constitutes the Magisterium?   This teaching authority is exercised by the Bishops, as a collective body, in unity with the Holy Father.   I have referenced before the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to “teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19).   This is what he told his first disciples to do.    He instructed them to go out and teach faith and morals to all people, to the ends of the earth, until the end of the earth.  He gave them moral authority.   This teaching mission has been going on down through the ages, through the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.  We read in paragraph 2033 of the Catechism:

The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

This is the mission the Magisterium carries out today, as the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, continue on with the Great Commission, to teach faith, and to teach morals.   You see the Magisterium exercising its moral authority in Papal encyclicals, in pastoral letters, and at liturgy, especially in homilies.   You see it also when you talk to your priest one on one for direction, in a regular conversation, or in the Sacrament of Penance.  This great gift of the Magisterium is where the world needs to look to today for moral clarity in a world that is often morally confused.

One could get very detailed on the topic of the Magisterium, and the nuances on when and how this teaching authority is exercised in the life of the Church, but that is beyond the mission of this blog.  

Before we close, I want to make two things clear:  

1)      When the Church teaches on faith, and on morals, it is not just teaching on supernatural things.   The faith, yes, is divinely revealed, and we know things in the Faith (like the Trinity) that we could not know in the natural order.  However, grace builds on nature, so the things of the natural order must, too, be under the direction of divine moral authority.   We come to know God, as we have said in prior posts, through the natural word, reason, and Divine Revelation.   The Magisterium, therefore, has the authority to speak on matters that pertain to both the natural and the supernatural.   One can discern morality through the natural world, and through the power of reason.   But Divine Revelation is an aid to this, both to knowing it, and living it out.   The moral authority of the Church sheds light on the natural and supernatural ends of morality.

2)      The Church does not just tell us what the moral rules and regulations are.  She just doesn’t teach us what is right and what is wrong.  She just doesn’t tell us to be moral and then leave us to do so on our own.    No, she, through the seven Sacraments (see my recent series on them); gives us the graces needed to live the moral life, and therefore, the ability to be saved.   She truly is a Mother in this regard.   In fact, the section of the Catechism where the quotes came from in this post is entitled “The Church, Mother and Teacher”.    We can see why.

So, please, when looking for true moral authority in the world, look in the right place.  Look to your family.  Look to your pastor.  But above all, look to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.  

I thank God often for the gift of the Magisterium.    I thank God he did not leave us orphans, but left us a real Mother to guide us in the ways of salvation, so that we can live moral, upright, grace-filed lives in this Earth, and he happy forever  with him in the Kingdom of Heaven, where the joys of living a moral life will be celebrated forever.

Joseph, light of Patriarchs, pray for us.

The sin of racism

The word “racism” is never mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, although it has been mentioned in numerous papal documents, and pastoral letters from individual Bishops and Bishops Conferences.   The idea of racial discrimination, however, is referenced in one paragraph in the Catechism, paragraph 1935.  Here it is in its entirety:

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in 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.

So what the Church is saying is that there is equality to all men and women because they have inherent dignity.  To understand this concept of dignity further, we must take a step back and look at some of the paragraphs that precede this one.

Why do we all possess an equal dignity?  Why can we say this?   The Catechism answers this in paragraph 1934.  We read:

Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

So we are all equal because

1)      We were all created by God.   We all have the same origin. 

2)      We have the same faculties.  We have bodies, souls, wills, and intellect.

3)      We are all redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

4)      We are all called and destined to be with God forever.

To effectively combat racism, I think we need to agree more on why racism is wrong.  You may think we do, but do we really?    It is not merely a humanistic reason that it is wrong.  The reason it is wrong transcends mere humanism and points to divine reasons.   There is no way one can see God as the creator and ruler of all things and think that he made anyone less worthy than anyone else.  Now, some things in the natural order are less dignified (for lack of a better word) than others, because they lack one or more of the characteristics listed above. For example, animals and plants do not have intellects or souls.  However, no human is lacking in any of these things, and therefore, no human is worth any less than another, and we must act accordingly.

The Catechism references this transcendent dimension of man earlier in paragraph 1929:  Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man.  These are kind of strong words!   It says all our efforts at social justice, which necessitate eliminating racism, will fail if we do not acknowledge the transcendent dignity and dimension of man and woman as a son or daughter of God.    Now we say and hear those words a lot that someone is a “child of God”.   Do we really truly believe, though, that there is a God who created us, who loves us, and has destined all of us for eternal life?   Do we seek to know this God?   Do we give him more than lip service?   We must take a hard look at these questions as a society and as individuals , and answer them honestly, especially now in light of we experienced yesterday where clearly man’s transcendent dignity was not respected, or even acknowledged.

In paragraph 1930, the Catechism says something else interesting in regards to respect for every human person, which is necessary for social justice.   Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it.    These rights are prior to society!   In other words, they are natural rights that flow from his inherent dignity before he or she is part of any specific group, family, or nation.   This dignity, as stated above, comes from God.   Just as no government or legislation can legitimately take away one’s dignity, no government or legislation can undo racism/ bestow dignity if there is not an inherent respect for the dignity and rights of every human person as a child of God in the human heart. 

I think we have covered why racism is wrong.  The Catechism does not feel a need to go into great detail.  It is pretty straightforward, and so, we shall go the same route.  As I implied earlier, if you google church and racism, you can find other documents where the topic of racism is specifically addressed.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, put out an entire pastoral letter on racism in 1979, and numerous individual Bishops in America, as well as the conference as a whole, has made shorter statements since then on the topic.   They obviously condemn what happened yesterday.   However, I have found, for the sake of this blog, with this and other topics, just going right to the most authoritative document of Church teaching available today, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, works best.   It is clear, thorough, yet precise, and again, authoritative, which suits our purposes here.   I think the essentials of why the Church is against racism have been stated here.   But if you are interesting in reading more, feel free to!

In conclusion, let me say the following.  We hear all the time about love being the answer to cure racism and other societal ills.  Certainly, love can help, and I am not denying that more love could not hurt.   However, what we really need to do is teach.     We need to teach about God.  We need to teach about why he created, and then redeemed man.  We need to teach about how man can relate to God.   And we need to teach about the end of man, eternal beatitude.   Only when we are more rooted in these truths do we have a better chance of eliminating racism from the face of the earth.   Love is necessary, yes, but so is truth.  Only both together can end racism.  Let us use them both to combat this evil.

Joseph most just, pray for us.

Be not afraid

There is anxiety all around the world these days with the threat of North Korea, which is adding to the already existing trouble spots in other areas, such as the Middle East, parts of South America, and Africa.  Even in western European countries, the threat of terrorist acts remains high.   Here in our own country, we continue to see lives cut short by violence and drugs.  It is easy and understandable to a certain extent to feel anxious and afraid in the times we live in.

However, if we are rooted in the truth and love of Jesus Christ, we truly have no reason to fear!

The phrases “Be not afraid” and “Fear not”, together, are in the Bible over 100 times!  Let us look at a sampling of these:

Do not fear, for I am with you,
    do not be afraid, for I am your God;
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
    I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.   Isaiah 41:10

Then you will prosper if you are careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances that the Lord commanded Moses for Israel. Be strong and of good courage. Do not be afraid or dismayed.  1 Chronicles 22:13

But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.”  Matthew 14:27

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.  John 14:27

I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”  Joshua 1:9

Even though I walk through the darkest valley^]
    I fear no evil;
for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff—
    they comfort me.   Psalm 23:4

The Lord is my light and my salvation;
    whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold^[ of my life;
    of whom shall I be afraid?   Psalm 27

Be strong and bold; have no fear or dread of them, because it is the Lord your God who goes with you; he will not fail you or forsake you.”  Deuteronomy 31:6

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Romans 8:38-39

“Be not afraid” was one of, if not the signature line of the papacy of Saint John Paul II.  In his very first homily as Pope, he had this to say,  “Do not be afraid, open wide the doors to Christ.”     He touched on this idea again when he came to Baltimore in 1995,  “There is no evil to be faced that Christ does not face with us. There is no enemy that Christ has not already conquered. There is no cross to bear that Christ has not already borne for us, and does not now bear with us.”    There are many more examples of him touching on this theme, but I will just give one more.  He said one time, “Do not be afraid. Do not be satisfied with mediocrity. Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.”

This last quote is interesting.  The Holy Father asked us not to be afraid to be excellent people.   He asked us not to be afraid to live full lives with full personalities.   He asked us to be the best we can be.   He knows fear holds us back from all these things.   And he knew, and told us so, that to overcome fear was impossible without a relationship with God who created, redeemed, and sanctified us .  The Father created us.  The Son redeemed us.  The Holy Spirit sanctified, and continues to sanctify us.

Developing our relationship with God is the key to overcoming fear.  We read in all those beautiful verses above, and in others throughout the Bible, about there not needing to be afraid if we know God is with us.  But to really believe that, to really, truly believe with all our heart that we need not be afraid, we first need to take, so to speak, a “leap of faith”, and let God in, so he can show us who he truly is.  Only then can we begin to know (faith), trust (hope), and love (charity) him.    There is no other way to overcome fear other than through getting to know, trust in, love, and serve God.   Fear will ultimately win if we try any other way.

So do not be afraid.  Abide in God.  Seek his will, and do your best to do it every day.  Do this, and peace will come into your hearts, a peace that nothing, and I mean nothing, not even a threat of something as big as a nuclear war, will overcome you.   Let your children come to know God through you and they, too, will not succumb to fear.

Joseph most strong, pray for us.