- Speech at Riverside Church, April 4, 1967

Introduction and Part II

“Holiness, salvation, and a crown of incorruption are given to the man who bears misfortunes cheerfully and with thankfulness. To control anger, the tongue, the belly and sensual pleasures is of the utmost benefit to the soul.”[1]

One of the most difficult things for any of us to overcome is our egotistical pride. But this is exactly what we are called to do as Christians. We must be humble and not think too highly of ourselves. We must be willing to accept the place we find ourselves in life, even if we think we “deserve better.” As long as we think we “deserve better,” we do not know ourselves and what it is we are called to do. We must learn to accept our lot in life. It is not that we can’t work to better ourselves, but we must not assume what the outcome should be. Hard work does not always mean earthly success, however, hard spiritual work in cooperation with grace does lead to the salvation of our souls, and this is far more valuable than anything which we can receive in the world. “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” (Mark 8:36 RSV).  It is not that we cannot find ourselves in a place of prominence, but our joy should be found in the good we do, whether or not the good is appreciated by anyone else in the world. Doing good should be enough to satisfy us. Of course, for most of us, it isn’t. This shouldn’t discourage us: as long as we know the goal and pursue it, grace is more than capable of fulfilling that which we lack and helping us slowly become holy, at which point, such good will be enough.

We should always remember that the good we do might not be something which gets any earthly reward. We shouldn’t be looking for it. We should ignore all the voices around us enticing us to follow foolish goals. They are trying to distract us from our proper goal, God. They want us to be satisfied with something separate from the good God desires for us, something far less than what God will give us if we justly follow him. Of course, when we are weak and fail, God’s gracious love is able to heal us and move us out of the dead-end we have made for ourselves: as long as we shall live, we should never give in to despair. When we see the mess we have made for ourselves, thanks to such grace, we can get out of it and move forward, doing whatever it is we should be doing.

When we are treated unfairly, how we handle such an injustice will show how holy or unholy we have become. If we have our eyes on God, we will know that such treatment purifies our soul and helps bring us closer to God. “Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him” (James 1:12 RSV). Those who do evil should be given pity, because in the ultimate sense of things, their actions hurt them, not us:

For an impious and wicked person will not go unpunished because his wickedness was unable to harm a righteous person. The long-suffering and virtue of the righteous earn a reward not for the one who has inflicted death and torture but for the one who has patiently endured what was inflicted upon him. Hence the latter will be deservedly punished for his fierce cruelty because he desired to inflict evil, while the former has endured nothing evil because, patiently sustaining trials and sorrows in his strength of soul, he caused the things that we inflicted upon him with bad intent to bring him to a better state and to the blessedness of eternal life.[2]

We should seek to convert those who have done evil, to encourage them away from their evil. Indeed, though we should not approve of their actions, we should love them in the way God loves us, forgiving them as God forgives us for our sins. Hatred and wrath destroy the soul, as St. Caesarius of Arles points out: “If anyone harbors hatred for even one man in this world, no matter what he has offered God in good works, he loses it all.”[3]

We must learn to bear patiently with the trials and tribulations which come before us, knowing if we persevere to the end, we shall find our place with God far outweighs any evil which we have suffered. “He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death” (Rev. 2:11b RSV). We will be said to be conquerors, not because we have overcome others, but because they have not overcome us and turned us away from the path of virtue unto the trail of vice. The ascetic path, a path everyone is called to in their own way, is the path which helps us transform ourselves so that we do not feel the sting of evil in our lives. We must learn to control our body and not be controlled by it. Discipline is the key. We must know how to control what we say, to think before speaking, so as not to let the heat of the moment make us say something which we will later regret. Indeed, since Jesus, our Lord, is the Word, the Logos, we must recognize the value of the word and realize this is why James tells us true religion is connected to the bridling of the tongue: “If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain” (James 1:26 RSV). Likewise, other disciplines, like fasting, help keep the body in check, help us see how the body works, so that we do not find the body controlling us and leading us astray due to its passions. It is for this reason the desert fathers believed if one can control oneself through fasting, other passions such as lust or anger can then be put under control: we will have learned how our impulses work and how to act without being overcome by them.

The message here is typical of a monk living in the Egyptian desert, where the fortitude the martyrs showed in their martyrdom was used to encourage the monks in their daily practice. It could easily be from St. Anthony as it could be from a host of other famous desert monks, and as such, we can believe this reflects teachings Anthony gave, whether or not these words were actually written by him.

Any evidence, Mary Ann? Of course, many defenders of Romney tout his conversion to the pro-life cause. And indeed, conversion is great. We love it! But in his only real post-conversion chance to prove himself – on his health care law – Romney fell flat. In fact, if you compare the Romney and Obama health care plans, if you go down the list, you will see clearly that the only real difference is that Romney covered abortion and Obama did not. And as my friend Michael Sean Winters has pointed out, Romney also gave Planned Parenthood a seat on a health care advisory board.

By Glendon’s twisted standard, if Romney is a “great success” for the pro-life movement, then Obama must be a real “pro-life hero”. And yet even a brainwashed true believer like me would never say something so stupid!

In the following clip, one of my heroes, Fr. Greg Boyle, SJ, says loving what and who you find before you is not just the path to heaven …  it is heaven. All the more reason to begin now.

On occasion scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing, candidly. I think we should send a very clear message that if you are a scientist from Russia, North Korea, or from Iran and you are going to work on a nuclear program to develop a bomb for Iran, you are not safe.

Santorum expressed his hope that the United States has been involved in these deaths, and justified the past and future assassinations on the basis that the U.S. has already assassinated an American citizen, so why not?  None of these killings qualify as murder or terrorism, of course, because the United States by definition doesn’t do those sorts of things.  Sure, it may appear to do so, but substantially the actions must be different because of who’s doing them.

This, folks, is the myth of the United States.  It’s one thing that won’t change in 2012.  No hope.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Much as I prefer to differentiate myself from our church’s liberal reactionaries who love to hate the Big Bad Hierarchy’s every move, this worries me a bit.  My concerns are twofold, having to do firstly with the tension between Romanitas and catholicity that we Roman Catholics live in by definition, and secondly with perceptions (however debatable their accuracy may be) of how the RC Church is or isn’t balancing this tension between its R and its C.

It’s a paradox that has been much on my mind, especially as the “Roman” part of it was perhaps the biggest hurdle in my meandering journey into the Catholic Church.  “I want to be Catholic,” I thought many times, “but could I live with being Roman?”  I even wondered at times whether “Roman Catholic” was an oxymoron: if Catholic means universal, does the privileged place given to Romanness contradict the more broadly global nature of the church implied by catholicity?  Ironically perhaps, it was only after I had joined this paradox of a church that I came to the uneasy conclusion that its catholicity does indeed have room for some degree of Romanitas (as long, I hasten to add, as it isn’t universalized in ways that marginalize other cultural expressions), and for those with an affinity for it beyond my comfort zone – precisely because catholicity is too big for anyone’s comfort zone.

But enough about me; let’s talk about our Pope.  His ecclesiology has seemed at times to be disturbingly Eurocentric, which makes the underrepresentation of non-European cardinals somewhat more disconcerting than it already is in itself, giving some credence to the suggestion that his choices demonstrate a lack of concern for reflecting the catholicity of the worldwide Catholic communion.  On the other hand, his perspectives on various other matters are more nuanced than many give him credit for; in view of this, the implication that he is deliberately stacking the deck toward a staunchly conservative successor sounds rather oversimplified.  But even if such accusations are exaggerated, it doesn’t help that his selection lends itself to being construed that way.  Or would such a construal be inevitable in any case?

All motives aside, the real concern regarding the makeup of the conclave is what this will indeed mean for the future of the church.  One thought I find myself wishing I could shake: If our next Pope takes the name Pius XIII, we’ll know we’re in for trouble.

What I never could have imagined then was that Tebow’s celebrity would only surge from that point forward. To my amusement and embarrassment, it is the most read post I have ever written here by a lot—a whole lot.

This week, we find ourselves in total Tebowmania. The evidence is everywhere: Sportscenter is reportedly running full shows dedicated to Tebow today; message boards and comment boxes are piling up with praise and hatred from all sides; Twitter had a record number of tweets-per-second after Tebow led the Denver Broncos to their upset win over Pittsburgh.

Tim Tebow is the most over-hyped, divisive, adored, celebrated, celebrity-athlete we’ve seen since LeBron James took his talents to Miami. (And I would argue that Tebowmania dwarfs “The Decision” by a lot.) This season, I found myself rooting for him casually at first, as a fun side-show, and eventually, by this point, salivating at the idea of him beating the New England Patriots. I admit it: I too, am something of a Tebowmaniac at this point.

Even I—who wrote that post a few years ago—cannot help but giggle and smile at the unlikely coincidence that his big, playoff win came with 316 total passing yards, averaging 31.6 yards per throw.

On the surface, Tim Tebow seems so easy to root for. He works hard against serious odds (his throwing motion is not pretty but his work ethic is) and plenty of doubters; he’s clean cut, doesn’t cuss or get arrested. His image is, at first glance, spotless. Even better: he’s a quintessential underdog.

Because of this prima facie view of Tim Tebow, many wonder what makes him so reviled, hated, and ridiculed. Many incredulous fans want to know what is so divisive about Tebow, beyond the ordinary divisiveness of sports.

The answer is obvious and theological. (It also points to my paradoxical position as a critic of the Tebow family’s ministry, but a Tebow fanatic nonetheless.) Here’s the answer: No one likes to root for someone who probably thinks they are damned to hell.

As a US Catholic, I would be worse than most Catholics in the Philippines “who have never heard the Gospel” (verbatim from The Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association). The soteriological implications are clear, even to me, a (proud) pagan Catholic: as someone who has heard the Gospel in the protestant-evangelical nest of the United States, I am surely damned to hell.

Nonetheless, I root for Tebow for some, strange reason. For no reason at all. A feeling, a hunch, or just for kicks. Akrasia maybe.

At the same time, I am not surprised at those who despise him. I don’t personally hate him for probably thinking I am going to hell, I just think he’s wrong, naive, and silly. In fact, I hope he doesn’t really believe that. But, when I really think about it, it does tend to piss me off.

Don’t be fooled by the silly secular objections to his outward faith, his pious interviews, and alike: the reason nonprotestant-evangelicals don’t like Tebow is rooted in his theology, not his press conferences or genuflecting. Again, with feeling: No one really likes to root for someone who might think they are damned to hell.

The question becomes personal: what the hell am I doing rooting for Tebow?!?!

The other question is more serious: why do faithful Catholics fail to see the obvious contradiction in letting their social and political affiliations blend so closely to those whose theology damns them?

In a recent post, Morning’s Minion referred to GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney as a “corporate ghoul.” Mirriam-Webster defines a ghoul as “a being that robs graves and feeds on corpses.” Considering Romney’s role as a corporate raider who filled the bottomless belly of his bank balance with the muscle and sinew of American companies, it was an apt metaphor, as the following video demonstrates. Titled “King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” the thirty-minute documentary was released three days ago by a PAC supporting Newt Gingrich for president. I know, I know. I’ll have a word about the source in a moment. But first, some thoughts on the video itself.

“When Mitt Romney Came to Town” examines the effects of Bain Capital’s takover of four heartland American companies, as told first-hand by former workers at those now-defunct firms. Through them we see the real effects of the “creative destruction” wrought by finance capitalism à la Romney: the loss of jobs, homes, hope, and dignity; the often insurmountable stress inflicted on families; and the sundering of community ties, all for the sake of rates of return that in context can only be described as indecent. The video also demonstrates the clinical detachment of Romney, corporate ghoul, as he explains that, yes, people get hurt, but that it’s a necessary, even a good thing.

As a piece of political agitprop, “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” is devastating, and some Adorers of the Precious Market (Discalced) are in high dudgeon at Gingrich and his allies for even releasing the film. They suggest it could ultimately help President Obama’s re-election campaign, and they may be right. There is no doubt that “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” is a cynical ploy by Gingrich to grasp the mantle of “friend of the working man,” and there is not a shred of evidence that a Gingrich Administration would do anything but enable and extend the practices that made Mitt Romney and his foreign investors wealthy. But even liars are capable of telling the truth when it suits them, and in “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” Newt Gingrich and company have told a truth about Bain and Romney.

As you watch this, think about the seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching: the life and dignity of the human person; the call to family, community and participation; rights and responsibilities; the option for the poor and vulnerable; the dignity of work and the rights of workers; solidarity; and the care of God’s creation. Ask yourself, does anything about “the Bain Way” align with the way marked out by the Church? Reflect on the words of Benedict XVI – “Man must be at the center of the economy, and the economy cannot be measured only by maximization of profit but rather according to the common good” – and wonder how it is that any Catholic can in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney, corporate ghoul.

(H/T to Lux Occulta for posting this.)  And in my library I have a copy of Cardinal Cushing’s “Questions and Answers on Communism.”

I was also reminded of this by an editorial that appeared in the most recent issue of the Catholic Transcript, the paper of the archdiocese of Hartford.  In full, it read:

Three photographs in sequence, appearing on Page One of the 5 December Wall Street Journal, show Italy’s Labor Minister, Elsa Fornero, tearfully agonizing over new pension restrictions recently enacted there.  The frightening modifications were, she explained, were necessary to avoid “collective impoverishment.”

“Collective impoverishment” is a new phrase that seems to emerge spontaneously from the Marxist and Socialist lexicons.  It describes what happens when, in Margaret Thatcher’s celebrated phrase, irresponsible governments run out of other people’s earnings to squander. 

Besides, in these days when radically Socialistic and Marxist theories are beginning to attract the naive as well as the confused, misinformed and evil-minded, one can profit immeasurably by recalling the German priest, Alfred Delp, who was executed by the Nazis:  “Bread is important, freedom is more important, but most important of all is unbroken fidelity and faithful adoration.”  Dismiss God as primary in life’s quest, and everything else shatters like think glass.  Pope Benedict XVI dwells on this truth in his Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1.  As the poet said, everything betrays him who betrays God.

Reading this I really had to ask myself:  where is this coming from?  As best as I can tell, neither Fornero nor the prime minister she serves, Governo Monti, are socialists.  Both are mainstream technocrats (she is a senior economics professor at the University of Turin, specializing in pensions and social security) and the Monti government is busy implementing the neo-liberal austerity policies demanded by the markets.   The reforms are going to hit a lot of people hard, even if they are necessary to avoid “collective impoverishment” (or, more precisely, the bankruptcy of the Italian government and the ensuing economic collapse which would hurt everyone except the extremely wealthy). 

So why invoke the bogeyman of resurgent Marxism/Socialism?  Is this simply spill-over from the current Republican rhetoric, which sees everything to the left of George Bush Sr. as tinged with pink?  Certainly, the Republican presidential candidates have been in a competition to tar Obama as a Marxist/Socialist/Communist who hates America.   Is this simply a very conservative editor reading this event through a partisan lens?

Perhaps.  But I suspect that this editorial will also resonate with folks who have a nostalgic yearning for a “simpler” time, when the eternal verities of post-Tridentine Catholicism were unchallenged, and the line between Catholicism and Godless Communism was bright and shining, except for those pesky papal encyclicals which called into question free market capitalism.  Alas, the world was never quite that simple, and pining for a past that never was does nothing to address the problems we face today, including “collective impoverishment.”  

We need distractions, we need something to help make us forget we are living in hell. That’s where sports comes into play. It’s certainly a circus, and when the circus comes into town, everything – everything – makes way. This is exactly what is happening in Indianapolis for the Superbowl. The city, the poor people living in it, having to work in the middle of it, are finding out the negative effects the Superbowl will have on them. Street closings will make it impossible for some of them to get out of their home. They might be told they can have shuttles to get them around, but who will be able to go to the grocery store and bring back food in such a crowded shuttle? And how will they get to work – or how will people living in the outskirts of the city get to work? Again, some are being told to pay for parking spots and take shuttles in to the city. Really? Poor workers can afford this extra expense for the sake of the great circus? And, education, what about it? Schools are being affected, classes canceled. Sports, again, are shown to be more important than anything else.

Some people argue that the money collected will validate any difficulty hosting the Superbowl will have on the city. What money? When making deals for the Superbowl, the city gave up all kinds of money, and have given up all kinds of tax collection which they could have had from the Superbowl itself.  Yes, some bars might find they make more money during the Superbowl, but what about other businesses which find they can’t get their workers or clients in to work? What about them? What compensation do they have? History shows, the so-called economic boost of hosting the Superbowl is exaggerated.

We love entertainment, and we let it take over our lives. Sports has become one of the great national idols. We sacrifice so many for the sake of sports. Is it not time we reconsider? Is it not time to take a look to the dark underbelly of the sports industry and what it is doing on our society? It’s not just a one time event. What is taking place in Indianapolis is taking place across the nation all the time. All for the sake of sports. We might be in hell, but we still got to have our football.

The greatest irony behind all of this is that those who argue against “big government” and “government handouts” are among the biggest supporters of all that is given away to the sporting industry. So we can get cooperation after all.  But why is it only for the sake of sports? Isn’t there something better they should be working on?

I stand by everything I wrote in that post, but some qualification may help. It is not my position that everyone’s beliefs and ideas are equal. People who pursue the truth do so to varying degrees. Some get closer than others. Some people don’t give two pellets of newt poop for the truth; they’re devoted to something else. Rest assured I harbor no respect for journeys in selfish self-gratification. I may be a pluralist, but I’m no relativist.

Now to qualify my qualification: it matters what we believe and what think, but it matters more that we’re habitually disposed to the truth and its pursuit. I’m a parent of children whom I am raising in my faith. However well or poorly they are catechized, they may in life stray from my beliefs. That possibility worries me, a little, but I’m more concerned that they maintain an interest in the truth. I’d rather they be passionate about true knowledge and unflinchingly seek it out than they have no care for what’s real while going through the motions of their religion. The former allows for movement toward God; the latter is really only the illusion of the soul’s ascent.

I dare say that faith doesn’t always look like faith. It isn’t only manifested in recited creeds, liturgical celebrations, and having one’s doctrinal propositions in order. If faith is a response to God, then it’s a response to the truth, in which case those who strive after true knowledge by definition have faith. And that gives me hope.