Fear of (F)Lying

When people of good will first learn that the definition of the sin of lying may not include absolutely every single spoken falsehood uttered with the intent to deceive, the obvious reaction is “what next”? Everyone gets to decide for themselves what is a lie and what is not? Doesn’t that make for utter moral chaos?

These are very good questions, which must be addressed seriously. Those who take a less rigorous view on what constitutes lying are not throwing away the Eighth Commandment or declaring open season on truth. We must propose a suitable moral framework—hopefully one that improves on the past efforts—that resolves the many dilemmas associated with this moral issue.

That’s what I will hope to accomplish in my book project on this subject—wherein I hope to propose an approach to lying fully grounded in the moral principles espoused not only by Augustine and Aquinas but also Blessed Pope John Paul II.  There is a way to proceed without losing sight of truth and our obligation to it, while acknowledging that our duty to truth may occasionally keep us from speaking what is altogether truthful.

For example: if one faces the moral dilemma of having to renounce one’s faith in Jesus Christ in order to save one’s own life or even the lives of many others under threat from some terrorist, what should we do? What are we obliged to do? Are we obligated to lie about Jesus in order to save many lives?

My personal response: NO WAY. There is a vast difference between our obligation to “eternal” truths and our obligation to “temporal facts,” so to speak (such as the temporal fact regarding where we have hidden Jews from Nazis). There is no “obligation” to renounce Christ under any circumstances.

These are the kinds of dilemmas which must be considered in order to create a realistic and meaningful framework for understanding truth-telling. Yes, for centuries we’ve “limped” along without resolving the tension between the absolute prohibition regarding lying so-called as proposed by Augustine, with a bit of “mental reservation” thrown in, but my thinking is that we can do better.

And maybe discussing these matters here at “The Body Guard” will shed light on the path ahead.

God bless,

Deacon JR

 

A new criticism has emerged from Catholics originally claiming that the undercover investigations of pro-life apostolate Live Action were examples of sinful lying. The accusation now is that the undercover actors posing as Planned Parenthood clients are actually tempting the PP workers to the sin of murder because they are leading the workers to think they want an abortion.

There are at least three important reasons why this accusation is deeply flawed.

First, how is it possible to “tempt” someone into a sin they have *already* said yes to?

In the work of Live Action, consider the scenario. Planned Parenthood exists to provide abortions. It wants to sell abortions to anyone who is willing to have one. Its workers all work for the same bottom line—help the client obtain an abortion. The only reason for the undercover investigation is because PP is the largest abortion provider around. The staff members’ minds are already conformed to the purpose of selling abortion. Their clients don’t have to beg them for help or “tempt” a worker for an abortion. Rather, the workers are merely there waiting for the client to give them the green light they are already hoping for.

But, one may object, the undercover investigator is tempting them in the here and now to commit a brand-new abortion, regardless of their prior disposition. This is sinful on the part of the *investigator* because they get the worker to consent to assisting them with another abortion! Right?

Well (and here is the second point), lest we too quickly forget, the undercover investigator doesn’t really want an abortion. There is no actual baby in danger of being aborted in this specific case. The Live Action actor obviously knows this and cannot be subjectively guilty of any real moral intention to tempt the PP worker to commit a real abortion. So, subjectively the undercover volunteer does not possess an immoral intention.

This lack of an immoral intention on the part of the investigator, coupled with the PP worker’s undeniably existing immoral intention to help mothers kill babies, leads easily to the conclusion that this is not a case of one person tempting another to sin, as the sin in this instance is already “in progress” so to speak (PP’s existence to help kill babies), and no real “new” sin actually hinges upon the communication underway betwee actor and worker.

This also leads to consideration of a third reason to assert that the “tempting to sin” criticism is untenable.

If it is true that the PP worker is being “tempted to sin” by someone perceived by that worker as merely just one of many countless legitimate clients, then the critics of the LA investigators, for the sake of consistency, must also stand ready to accuse every other actual client of tempting these workers to sin when they consult with PP about getting an abortion. I find this an unseemly proposition, particularly when it would appear that many of the desperate mothers coming to PP are themselves responding to the temptation vividly and publicly offered by Planned Parenthood, and often their response is a result of external pressure. For example, does a pregnant woman being compelled to abortion by an abusive boyfriend really “tempt to sin” the PP worker by merely discussing the sought-after abortion with the worker?

If not, then how can anyone say that an undercover investigator “tempts to sin” the same worker by merely discussing a completely fictitious abortion with the worker?

The accusations being made here are deeply flawed.

So, what then is the proper understanding of what it means to “tempt another to sin”?

Well, firstly, wouldn’t it make sense that the tempter is really seeking to help make it really possible for the “temptee” to commit a real sin? The moral “object” of the human act in question—temptation to sin—has to involve the actual tempter’s willing that the “temptee” commit the sin (and in this scenario, it goes beyond the moral object of obtaining the abortion itself—we’re talking about a necessarily consciously willed act of temptation to commit the “sin” of abortion). Without such an act of the will on the part of the supposed tempter, there simply is no real deliberately willed temptation happening.

Thus, one can rightly conclude that a discussion of a fictitious abortion that takes place between an undercover investigator and a PP worker eager to provide abortion is not an example of the immoral human act referred to as “tempting to sin.”

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Here is a paragraph about lying in the now-classic “The Faith Explained” (a commentary on the Baltimore Catechism Number 3, the “official Catholic Catechism for Adults” of its day) by Fr. Leo J. Trese (Fides Publishers Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1959):

“It follows that there is no such thing as ‘a little white lie’. Moral evil, even the moral evil of a venial sin, is greater than any possible physical evil. It would not be permissible for me to commit even a venial sin in order to save the whole world from destruction. However, it should be mentioned that I may, without sin, give a false answer to someone who is unjustly trying to get the truth from me. What I say in this instance may be false, but it is not a lie. It is a lawful means of self-defense when there is no other alternative.” (p. 277)

Repeating: “However, it should be mentioned that I may, without sin, give a false answer to someone who is unjustly trying to get the truth from me. What I say in this instance may be false, but it is not a lie.”

 “The Faith Explained” bears the Imprimatur of Leo A. Pursley, D.D., Bishop of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the Nihil Obstat of Louis J. Putz, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame.

So I ask once again—how can it be claimed that the “Church has always taught” that even the type of “spoken falsehood” mentioned above (as not being sinful) is really an at-least-venially sinful lie?

How does a pre-Vatican II classic work like “The Faith Explained” receive the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat if this statement by Fr. Trese is false teaching and not really an opinion tolerated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

by Deacon JR

Coming Soon: “The Undercover Catholic: What the Church Teaches”

After a brief but blessed Lenten hiatus, I’m returning to the blogosphere to begin work on a bit of a special project. Eventually this effort will prove to have some connection (even if only slight) to the philosophical and theological framework of Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” and so I make use of my blog site here at “The Body Guard” to make the following announcement.

One of the sore subjects that inaugurated my entry into the blogosphere was the so-called “Lying Debate” in which fellow Catholics began to publicly criticize the pro-life apostolate “Live Action” for its use of undercover video investigations of abortion-industry kingpin Planned Parenthood. Live Action’s Lila Rose found herself defending against charges that the apostolate engaged in sinful acts of lying when posing as clients of Planned Parenthood. Fellow Catholics were (and are) often very public and vocal in claims against Live Action, including divisively stating that Live Action’s undercover work “tempted” others to sin and that supporters of Live Action’s tactics were “dissenting” from Church teaching.

The one thing that the Catholic pro-life effort definitely does *not* need is the scourge and scandal of division in the ranks caused by a lack of understanding what the Church does—and does not—teach about truth-telling and lying. It is time to close ranks once again and stop needlessly spending energy on something that does not—repeat, does not—involve “dissent” from Church teaching.

It’s time to set the record straight and heal the division. “The Body Guard” blog site will become the home of a serialized e-book titled The Undercover Catholic: What the Church Teaches. Over the course of many months, I will be composing and posting what will eventually become the substance of this e-book, content that can be publicly considered, commented upon, and hopefully improved upon along the way. Once I have formulated and organized the serialized material into final book chapters, I’ll make the book available as a free downloadable resource accessible to all.

The book will cover all major aspects of the issue of lying and Church teaching, as succinctly as possible, and will conclude with a proposed contemporary framework within which the moral use of undercover work is accommodated.

During this more public “composition” phase of the e-book, I want to make it known that any speculative content I may write on faith and morals will be offered only as theological opinion and will be offered in complete submission to the Church’s Magisterium. And, upon completion of a final manuscript, I will submit the text to my local ordinary for the imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Soon I will publish a draft table of contents for the e-book and begin work on the various sections and chapters to be released in series. The order in which the content is posted may or may not match the final chapter order, but eventually all the substance of the book will have appeared here first for consideration and comment.

Meanwhile, please pray for the important work being done by Live Action on behalf of the innocent unborn. Please pray also for those who currently cannot see that the divisions of the last few years are unnecessary and fruitless. Please ask God to give us all an increasingly clear sense of unity and communion as we seek to do His Will.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

On this World Communications Day, I can confess to learning something new about communication: I’ve learned that there are really two kinds of “insults”—a “charitable insult” and an “uncharitable insult.” And I’ve learned that “charitable insults” are morally permissible. Did you already know this? If so, apologies for my being surprised to learn it.

The immediate question arises, of course: How does one tell the difference between a “charitable” insult and an uncharitable one? A simple example should suffice. Consider these two statements:

1. You are a moron.

2. You are a moron.

Now, it’s hard to get more clear than this. Anyone who is observant can tell that the charitable insult is statement number one. Still not clear to you? One more try, then:

1. He is a jerk.

2. He is a jerk.

Did you get it that time? Well, obviously the answer this time is statement number *two*, not one.

Probably hard to keep up with, so I’ll explain: You see, the first “you are a moron” statement—and the second “he is a jerk” statement–are both charitable because the person speaking them was inspired to do so by the example of Jesus Christ, and the person speaking the other statements was not.  In the Gospels, Jesus, as everyone knows, occasionally resorted to personal “insults” when speaking to groups like the scribes and Pharisees, Whom He called “hypocrites,” “fools,” “brood of vipers,” and “whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones,” etc.

And so, if it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us, right? If someone needs rebuking, or if you don’t agree with what someone else is saying or doing, just lob a “charitable insult” into the conversation—it’s what Jesus would do…

But now wait just a minute, someone is bound to object. What about the Biblical prohibitions against insults? What about the Old Testament’s prohibition in Sirach* and what about Jesus’ own words in the Sermon on the Mount** (see end notes)?

Answer: I’m told those passages only apply to the *uncharitable* insult. So, if you want to personally insult someone out of a sense of love and concern, then go ahead—you’re in the clear.

If you are now confused and perplexed, then I’m in good company. I was greatly perplexed by this line of defense offered regarding why it’s sometimes okay to be personally insulting toward another human being, particularly in situations in which the person being insulted has previously exhibited either poor or downright evil speech or behavior. If such a person’s words or actions in some way offend against truth, the reasoning would seem to go, they open themselves up to the “ad hominem” personal insult or attack from the rest of “us” who are not speaking or behaving in that fashion.

So, for example, if I engaged someone like Protestant Reformer Martin Luther in discussion about matters of faith, because of his heretical and untrue statements, I would not be at fault for calling him names like “moron” or “idiot” or “devil’s spawn” etc.—rather, I’d be imitating Christ Himself.

Or so I’m told.

But the honest truth is that I reject such thinking, emphatically, as false.

So, how can one explain exactly why an appeal to the example of Jesus actually does not legitimize the use of insult between persons? I would like to offer three reasons why His example does not translate to you and me in this situation.

1. Jesus is God, the Creator and Author of human personhood.

Because Jesus is indeed the Author of my very personhood, He has the authority and right to judge me as a person. Jesus’ behavior in the Gospels is to be understood in the context of one “teaching with authority” and “not like the scribes and Pharisees.” And part of that authority derives from that fact that He is God Himself. He is the judge not just of the human heart but of the whole human person, and as such He possesses the prerogative to make statements about my personhood that my fellow creatures, frankly, lack the authority to make. Jesus has the right to call me a fool because He sees and knows all and particularly because my “personhood” is totally dependent upon Him. This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me regarding His use of language that some of His hearers found insulting. Saying a pharisee was a whitewashed tomb is not so much a “charitable” personal insult except for the fact that it was said by the One who created the person in question. And in any case, it is more an act of justice and judgment than merely an act of charity.

2. Insult places the dignity of another human person beneath one’s own dignity and is a form of pride.

We really have to face the fact that calling someone a “moron” is an attempt to subordinate the dignity of one person beneath our own dignity. That is, there is always an unspoken addendum to every insult. It goes like this:

“You are a [insert ad hominem label here] ! [And I’m not…!]”

Without the implicit “And I’m Not” behind every insult, the insult really doesn’t work. “You’re a jerk!” doesn’t work if the subtext is really “You’re a jerk and so am I!” No, the insult is dependent upon the chasm established between the insult-er and the insult-ee. If I say you are a jerk, it’s because I want to establish the superiority of my position over yours. I’m saying that “the reason he thinks/believes that way is because he is a jerk and I’m not; he’d agree with me if he weren’t a jerk.”

And this, of course, is specious reasoning, smacking of the vice of pride, depending upon how deeply engaged we are in the “And I’m Not” subtext. We can puff ourselves up by putting someone else down.

Put another way, the insult is a “reduction” of the human person’s full value, accomplished by the obscuring of the person’s full dignity by emphasizing a specific singled-out dimension of the person, regardless of whether that dimension is rightly or wrongly identified (e.g., You = stupid). Also, this is often the language used to describe the marring of the human person that occurs in pornography, and in this sense it’s not too over-the-top to say that communication that makes use of personal insult becomes as it were a form of pornography. By seizing for ourselves a prerogative that rightly belongs to God—the judging and labelling of the human person—we “objectify” that person in a manner similar to the objectification of the persons engaging in pornography. Our communication is, so to speak, “pornified.”

3. An insult offered with good intention is objectively indistinguishable from an insult offered with bad intention and is therefore utterly devoid of positive value in human communication.

And here we come full circle, given that this post begins with an illustration of this third point. Even if we make the claim that my personal “insult” toward another is intended with complete charity, regardless of intention, the objective use of certain words as personal insult (such as “you are a total idiot”) remain, from the perspective of the recipient, merely offensive and off-putting. Thus, any sense of communication being or becoming an experience that is really an “exchange of persons” is destroyed. And this is key: if we are to communicate effectively, it must be through striving to communicate the authenticity of the human person, who is both seeking to understand and to be understood. Name-calling is the exact antithesis of this goal, and I daresay it’s a goal apparently shared by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, if his World Communications Day statements of recent years are to be taken seriously.

So, while it may be true that I am, let’s say, an “idiot” or a “jerk,” it remains *God’s*  job—not anyone else’s—to put such a label upon me, because I am a human person He and only He has created.

God bless you!

Deacon JR

*Sirach 23:15: A man accustomed to using insulting words will never become disciplined in all his days.

**Matthew 5:21-22: You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “you shall not kill, and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire. [Ignatius Study Bible footnote adds re "you fool!": The Greek transliterates an Aramaic term that implies a lack of intelligence. It is an insult that means soemthing like "empty head" or "numskull"]

Dear readers:

As the new year rings in, I will soon have been blogging at “The Body Guard” for almost a year. Not nearly long enough to be either seasoned or concise or very pithy, to be sure. But this post is just a reflection on what I hope “The Body Guard” may become over time.

My great hope is that this blog can help bring people together toward an ever-deeper understanding of the work of JPII and the phenomenal (or is that phenomenological?) insights of the TOB corpus. Under the aegis of the “communication covenant,” let us respectfully and charitably break open the great mysteries of life and love expressed so beautifully by our late Holy Father, not only in the “TOB” general audiences, but also throughout all the writings of this deep-thinking and deep-feeling Servant of the Servants of God.

Let’s look ahead—how can we “live out (and live in)” the Theology of the Body?  How can we reflect upon the “great mystery” that draws us into the very life and love of God Himself?

I hope this blog will indeed help us get the content of TOB “right,” and indeed this has been my initial focus and will continue to be a vital element, but I’d like to focus more time and energy on how the beauty of TOB can take root in our lived lives, so to speak. Particularly, I’d like to explore more deeply the connection between its insights and our call to holiness, culiminating in our universal calling to intimate union with the Divine.

As I begin to chart this future course for the blog’s year ahead, I welcome any and all suggestions or ideas for topics or for how to make “The Body Guard” better and better along the way.

God bless you all!

Deacon JR

TOB Pioneer’s Brand-New Book Is a Compelling Point of Convergence of ‘Head’ and ‘Heart’

Book Review: ‘Fill These Hearts: God, Sex, and the Universal Longing,’ by Christopher West [Image Catholic Books (Crown Publishing), release date: Jan. 8, 2013]

Being a native St. Louisan born in the late 1960s, I grew up knowing the story of the construction of our city’s greatest symbol—the St. Louis Arch, the “Gateway to the West.” I’ve seen the iconic images of the construction of the Arch, its two legs reaching heavenward, kept stable by ever-ascending scaffolding, until the long-awaited day that the final piece of construction, the “keystone” piece of the Arch, was put in place 600-plus feet above the Earth. And there it stood, in three dimensions—the three dimensions of physical space. But I think even the magnitude of this earthly achievement pales in comparison to the three “D”s that give shape and size to every human person’s lifelong journey, as told to us by author Christopher West in his latest book, “Fill These Hearts: God, Sex, and the Universal Longing.”

What are West’s three “D”s?—desire, design, and destiny. More on these in a moment. But let’s just say at the outset that the “Arch” comparison is not to move us closer to some rather terrible pun on “Gateway to the West” (surely someone  was thinking I’d go there, since I’m capable of some awful punnery…), but rather to make the point that, after reading “Fill These Hearts,” I’ve come away convinced that West’s latest book is effectively the “keystone” creative work in which West is able to bring together the two elements of “head” and “heart” that have been so foundational in his pioneering work as an expositor of Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”

Think of it this way: over the last several decades many have been seeking to discover (“head” knowledge) just what JPII was “thinking” in his monumental TOB corpus, but few other than Christopher West have also been building upon the other essential and foundational “leg” of this particular “arch,” still under construction—the “heart.” And it is here that one encounters the great connection between TOB and the spiritual life—the “way of Christian perfection” espoused by so many of the mystic Saints, Doctors, and theologians of the Church, particularly St. John of the Cross.

The beauty of West’s writing style in “Fill These Hearts” is that there is little or no sign of the internal construction that is necessary to arrive at the top-center “keystone” of this beautiful TOB “Arch” he has constructed. Just like the St. Louis Gateway Arch, all cables and elevators and generators that get people to and from the top are tucked away, leaving the tourist left to merely enjoy the breathtaking view at the top. Such a masterful approach! Here is an author who can at one turn leave a reader who is just learning about TOB tantalized by the philosophical richness of Karol Wojtyla’s “Love and Responsibility” and at the next turn can encourage the TOB expert to consider the depth of Christian truth found in “Toy Story 3”—not many writers can move so effortlessly from place to place.

This “keystone” work brings together “head” and “heart” in such a way as to invite readers of any background to consider the simple truths that are deep within us, inscribed in us by God Himself. Desire, design, and destiny—the “3D” approach West takes in the book—help to shape the author’s gentle yet joyful and deeply personal understanding of the God-given meaning of our human existence. In terms familiar to most of us, West paints a vivid portrait of our experience of “desire” for God and for the joy He can bring us, our discovery of God’s “design” for us as body-soul human persons, and the “destiny” He calls us to—eternal and intimate union with the One Who created us.

And West does so unabashedly, willing to share his own hard-earned experience to illuminate the message, while also reaching within secular and pop culture to pull back the veil on those “glimmers” of truth that occasionally sparkle in the midst of a decidedly confused culture—“God moments” surrounded by the dreck and noise of Godless distraction. In West’s hands, these become like beacons of hope that speak to the crying universal longing within us all, pointing to the path that takes us beyond the plastic world of our own creation and toward the infinite and real beauty of God Himself.

In a sense, this is a book unlike any other West has written. As West himself indicates, the book takes its cue from the “Fill These Hearts” live multimedia events West has been part of for several years now. It is truly a “dialogue between sacred and secular,” as West says at the beginning of the book—yet another “arc” of conversation that the author links with this keystone effort. West also easily bridges the gap between two other seemingly disparate constructs: theology and pop culture, two areas of study he continues to passionately pursue.

This is the kind of book you can give to a Christian, a non-Christian, a poet, a scientist, a scholar, a laborer, etc.—at just about 170 pages of decidedly down-to-earth, Scripturally rooted reflection, I simply can’t imagine anyone closing the cover thinking they’ve wasted their time—and this could well be a life-changing resource for so many struggling to make sense of the three “D”s of desire, design, and destiny.

Just one more word of encouragement to future readers of “Fill These Hearts” (available beginning January 8, 2013) from this St. Louis home-towner who knows a thing or two about arches: “Dear reader—welcome to the top of the TOB “Arch”; I know you’re going to enjoy the view!

God bless you,

Deacon JR

[TWITTER: #FTHbook ]

Back in 1994 (can’t believe it was that long ago), I penned a set of lyrics with a woman named Pat Decker, in memory of her 18-year-old daughter Denise, who was murdered.  Pat has since passed away (God rest her soul), but I think she would be pleased to see these lyrics shared at this time, in hope that they might help give voice to the grief of the parents of the young souls slain in Connecticut.

God bless those whose innocence and beauty we will always cherish–our children.

Deacon Jim Russell

I Want to Know Why

(lyrics by Jim Russell & Pat Decker)

 

You were my child, and I watched you grow,

So warm and mild, but how could I know

Your tender heart would be taken from me–

Our lives torn apart so senselessly?

I want to know why I’ll never get to say goodbye,

I want to know why the world took you from me,

I want to know when the violence will end,

Before another child dies, I want to know why.

 

Now I call your name like a desperate prayer

And sometimes the pain is too much to bear.

You helplessly stood like a lamb to be slain.

Where is the good? And who can explain?

I want to know why I’ll never get to say goodbye,

I want to know why  the world took you from me,

I want to know when the violence will end,

Before another child dies, I want to know why.

 

Is there a song, a symbol or word;

A wisdom so strong, it begs to be heard?

To heal angry hearts and help sorrow cease,

Igniting the spark that brings our lives peace?

I want to know why I’ll never get to say goodbye,

I want to know why  the world took you from me,

I want to know when the violence will end,

Before another child dies, I want to know why.

 

Before another child dies, I want to know why….

 

Dear Readers:

First, a big and hearty welcome to all of you who are visiting my blog for the first time! A special shout out to those listeners of “Catholic Answers Live” who are visiting in conjunction with my guest appearance on the 10/29 program titled “The Do’s and Don’ts of the Catholic Blogosphere.”

Second, a disclaimer: I’m just a “baby blogger” and make no claim to mastery of this form of new media, but I’m an eager learner and a “combox” veteran—thus my real passion and concern for this topic of encouraging the idea of “keeping holy the blogosphere.”

Third, don’ t hesitate to drop me an e-mail (thebodyguardtob@aol.com)  or leave a comment if you have any questions or thoughts about this topic or anything else on my blog.

Fourth, see the twelve steps below for some brief tips on how to safely move about the blogosphere while continuing to grow in holiness (not an easy task!).  If you aren’t able to listen to the CAL program live or on podcast and would like me to expand on these steps here on the blog, just let me know and I will gladly do so.

And, lastly,  God bless you!

Deacon JR

“A Theology of the Blogger”:  Twelve Steps to Holiness in the Blogosphere     

1. Create Your Own ‘Communication Covenant’ (safeguard the communion of persons)

2. Ban Your ‘Self’ From Your Own Blog (don’t write while ‘Irish’)

3. Use a ‘Gravatar’ (use your own picture so others see the person behind the words)

4. Beware the ‘Tone Monster’! (avoid massive ‘tonal’ disconnect between writer/reader)

5. Focus on Facts (establish the common ground founded on truth and not opinion)

6. Combox, not ‘Combat’ (negate the intoxicating cycle of verbal violence and the need to ‘win’)

7. Disarm the Nuclear Arsenal (eliminate biting sarcasm, ad hominem, “us/them”)

8. Don’t Be Relentless (avoid ‘last-word-itis’)

9. Holy Indifference (detach from one’s desire to protect reputation and good name)

10. Hyper-Humility (recognize your own non-infallibility and be first to forgive and seek forgiveness even when wronged)

11. Be Light-Hearted (use a bit of humor, but at your *own* expense, not the expense of others)

12. Imitate the Whole Christ (love your neighbors—all of them—and don’t excuse uncharitable behavior by pointing to examples of Jesus’ own “anger” or “name-calling”—He’s God, you’re not)

PS: For more ready-made resources touching on this theme check out blogger extraordinaire Brandon Vogt (www.brandonvogt.com) and his book “The Church and New Media.” Also, an affordable new resource by T.J. Burdick, a $1.99 e-book titled “One Body, Many Blogs” can be found at www.onebodymanyblogs.com   JR

It may be hard to believe, but we have had the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for about twenty years. How did we ever live without it? How did we know what the Church taught before the CCC?

Or: How have so many of us managed to forget the methods that were used to understand and identify the levels of certitude of Church teaching prior to the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

There is a detectable trend among some Catholics today to enshrine the CCC as something more than it really is—to exalt it almost to a “Sola Catechisma” (the “Catechism alone” determines what Catholics really believe) status. We criticize some for taking a “sola fide” or “sola Scriptura” approach to faith. Why are some Catholics falling into a “Sola Catechisma” approach to the Catholic faith?

Not that the CCC is anything less than a “sure norm” for understanding the Catholic faith. It really is a sure norm. No one should be criticized for following the teaching found in the CCC. But if that is the case, then why am I resorting to the label “Sola Catechisma” and objecting to using the “catechism alone” to determine Catholic belief?

Well, for two reasons: first, the CCC was never intended to be used in isolation either from its official source material or from the tremendous patrimony of magisterial teaching and “common teaching” it is repeating (yes, I said “common teaching”—more on that later). Second, the existence of the Catechism does not dispense the faithful from the obligation to understand adequately the different levels of authority that are connected to the diverse content found in the CCC.

An immediate difficulty or two arises with these two reasons: first, we who read the CCC have to do the necessary “homework” (e.g., reading the footnotes and sources provided in the CCC).  Second, the CCC was from the beginning structured to avoid declaring the degrees of “certitude” that correspond to the various teachings included in it, with the intention of showing the organic unity of the truths and norms it contains.

This can—and should—leave readers of the CCC wondering whether every last word and thought found in the CCC requires the same level of assent, or even simply a “basic” level of assent—after all, isn’t everything in the Catechism “magisterial”?  Well, yes—and no. A “universal catechism” like this is indeed a product of the ordinary papal magisterium, published as it is under the pope’s authority. But it does not follow that everything contained in it suddenly either is “reduced” to the level of the ordinary papal magisterium (in the case of dogmas) or is “elevated” to the level of papal magisterial teaching (in the case of “common teaching”).

The fact is—and it’s a bothersome fact to those with “Sola Catechisma” tendencies—the Catechism of the Catholic Church does contain some “common teaching of Catholic theology”—teaching that does not “settle” or “define” certain aspects of the Catholic faith, but instead gives us the common opinion (yes, “opinion”) of the majority of Catholic theologians. Common teaching is, strictly speaking, “non-magisterial,” in the sense that “magisterial” is used to today to refer to offical teaching originating with the pope and bishops that “settles” any questions regarding a matter of faith and morals.

When this is properly understood, the wheels completely come off the vehicle that is “Sola Catechisma.” When it comes to statements in the Catechism that are “common teaching,”  the statements represent the “safe” approach to the topic—Catholics may “safely” subscribe to the views espoused in “common teaching.” But “common teaching” statements are not exclusive–common teaching statements do not require the faithful to assent to the statement in a way that excludes other tolerated opinions on the subject.

But wait, you may ask—everything in the CCC doesn’t require even the most basic form of “assent” that is required toward “official” magisterial teaching of the Pope and bishops? The answer is “no.” And the distinction is this: there are some things in the CCC—very few things, but some—that have not been settled by the magisterium when it comes to faith and morals, and thus there are no official statements from pope and bishops to form the core of a particular teaching that is addressed in the CCC. Instead the CCC must rely upon what evidence there is, typically from the opinions of Catholic theologians who are faithful to the Magisterium and have respectfully considered the issue in question. This is what “common teaching of Catholic theology” is at heart.

A “Sola Catechisma” adherent would tend to think that, merely by being published in a “universal catechism”, it means a teaching is “settled” by the magisterium and that no alternate opinions are tolerated, but this is not the case, and this is seen most clearly when one examines the foundational documents associated with the creation of the CCC. “Universal catechisms” do not “settle” or “create” or “elevate” teaching. They do not create new “doctrine”. Whatever the certitude of the teaching is going “in” to the CCC, it’s the same coming “out” of the CCC. If it’s common teaching coming “in” to the CCC, it’s common teaching coming “out” as well.

Let’s take two examples, first a “faith” example, and second a “morals” example.

The classic “faith” example is the question of what happens to infants who die before baptism.  Theologians have wrestled with this question for centuries, and the emerging “common teaching of Catholic theology” once upon a time was the existence of a “limbo of the infants.” Not only theologians, but Catholic school teachers and even bishops (such as Bishop Fulton Sheen) taught this “common teaching” to the faithful. Yet, it was never espoused as the only “permissible” view on the subject despite being taught to the faithful by bishops and Catholic schools worldwide at one time.

Fast-forward to the content of the CCC on this subject. All things being equal, we might expect this “common teaching” to appear in the CCC. But, over the course of the last several decades or more, the “common teaching of Catholic theology” has continued to shift away from the existence of a “limbo of the infants.”  The CCC acknowledges this shift from prior “common teaching” by merely commending such infants to the “mercy of God.”  Even the Church’s own International Theological Commission took up this question long after the CCC was published (“The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, 2007). The CCC did not “settle” the limbo question at all—it merely expressed the current “common teaching” on the issue in our day. Doing so does not exclude the theory of limbo among tolerated opinions, either, as the ITC document indicates by stating the existence of limbo remains “a possible theological hypothesis.” The CCC did not “settle” any teaching here, but merely expressed the current “common teaching” rather than a previous common teaching.

And so the “limbo” example shows how “common teaching” does not give us the “last word” on a matter of Catholic teaching.

The next example of a “common teaching” in morals is the real elephant in the living room for many Catholics leaning toward a “Sola Catechisma” mentality: the “common teaching of Catholic theology” on lying found in the CCC.  It’s of more immediate interest to Catholics ever since the teaching was brought to the forefront by bloggers criticizing the “sting” methods of the pro-life group “Live Action” against Planned Parenthood (please note: this article is not intended to discuss the merits of either side of that issue, but is instead intended merely to assert the historical fact that the CCC teaching on lying is “common teaching” and thus the Magisterium can and does tolerate more than one view on what constitutes lying).

Sadly, the “Sola Catechisma” tendency has made it so that many Catholics are not even aware that the teaching on lying in the CCC is “common teaching.” But there is a mountain of evidence attesting to this historical fact. It’s a provable matter of searching the historical record for 1) a teaching from the pope and bishops officially declaring and defining the teaching now found in the CCC on lying (note: there is none, which is why there are no magisterial footnotes in the CCC connected to this teaching) and 2) examining the description given to this teaching in Catholic theology prior to its appearance in the CCC.

In short, there has never been a time prior to the CCC in which either Catholic theologians or the Magisterium declared that the teaching was anything other than the “common teaching of Catholic theologians.” Catholic encyclopedias and Catholic moral theology manuals from recent  eras clearly identify the teaching as such. If over the last twenty years we had not somehow lost sight of the pathway that produced the CCC teaching on lying, we would not have developed the “Sola Catechisma” tendency that has caused some to “elevate” this teaching to “magisterial” status and insisting it requires the assent due official teachings directly taught by the pope and bishops.

This has even caused some to accuse fellow Catholics of “dissenting” from the Magisterium because they propose alternate views regarding whether lying is “intrinsically evil” (the common teaching). This could be so easily avoided by just researching the historic record that reveals the common teaching of Catholic theology to be the source for the CCC’s teaching on lying.

“Sola Catechisma” is not a positive tendency at all. We Catholics have had the Catechism for only twenty years, but we have to begin to understand more fully what it is, and what it is not. It cannot and does not stand alone, but it is a “sure norm” and a “safe” resource for understanding and believing the Catholic faith. Even so, we are not excused from our obligation, as Catholics, to understand the depth and breadth of its teaching, particularly when the teaching expressed is “common teaching” arising from Catholic theology rather than from the Church’s magisterium.

Unless and until we can put the CCC in its proper place and avoid the pitfalls of  “Sola Catechisma,” we will continue to run the risk of falling into errors and divisions that only serve to weaken the Body of Christ. Instead, let’s embrace the beauty of the CCC and use it in complete harmony with the immense treasury of resources that have come before it.