HATS OFF TO CARDINAL GEORGE: GAY MARRIAGE, PICKING FIGHTS, AND WHAT REALLY MATTERS

11/18/13

In a letter distributed through the 11/11 parish bulletins to all Catholics in the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George reiterated his stance on same sex marriage; i.e., he said that the law passed by the Illinois legislature legalizing such unions “will contribute over the long run to the further dissolution of marriage and family life, which are the bedrock of any society.”

No surprise there.  But it was his proclamation that

“We have lived with bad laws before, and we will do our best to adjust to this one for the sake of social harmony.”

that was amazing.

Depending on where one stands on the issue of gay marriage, this is either profound progress or outright surrender on the part of the Cardinal.   No matter where one stands on the issue, however, one has to be shocked by the Cardinal’s concession to social harmony and has to ask one’s self what happened to bring about such a change in the Cardinal’s attitude.  Perhaps Pope Francis talked with the Cardinal and his colleagues about framing one’s opposition to gay marriage or maybe Cardinal George and his confreres simply got the message that, yes, opposition to gay marriage remains a tenet of the faith but that how one opposes gay marriage, or stands up for any of the Church’s beliefs, has consequences for the Church, for the world, and for fulfilling our missions as disciples of Jesus Christ.

Note that the Cardinal minced no words in decrying gay marriage as an assault on the bedrock of society.   So some of those who share his belief that such unions are abominations before God are doubtless confused, angry, or both.  Why, they might ask, isn’t the Cardinal standing up for his beliefs and the beliefs of the Church?  Is he backing down just to keep the peace?  If so, wouldn’t that run counter to the way the Cardinal, and the Church, normally operates?   They might even argue that Jesus never backed down.   Jesus stood up for what He believed in regardless of the consequences; after all, that is what got Him crucified and, ultimately, what led to our salvation.

Those who make that argument are for the most part correct; Jesus did stand up for what he believed.  But He also picked his fights carefully.  When it really mattered, he fought, fought hard, and suffered the consequences.  But discretion was often the better part of valor for Jesus.  He didn’t fight for the sake of fighting; that would be very unlike Him, though not, it would appear, unlike many in the Church hierarchy, but I digress.  And when it didn’t really matter, or didn’t matter all that much, Jesus didn’t bother.  It simply didn’t make sense to make enemies over tangential issues.  

The best example of this can be found in Matthew 17, 24-27.  The collectors of the temple tax asked Peter if Peter’s “teacher” (Jesus) paid the temple tax.   Peter, being the impetuous guy he was (see my 11/21/12 piece, WAS ST. PETER AN ALCOHOLIC?), first answered “yes”… and then checked with his teacher.  Jesus first firmly made the point that He and his disciples, the “subjects” of the kingdom of God, are exempt from paying the temple tax.  But then he went on to say

“But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up.  Open its mouth, and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax.  Give that to them for me and for you.”  (emphasis mine) Matthew 17, 27

This is more than an entertaining, humorous, some might say cute, story.  And, like every miracle story, it tells us a lot more than that Jesus was capable of doing miracles. 

The story was designed to tell the people for whom Matthew wrote, largely Jewish Christians, that, yes, as Christians they indeed no longer had to pay the temple tax.  They were no longer subject to the law and rarely, if ever, worshipped in the temple, and thus were under no obligation to pay for the temple’s upkeep.  But, even though members of Matthew’s congregation, if you will, were under no obligation to pay the temple tax, they should do so anyway because it wasn’t worth the fight, wasn’t worth the price they’d pay just to make an ancillary point.  Why make the Jewish authorities angry over something that, in the great scheme of things, wasn’t all that important?   Did it make sense to antagonize devout Jews, or even not all that devout Jews, and thus lose any chance of winning them over to Christianity, just to make a point about something that didn’t go to the core of the faith?

While some might argue about whether civil gay marriage goes to the core of the faith, the message that Matthew and Jesus were sending to the early Jewish Christians is the same message that Jesus is sending us today:   Don’t sweat the small stuff.   Even if you are right, is it worth it in the larger scheme of things to send a message of intolerance to our brothers and sisters in Christ?   Wouldn’t we be better off promoting harmony among our brothers and sisters than we would be promoting misunderstanding, and even hatred, by standing firm in order to make a point?

Yours truly, for one, applauds the Cardinal on his desire to promote harmony rather than make a point on civil same sex marriage.  That I feel that civil same sex marriage is, at best, an ancillary issue for the Church doubtless contributes to my warm feelings toward the Cardinal’s new approach.  What is important is the greater emphasis the Cardinal places on promoting harmony in society, which is without a doubt one of our duties as followers of Jesus Christ and indeed goes to the core of our faith.

IMITATIONS OF CHRIST: THE FIRST THING YOU’RE GOING TO NEED IS A $21,000 BATH TUB

10/24/13

Pope Francis suspended Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of the German diocese of Limburg yesterday.  No, the Pope did not suspend Mr. Tebartz van-Elst for displaying a lack of economy in the use of words and letters in his name.  The Pope suspended this popinjay for gaudy, tacky, extravagant displays of wealth, the most salient of which was a $42 million upgrade to his residence, which included such emulations of the life of Jesus as a $21,000 bath tub.

Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz’s defenders, and there are many, argue that the good Bishop’s residence included a conference center and offices; the entire $42 million wasn’t spent on the bishop’s residence.   Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz’s defenders actually make this argument with a straight face, as if every mid-sized diocese needs a $42 million conference center in its bishop’s residence.   Such inane defenses leads one to ask not why Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz was suspended but, rather, why the suspension was limited to him, who differs only in degree from many (Yours truly is comfortable saying “most.”) of his brethren in the worldwide conference of bishops of the Church.

The silly and showy spending of the likes of Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz is one of the Church’s most glaring scandals for a number of reasons.   The bishops, like all Catholics, indeed, all Christians, are here to imitate our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.   We don’t know exactly what imitation of Christ means in today’s world, especially as it relates to the acquisition and application of material goods.  While Jesus tells us what it means (Matthew 6, 25-34, which includes (31-33)….

“So do not worry and say ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’  All these things the pagans seek   Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.  But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be given you besides”.),

we have a difficult time applying these assurances and admonitions to our modern, complicated world.   But we do know two things about emulating Christ.  First, we all fall short in this pursuit.  Second, emulating Christ does not involve $42 million houses and $21,000 bath tubs.

Further, from a purely practical standpoint, the behavior of Mr. Tebartz-van Eltz and the legions of his brother bishops who doubtless wish they, too, could attain such heights of tackiness and phony elegance is scandalous to the Church for financial reasons beyond the obvious.   Simply put, people understandably have a hard time giving money to people who live better than they do.   When they see such poltroons as Tebartz-van Eltz living in opulence, they start to wonder where exactly their money is going.  Again, such, er, upscale lifestyles among churchmen is not at al unique to Tebartz-van Eltz.  To use an example that hits close to home, Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago, lives in the most expensive single family home in the city of Chicago.  Why?   Don’t think people don’t take such things into consideration when they are deciding how much, or even if, to give to the Church.

Finally, forget about spending other people’s money.   Any person, but especially any man, who spends such vast amounts of even his own money on his clothes, home, cars, or other trappings of wealth is a fool, a narcissistic fop who deserves not respect, or even consideration, but only ridicule and abuse.  His utter lack of judgment regarding the spending of money betrays an utter lack of judgment on any other matter, perhaps especially matters of faith. 

To have Cardinals, bishops, and priests parading around in foppish finery, living in over the top rectories and “bishops’ residences,” and being chauffeured around in luxury cars invites both the type of reasoned questioning, and outright sarcastic ridicule, to which the Church is being currently subjected.  The Church has brought such treatment upon  itself and the Pope is trying to correct that.   Hopefully the suspension of the idiotic poltroon in Limburg who calls himself a man of God is only the first such step in that direction.

As I’ve said before though, the Pope is putting himself in danger, perhaps grave danger, by taking a stand against the excesses displayed by his brother bishops.  (See Easter Sunday’s “(OUR NEW AND WONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES”.)  The Holy Father is already under attack by the vast elements in the Church and its hierarchy who have no problem with bishops’ living like Middle Eastern suzerains.  Indeed, it is not too much to say that many in the hierarchy entered their profession (That’s the right noun; for such fops, the Church is not a calling but a profession.) not to serve Christ but rather to live like Herod.  Their line of attack, steadily building momentum, will eventually evolve into an argument that Francis is not the “real” Pope, that the “real” Pope remains Benedict XVI (See 9/19/13’s  POPE FRANCIS: WHAT WILL THE “TRADITIONALISTS” DO ABOUT THIS CRAZY MAN?), the man who was so fond of his red Prada shoes and who never missed a chance to parade around in finery that a Russian czar would envy.  And who knows where it will go from there? These are many ruthless, Godless people who inhabit the Church hierarchy who don’t like people like Francis interfering with the “fine lifestyles” they think they have built for themselves.

Pope Francis, a good and saintly man, needs our prayers…and God’s protection.

POPE FRANCIS ON THE CHURCH’S VARIOUS OBSESSIONS: JESUS IS TRULY AT WORK IN HIS CHURCH

9/19/13

In an interview with Italian Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, Pope Francis once again shook things up by declaring that the Church had "locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules" but should no longer be "obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."  He specifically referred to such issues as abortion, contraception, and homosexuality with which the hierarchy of the Church has indeed become obsessed.   Rather than being rigid and doctrinaire, and treating the confessional like a “torture chamber,” the Church should act as "a field hospital after a battle" and should display God’s mercy rather than impose a rigid set of doctrines that seem to have wandered from the original message and intent of Jesus.  

The Pope also discussed the role of women in the Church, saying

“The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role.  The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops… We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions.”

The Pope didn’t go as far as many of us would like, nor is he likely to do so…as he said

“On the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed.”

but we will take, for now, what the Pope has given us…more than any of his predecessors, perhaps than all his predecessors combined…and hope and pray that this is more than lip service.

Pope Francis summed up the entire interview nicely by saying

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.  The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

and

“The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.  We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

And, perhaps best of all….

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.

Such comments, along with such gestures as refusing to move into the lavish papal apartments, eschewing the regal trappings of the Papacy, urging the bishops and priests to get out of the rectories and among their flocks, and even stating his intention to drive around in a 30 year old Renault with a manual transmission (Do I love this man or what?  But I digress.) go a long way toward removing any doubts I may have nurtured regarding the Church’s being divinely guided by Jesus Himself.  (See my Easter Sunday post (“OUR NEW ANDWONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES”).

While I agree with the sentiments the Pope has expressed, and would be disingenuous were I to say that such profound agreement did not have something to do with my belief that this Pope provides evidence that Jesus guides His Church, there is more to it than that.  (See my 3/13/13 post POPE FRANCIS:   THIS IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A MIRACLE! for my first development of this theme.)  What is remarkable, miraculous, really, is that such a man could ever become pope in 2013. 

The College of Cardinals is dominated by appointees of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  In fact, I’m quite sure that ALL the electors were appointed by one of those two Popes.   Thus, there are few if any liberals, or even moderates in any but the most relative of terms, among those who decide who will be pope.  In fact, it would not be too cynical to suggest that the College is controlled by people who would, if they felt free to do so, disagree violently with Pope Francis.  Judging from the Cardinals’ behavior and words of the last three or so decades, one could not be criticized for thinking that this crowd believes that the Church’s most important, perhaps its sole, mission is to enforce doctrine on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, make sure the women, and especially those uppity sisters, remain subservient, and to make sure that the Church retains and prioritizes all the gold, finery, and the tacky regalia that the hierarchy prances around in like a pack of preening popinjays.

How could such a College of Cardinals ever give the Chair of St. Peter to a man who is so different in outlook, even if not on basic doctrine, from them?   How could they choose a man who thinks nothing of the trappings of office to which they so desperately cling?   How could they have chosen a man who would rather emulate Christ than be treated like some medieval potentate by bowing, scraping, terrified, and obedient automatons who profess free will while unthinkingly and reflexively doing whatever they are told?

Surely, Jesus was at work when the College of Cardinals chose Pope Francis.  May He continue to be at work in guiding and protecting this good and holy man.

POPE FRANCIS: WHAT WILL THE “TRADITIONALISTS” DO ABOUT THIS CRAZY MAN?

9/19/13

A lot of people who call themselves “Church traditionalists” aren’t happy with Pope Francis.  (See my Easter Sunday post, “(OUR NEW AND WONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES” and today’s other post, POPE FRANCIS ON THE CHURCH’S VARIOUS OBSESSIONS:    JESUS IS TRULY AT WORK IN HIS CHURCH for further illumination on the Pope’s problems with certain elements of the Church.)  It’s not that the Pope has made any substantive moves that run counter to the Church’s conservative approach of the last thirty or so years and it’s not that he is likely to do so.  This Pope is no radical; he was, after all, made a Cardinal by John Paul II, late in his papacy, at a time when it was nearly a requirement to toe the conservative line to be made a prince of the Church.   But Francis is really shaking things up by his style, his approach, and his most recent pronouncements on such things as homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and women in the Church.  (Again, see today’s other post.)   The conservatives in the hierarchy, accustomed to their comfortable lives of being served rather than serving and perfectly content to spend the rest of their lives obsessing on tangential issues and excluding and castigating those who don’t simply pray, pay, and obey, have to be getting nervous.  What is this guy going to do next?  

But the “traditionalists” are in a bind.  One of the doctrines to which they demand rigid adherence is the primacy of the Pope; we have to do what the Pope says because he is Christ’s representative on earth, the successor to St. Peter.  While technically he is infallible only in limited, and few, instances, the “traditionalists” seem to believe he cannot be challenged at any time on anything.  What do they do, then, when a Pope doesn’t agree with their conception of what it means to be a Catholic follower of Christ?  Can they ditch their doctrine of papal primacy?   If they do, doesn’t that put their other doctrines in danger of being thrown over the side?

So far, the approach of the “traditionalists” seems to be that the Pope doesn’t really mean it when he says crazy things and does insane things like refusing to live in the lavish papal apartments.  I heard a few weeks ago, from a “traditionalist,” that Pope Francis is not living in the Papal apartments not because he finds their regal accoutrements distasteful and not in conformity with his understanding of the way Jesus wants us to live.  No, sir.  The “traditionalist” line is that Francis is not living in the papal apartments out of deference to Benedict XVI.  Since Benedict is still alive, the story goes, Francis won’t live in the papal apartments because he considers those quarters Benedict’s home…even though Benedict doesn’t live there.  Uh huh.   Those peddling this story may be right; and the Cubs and the White Sox may play a subway series in 2014.

Such rationalizations on the part of the “traditionalists,” aside from being a short term strategy, give a hint as to the “traditionalist” long term strategy regarding this bothersome pope.  It seems to yours truly that these quarters of the Church will square the circle presented by the combination of papal primacy and a pope whom they don’t like by arguing that Francis is not the “real” or “legitimate” pope. 

The “traditionalists” will argue, in line with tradition, of course, that the Pope cannot step down, that he has no right to relinquish his position and must serve until his death.  Thus, the real pope is not the poseur Francis but Benedict XVI, the guy who just loves the red Prada shoes and all the gold and regal finery the papacy has to offer and who spent virtually his entire papacy, and time as John Paul II’s doctrinal enforcer, obsessing over the very things Francis said are ancillary to genuinely following Christ. 

That such a pronouncement would be self-contradictory (How can a pope, who is not supposed to be wrong in such important matters, have made such a grave mistake by resigning?  Hmm…) will bother this crowd not a whit.  Contradictions have never bothered them; just look at the riches of the Vatican in light of the simple life of Jesus.  And such a rationalization will let them off the hook; they won’t have to listen to the poseur who thinks he is pope; they only have to listen to what the guy in the red Pradas had to say about the inherent evil of homosexuality, the uppitiness of the sisters, the unpardonable sin of contraception and other such nonsense.

HOW COULD JESUS BE SUCH A RUDE, OBNOXIOUS, SELF-IMPORTANT JERK?

8/19/13

Yesterday I had the opportunity to read, for about the millionth time (“I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate!”   But I digress.) Matthew 15: 21-28.   You know the story.   A Canaanite, therefore a Gentile, woman, calls out to Jesus

“Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!  My daughter is tormented by a demon.” (Matthew 15, 22)

Jesus replies with a cold, hard-hearted

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  (Matthew 15, 24)

To her repeated pleas, Jesus gets even colder and more hard-hearted, seemingly downright rude and heartless

“It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”  (Matthew 15, 26)

Then the woman, not to be denied, retorts with something that I suspect neither you nor I would say.  We’d probably say something unprintable, or at least I know I would.   But she says

“Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” (Matthew 15, 27)

Jesus finally relents

“O woman, how great is your faith.  Let it be done to you as you wish.”  And her daughter was healed from that hour.  (Matthew 15, 28)  (Emphasis mine)

This story has troubled me, and doubtless millions of other Christians, for years.   How could Jesus, the Son of God to whom we have devoted our lives, the man of such great mercy and compassion, be such a jerk to this woman?

About twenty years ago, I heard this behavior of Jesus explained away by a priest I respect as a matter of culture.  This was completely unsatisfying, but at least the guy tried to explain this seeming embarrassment.   So I continued to think and pray on this passage, and I think the answer has finally come to me over the last few years, perhaps due to my innate slowness.

Jesus acted like such a rude, insolent boor to this woman in order to show us how we appear, indeed, how we really are, when we determine that people are not entitled to God’s love and mercy because they don’t think like we do or don’t go to the same church that we do.   When we think we, and only we, have the keys to the kingdom, we sound like obnoxious, arrogant, self-satisfied hypocrites…just like Jesus sounded, intentionally, to the Canaanite woman.

Further…

Jesus tells the woman that it is her faith that saved the woman and cured her daughter, not her belonging to a certain parish or a certain religion and not her somehow earning His mercy through her good works…as prescribed by her church.   It is her faith in Jesus that saved the woman and her daughter, not her membership in the right ethnic group or religion.  

It is the same with us.   Our faith saves us.   Our certainty that we and only we are right makes us sound like, and be, jerks…and separates us from the One to whom we purport to want to get closer.

YOU MEAN THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HEAVEN, TOO?!

7/15/13

What is the measure of one’s Christianity, of one’s devotion to the way of our Lord?  How do I know if I am indeed following the way of Jesus?   How do I know, to put it in vague and often misunderstood terms, how good a Christian I am?  

Wise people have been searching for such a measure since Jesus walked physically on this earth, and since long before then if we take in the full implications of Jesus as God.   While the search has been fruitful, the results have been disappointing, or at least frustrating, because there is no ONE measure of one’s devotion to our Lord.  Instead, there are many yardsticks by which we can tell if we are following the right path. 

One of my favorite such measurements, despite (or maybe because of) its being one of the scariest is the following:

How do you, or how will you, react to the news that heaven is going to be populated, to a large extent, by people you vehemently disagree with on some very important issues, don’t like in the least, and/or you simply can’t stand being around?

If you are a card carrying conservative Republican, you are going to be sharing heaven with a lot of card carrying liberal Democrats, and vice-versa.   If you are adamantly, unshakably pro-choice, you are going to be sharing heaven with plenty of people who are adamantly, unshakably pro-life, and vice-versa.   If you are a staunch defender of the 2^nd Amendment, you are going to be sharing heaven with a lot of people who wish that Mr. Madison had taken the day off when that amendment was written, and vice-versa.  If you are white and don’t like blacks moving into your neighborhood, you are going to be sharing eternity with plenty of blacks, and vice-versa.  If you are Catholic and think that only those who follow Rome are going to make it past St. Peter, guess what?   There will be a LOT of Protestants in heaven…and vice-versa.   And, perhaps most controversially of all for many who share my belief in Jesus as my God, Lord, and Savior, if you are Christian and are absolutely convinced only Christians go to heaven, you are going to have plenty of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of no particular faith as neighbors for eternity.   (See my 11/14/12 post, YOU MEAN NON-CHRISTIANS DON’T GET TO COME TO HEAVEN?, http://insightfulpontificator.blogspot.com/2012/11/you-mean-non-christians-dont-get-to.html)  And if you are any of the aforementioned and are convinced that Christians are badly misguided in our belief that Jesus is God, you better get used to us, because we’re going to be living with you for eternity. 

If you are a Bear fan, you’re going to be keeping company with plenty of Packer fans in the Great Upstairs, and vice-versa.  If you get misty-eyed whenever you get within 100 miles of South Bend, I almost hate to break it to you, but there will be plenty of Trojan, Spartan, Wolverine, and Crimson Tide fanatics in the seats next to you in the Great Stadium in the sky, and vice-versa, and John, Duffy, Bo, and Bear will be sharing the assistant coaching duties with Knute and Frank.   And, perhaps the worst news of all to many of my friends, if you are Sox fan, there will be plenty of Cub fans passing you your Old Style down the eternal aisle…and vice versa.  Finally, and one that hits home, those of us who simply cannot stand being around people who pay scant, if any, attention to their personal hygiene will find ourselves with plenty of heavenly neighbors who think nothing of skipping the toothbrush or the shower for days on end.  (But, Lord, I hope that part of the admission drill is an eternity long ration of soap, deodorant, toothpaste, mouthwash, etc. and a quick lesson their proper, and frequent, use!)

Simply put, God doesn’t look for ways to exclude people; He, or She, looks for ways to include people.  The last thing He, or She, wants is to be separated from any of His, or Her, children for ETERNITY.   What parent would even want to consider, let alone be pleased with and/or seek, such an outcome?  While many of us think we have all the answers, none of us has the answer as to how God can forgive so magnanimously and welcome so enthusiastically and how He, or She, considers matters we think so vital or mere quibbles over arcane and ultimately meaningless doctrine, preferences, or prejudices…

 “…as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.” Psalm 103:12

and

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.”  Isaiah 55:8

Very importantly, perhaps especially for us Christians, is that God was speaking to believers when He, or She, said these things through the psalmist and the prophet.  S/He was pointing out how far His or Her thoughts are from those even of believers, and how he forgave the transgressions of believers, which presupposes acknowledgement that believers do indeed commit transgressions.

That God is so inclusive and so forgiving should be very good news for all of us.  But many of us, if we are honest with ourselves, do not like the idea of sharing heaven with “those people,” whoever they may be, who don’t “deserve it,” like we do.  I would bet heavily, if I were a betting man, that just about all of us have this attitude; the only question is the matter of degree to which we have it.  The extent to which we have the “You mean they’re going to be there too?!!!” attitude is the extent to which we have work to do if we are to get in line with God.

Indeed, that God is so inclusive and so forgiving should be very good news for all of us, especially for those of us who, in our hearts of hearts, don’t like the idea of His being so inclusive and forgiving…because we are neither inclusive nor forgiving.

NEWTOWN AND KINDRED ABOMINATIONS: HIGHER PURPOSE…OR A SLAP IN GOD’S FACE?

6/5/13




While coming home from Mass this morning, I heard a snippet of a radio program in which a spiritual advisor of sorts (I did not catch her name or her background.) discussing how she explained the Newtown massacre to a man who asked how God could let such a tragedy happen.



The advisor said she counseled the man to imagine that there must have been some higher purpose to the Newtown shootings, a higher and infinite purpose that we, as humans couldn’t possibly understand. She said the man went away somewhat comforted.



Whether the man who sought her counsel went away comforted, I don’t know. But to the advisor’s explanation of how God could have allowed Newtown, I can only say



“No! No! No!”



The “higher purpose” explanation assumes that God intended Newtown, and abominations like it, to occur in order to achieve that higher purpose. But God does not intend such horrific things, or even far less horrific things, to occur. The Newtown shooter was using his free will to defy God. It isn’t God’s will that the tragedies of human life occur, as some well meaning people often say after such horrible things take place. Such killings or other manifestations of man’s inhumanity, or worse, to man are done in defiance of God’s will.



Newtown was not, as the “higher purpose” explanation would imply, a case of someone saying “Yes” to God; Newtown was a case of someone saying “No” to God, even if unconsciously.



Will God do all that He can, within the confines of the restrictions His human agents put on Him, to make the best of such ghastly events as Newtown? Yes. Will some good consequently come of them? Yes. But that does not mean that God somehow intended such tragedies to occur in order to achieve what good can be salvaged from them. The relatively very small good that can and usually does arise from such unspeakable tragedies is a case of God trying to make the best of a horrible situation that He clearly did not intend.