Three Types of Scandal

"Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal comes", our Lord tells us in the Gospel of Matthew (18:7). Scandal has been defined in the Church's tradition as an act or omission on our part that, through our bad example, leads another to commit sin or lose faith. Our Lord warns us in the above cited passage that to do such a thing is particularly heinous; as if it is not bad enough that we destroy our own souls, scandal causes us to drag others down with us into the mire of our sin, sometimes by actively leading others into sin, sometimes just by causing them to be shaken in their faith by our poor example. Jesus levels dire consequences against those who lead believers to sin, warning that it would be better to have a stone about our neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea than be guilty of scandal.

The Vice of Effeminacy

The Church teaches that persons afflicted with homosexual tendencies who wish to live in accordance with God's will are called to observe chastity. Hence the talk about "chaste homosexuals." 

All Christians are called to chastity, whatever their state in life. But this stress on the chastity required of homosexual Catholics sometimes tends to orient our focus too much on sexual activity alone. For example, take the case of a homosexual Catholic who is chaste but effeminate in his manner. As long as that person is chaste, there is a tendency to shrug off the question of effeminacy. An effeminate man is laughed off as "just being eccentric." Some people seem to find effeminate men endearing; "My, how friendly he is!" others will say.

The implication in this sort of laissez-faire attitude towards effeminacy is that it is completely acceptable so long as it is not accompanied by homosexual actions - that the chaste homosexual can be as effeminate and flaming as can be but is praiseworthy so long as he is not engaging in sodomy.

Such a view is very reductive and fails to comprehend the entirety of the problem posed by homosexuality. Homosexual acts are certainly immoral, but so is the homosexual tendency and all its manifestations, including effeminacy.

Is effeminacy actually a sin? St. Thomas Aquinas takes it further and says effeminacy is a vice - that is, a habitually sinful disposition.

Effeminacy in the classical tradition is seen as a kind of "softeness." The Latin, mollities, means literally "softness", but in various contexts can also mean irresolution, tenderness, wantonness, voluptuousness, weakness, or pliability. It essentially occurs when the traits traditionally associated with the feminine are found in the man.

The sum of these traits in a man constitute the vice of effeminacy, which St. Thomas, following Aristotle, says is a opposed to the virtue of fortitude. The effeminate man is he who is incapable of "manning up" and enduring the challenges of life. St. Thomas notes how this is opposed to fortitude or perseverance:

"Perseverance is deserving of praise because thereby a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance of difficulties and toils: and it is directly opposed to this, seemingly, for a man to be ready to forsake a good on account of difficulties which he cannot endure. This is what we understand by effeminacy, because a thing is said to be "soft" if it readily yields to the touch" (STh, II-II, Q. 138, Art. 1).

But it is not merely yielding to difficulties that make a man effeminate or soft; a soldier may be tortured for information and eventually yield, but that does not make him effeminate. Another thing is necessary. St. Thomas explains:

"Now a thing is not declared to be soft through yielding to a heavy blow, for walls yield to the battering-ram. Wherefore a man is not said to be effeminate if he yields to heavy blows. Hence the Philosopher says that "it is no wonder, if a person is overcome by strong and overwhelming pleasures or sorrows; but he is to be pardoned if he struggles against them." 

Now it is evident that fear of danger is more impelling than the desire of pleasure: wherefore Tully says under the heading "True magnanimity consists of two things: It is inconsistent for one who is not cast down by fear, to be defeated by lust, or who has proved himself unbeaten by toil, to yield to pleasure." Moreover, pleasure itself is a stronger motive of attraction than sorrow, for the lack of pleasure is a motive of withdrawal, since lack of pleasure is a pure privation. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher, properly speaking an effeminate man is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion" (ibid).

So it is not merely yielding to challenge, but more specifically, refusing the challenge of pursuing the good because one is attracted to pleasure. He is fundamentally a weakling, one who sees the face of virtue and shrinks back from the effort. St. Thomas and the classical tradition associate this with "womanliness." For example:

"Now the delicate are those who cannot endure toils, nor anything that diminishes pleasure. Hence it is written (Deuteronomy 28:56): "The tender and delicate woman, that could not go upon the ground, nor set down her foot for softness"...Thus delicacy is a kind of effeminacy" (ibid).

St. Thomas cites the biblical passage from Deuteronomy on the delicate and tender woman as an example of the behavior he is talking about. Thus the effeminate man is the delicate man, the womanly man. And this sort of behavior, insofar as it is voluntary, constitutes a vice. The effeminate man is the man who does not have a strong and deep sense of his masculinity; rather than man-up and accept the challenge of understanding and growing in his identity has a man, he prefers to shrink back and adopt the attitudes and mannerisms of "the tender and delicate woman." And this disposition is a vice.

Effeminacy is a vice contrary to the virtue of fortitude. Which leaves one question - in what sense can an effeminate but chaste homosexual be said to lacking in fortitude when he exercises enough fortitude to remain chaste? If he has the self-control to keep his disordered passions in check, how can he simultaneously lack self-control and fortitude through the vice of effeminacy? How can he simultaneously have fortitude while lacking it?

Virtue is a habit, a stable disposition from which one generally performs good acts. Good acts that are done by the virtuous man are called virtuous in a participated sense, not in the particular of each act. If a man lacks fortitude in many areas of his life, his exercise of fortitude in a particular act may not constitute the presence of the virtue of fortitude; a man who rises to the challenge of performing a difficult act when called upon but does not have a habit of doing so is not virtuous; he has merely performed a good deed. Similarly, a man who may have disciplined himself with regards to sexual activity but has effeminate habits in every other aspect of his life may not really have the virtue of fortitude.

It could also be argued that we are talking about different virtues. His sexual abstinence could entail the presence of the virtue of temperance, while his effeminacy reveals a lack of fortitude. Thus he may be truly virtuous in some respects but lack virtue in others. This is where a very clear understanding of the relationship of virtues to each other, and how particular types of activities align with particular virtues is important.

Back to the chaste homosexual. Not all chaste homosexuals are effeminate. And not all effeminate men are homosexual. But effeminacy and homosexuality are connected, and we need to recognize that even if there is no homosexual activity taking place, effeminacy itself is a vice that should not be encouraged, coddled, laughed off, or ignored. Homosexuals are called to chastity, and the effeminate are called to overcome their effeminacy and grow into their manhood - this may be a great challenge and require deliberate effort on the part of the man sincerely struggling with effeminacy. But that's what fortitude is - manning up and overcoming the challenges we encounter in this vale of tears.

There is one more question that must be addressed: Since what is proper to females and males can fluctuate in different cultures and times, how can effeminacy exist as an objective vice? For example, to wear powdered wigs and lace was manly in 1750. For a man to do so now would be bizarre. Since what sort of fashions are proper to men and women change over time, is it not futile to try to nail down what sort of behaviors constitute effeminacy?

Remember, a virtue (or a vice) is a fundamental interior disposition. We are not talking about clothing fashions or hair styles; we are talking about a person's character. Fashions change, and in general, a man has an obligation not to take up fashions and dress popularly identified as womanly in his particular culture so as not to scandalize others.

But effeminacy is something deeper than fashion; it is the deep-seated, habitual disposition towards delicacy and withdrawal of effort for fear of lack of pleasure. The mere fact that we cannot come up with a systematic list of what behaviors constitute effeminacy or deduce exactly when one has become effeminate does not mean the vice does not exist. This is the same with any vice: for example, when does a person become cowardly? When he has run away from something once? Twice? How often and in what situations does he have to shirk before he can be categorized as a coward? Furthermore, what is considered cowardly varies from culture to culture. In some cultures it is considered brave to strike an enemy suddenly and then run away; in others it would be considered cowardly to strike someone and then flee. It is very difficult to pin down, but everybody agrees that cowardice exists.

Similarly, everybody acknowledges that effeminacy exists. Aristotle wrote about it in the Greek world. Cicero, centuries later and in a different cultural milieu, also condemned it. It was preached against and condemned by medieval moralists. Aquinas understands it and considers it a vice. It would be absurd to suggest that moral authors from Aristotle to Aquinas and beyond were only writing about a subjective, relative concept when they condemned effeminacy. Just like we all have a general consensus of what cowardice is, the Catholic tradition has a consistent picture of effeminacy. Aristotle, Aquinas and the rest had a clear idea of what they were writing about, just like most people today have a clear idea of what is meant by an "effeminate man" or a "girly man." You know it when you see it, even if it is difficult to systematically define.

Finally, it is important to note that one is never going to be perfectly actualizing fortitude, even though he has a stable disposition and could be called virtuous in that respect, until he reaches beatitude and has perfection of all virtues. Since we are judging particulars it is hard to treat of it scientifically, as if we were dealing with only principles. The point is not to dwell obsessively on whether a particular person has fortitude or not; God knows that. The point is to understand why this trait is considered vicious and how it relates to the other virtue which is its contrary.

Most of you are probably aware of this already, but Fr. James Mason wrote an excellent article on this vice for Homiletic and Pastoral Review, discussing how effeminacy ruins seminary candidates; I highly recommend his article ("Forgotten Vice in Seminary Formation"). I highly recommend it.

Children's Crusade and the Age of Mercy

Our Holy Father Pope Francis has declared the jubilee Year of Mercy, which will begin on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception this year and run through the Feast of Christ the King in 2016. I praise God for His mercy, which is one of His greatest attributes. "Mercy triumphs over judgment", the Epistle of James tells us (cf. Jas. 2:13), and the chorus of Psalm 136 contains the response "His mercy endures forever" twenty-five times, lest the devout reader ever doubt God's great mercy. God has shown me great mercy in my life, and I will always rejoice in His loving-kindness and long-suffering.

*   *   *   *   *

Still, we live in an age of grayness, an age of ambiguity, of ignorance and shadows - an hour of darkness where the power of evil moves most freely and audaciously (cf. Luke 22:53). Words are as fluid and ethereal as mist. One striking characteristic of our time is the degree to which words have been redefined away from their classical connotations; concepts such as the state, nature, grace, judgment, punishment, love have all been redefined in the image of post-Christian man. Since the announcement of the Synod of the Family early in 2014 and the ascent of the Kasper party, we have seen a similar attempt to redefine "mercy."

Aquinas defines mercy as the virtue by which one experiences grief for another's distress (STh II-II, Q. 30, Art. 3). The causes or "motives" of mercy are "corruptive or distressing evils, the contrary of which man desires naturally, wherefore the Philosopher says that "pity is sorrow for a visible evil, whether corruptive or distressing" (ibid., Art 1). 

Thomas is speaking here of natural evils, not moral evils, for St. Thomas says that evils are most worthy of pity when they are contrary to a deliberate choice. Since the very essence of a moral act is its voluntary nature, we more easily extend mercy to people to whom "something happens" rather than those who merely suffer the consequences of their deliberate choices (ibid).

He goes on to say that the greatest motive of mercy occurs when the evil occurs not only without deliberate choice but absolutely contrary to a person's will, such as when something bad happens to a man who only desires to do good. Quoting Aristotle, he notes that "we pity most the distress of one who suffers undeservedly" (ibid).

Then how can a sinner ever obtain mercy, since people sin voluntarily? St. Thomas notes that though sinners suffer deservedly, the punishments of their faults are not willed; a repentant sinner acknowledges their fault and the justice of punishment but simultaneously wishes to escape punishment, as the punishment due to sin is contrary to their will. In this sense we are able to feel pity for sinners: "It is essential to fault that it be voluntary; and in this respect it deserves punishment rather than mercy. Since, however, fault may be, in a way, a punishment, through having something connected with it that is against the sinner's will, it may, in this respect, call for mercy" (ibid).

The Thomistic doctrine of mercy, therefore, is that the motive or cause of mercy is evils experienced by another, especially when these evils are undeserved and contrary to the will of the one experiencing them. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of mercy that the one experiencing the evil not will the evil he is experiencing. It is this repugnance to the evil endured that becomes the bridge linking the suffering of the individual with the mercy of another.

This means, from Thomas' point of view, those persons who do not oppose the evil they endure cannot be the objects of mercy, properly speaking - much less those who don't even admit that they have committed any evil. A sinner who does not fear the punishment for his sin but rather abides in his sin and even demands it be praised and accommodated does not elicit mercy. The accommodation of people in this scenario is not an act of mercy, but rather an act of complicity in the sin of another. Or, to put it more plainly, only those who repent can be the recipients of the mercy; an unrepentant person is incapable of receiving mercy.

Repentance, of course, means not only admitting an action to be morally wrong, but taking active steps to remove oneself from the state of sin with the resolution to avoid committing that sin again in the future.

*   *   *   *   *

What aspects of mercy will be stressed in the upcoming Year of Mercy? No doubt this jubilee year is connected with the 2015 Synod on the Family, where the debate of the Kasperite doctrine of mercy will be front and center. The Holy Father is trying to push a coup de force in preparation for the synod by focusing the attention of the public on "mercy." The Year of Mercy will begin shortly after the close of the Synod; presumably there will be a post-synodal exhortation of some sort. The Year of Mercy is a propaganda tool to shape public opinion in such a way that bishops who dissent from the Kasperite heresy are under intense pressure to comply; they will be made to look "unmerciful." It is an attempt to create a false dichotomy between the "merciful" progressive and the Pharisaical conservative. This is the simple "politics" behind the Year of Mercy - to make the triumph of the Baldisseri-Forte-Kasper axis a fait accompli, which the smiling Holy Father will proclaim to be a movement of the Holy Spirit, with the accolades of the press.

In case you are inclined to disbelieve the connection I am positing between the "Year of Mercy" and communion for adulterers, only four days after announcing the Year of Mercy, Francis made the following comments in a homily:

"A man - a woman – who feels sick in the soul, sad, who made many mistakes in life, at a certain time feels that the waters are moving - the Holy Spirit is moving something - or they hear a word or ... 'Ah, I want to go!' ... And they gather up their courage and go. And how many times in Christian communities today will they find closed doors! 'But you cannot, no, you cannot [come in]. You have sinned and you cannot [come in]. If you want to come, come to Mass on Sunday, but that’s it – that’s all you can do.’ So, what the Holy Spirit creates in the hearts of people, those Christians with their ‘doctors of the law’ mentality, destroy. This pains me...It’s Jesus’ home and Jesus welcomes [all]. But not only does He welcome, He goes out to see people just as He went out to find this man. And if people are hurt, what does Jesus do? Scold them because they are hurt? No, He comes and He carries them on His shoulders. And this is called mercy. And when God rebukes his people - 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice!' – He’s talking about this " (source).

There is much one could say about this passage, but it suffices to note that the phrase "If you want to come, come to Mass on Sunday, but that's it - that's all you can do" clearly indicates that Pope Francis disapproves of the non-admission of adulterers to communion. It is not sufficiently welcoming; to disagree is to be a Pharisaical "doctor of the law." To admit them is "mercy." Make no mistake about it, the Year of Mercy is yoked to the Synod with the purpose of pushing through Kasper's designs.

*   *   *   *   *

The constant assignment of a particular theme to each year by the Holy Father is a modern phenomenon begun, I believe, under John Paul II. It has grown extremely tiresome. Does anything positive truly come out of these annual assignments? Are Catholics any more knowledgeable about St. Paul after the 2008-2009 "Year of St. Paul"? I seriously doubt it. Like World Youth Day, this "Year of" phenomenon seems to be more about feeling good than accomplishing anything enduring.

At the beginning of the crisis in the Ukraine, Pope Francis had two Ukrainian children release doves as a prayer for peace in the Ukraine. The doves were immediately set upon and killed by a crow and a seagull; the whole episode was caught on film (see pictures at the top of this post).

A similar phenomenon happens with these "Year of" designations. Whatever topic the Holy Father assigns for a year, the Church ends up suffering severe attacks and setbacks in that area. The Year of the Priest saw global assaults on the priesthood; the Year of Faith saw an unprecedented advance of militant atheism; and the Year of the Consecrated Life has witnessed, among other things, the destruction of the FFI.

If you think I exaggerate or am drawing connections where none exist, let us consider this a little deeper:

The Year of the Priest (2009-2010) saw the Archdiocese of Milwaukee go bankrupt due to its financial obligations to sex abuse victims. The Irish clerical abuse scandal broke in 2010, the depths of which were so horrid and despicable that it prompted an unprecedented personal letter from Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics in Ireland. As the Year of the Priest wore on, further clerical abuse scandals broke in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Brazil, and many other countries. CNN ran a headline titled "Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal Goes Global." Only months after the Year of the Priest ended, 300 priests in Austria signed a document called the "Call to Disobedience", pledging resistance to Rome until ultra-liberal reforms of the clerical class were implemented, including women's ordination. The Year of the Priest thus closed with a mockery of the priesthood throughout the world.

The Year of Faith (2012-2013) witnessed an unprecedented attack on the very notion of faith as the proponents of the 'New Atheism' launched broadsides against revealed religion. Lawrence's Krauss's A Universe From Nothing made big headlines in 2012, but a whole slew of other atheist books made their appearance during the Year of Faith, including The Manual for Creating Atheists, Drunk With Blood, Hope After Faith, Atheism for Dummies, The Skeptics Annotated Bible, and Beyond Belief, all of which appeared during the Year of Faith. Meanwhile, the Year of Faith saw atheist Richard Dawkins humiliate Cardinal Pell on Australian television over the question of Original Sin while 2012 saw the first ever Global Atheist Convention. While atheists were trashing religion all over the world, the Vatican held a scientific exhibit in which the Chief Astronomer of the Vatican, Fr. Gabriel Jose Funes, declared triumphantly that evolution was perfectly compatible with Catholicism. Thus the Year of Faith saw the very notion of faith ravaged by unprecedented atheist propaganda and faith undermined within the Church by a continued enthronement of the principle of evolution within the Church (cf. "Solemn Enthronement of Evolution").

The Year of Consecrated Life (2014-2015), still ongoing at the time of this article, has seen perhaps the greatest undermining of consecrated life in modern times with the unwarranted persecution of the FFI, one of the most faithful exemplars of consecrated life in the Church. Simultaneously, the apostolic visitation to the women's religious orders in the United States ended with a feeble report gushing with praise for American nuns and lacking any disciplinary measures whatsoever. The Year of Consecrated Life saw a faithful order destroyed and the neo-pagan dissenting American nuns praised. In both instances, consecrated life was mocked, not upheld.

Just as the doves released by Pope Francis were destroyed before they could take flight, the themes proposed by Benedict XVI and Francis have similarly been the subject of distortion and destruction.

*   *   *   *   *

Therefore, we have good reason to suppose that the 2015-2016 "Year of Mercy" will result in an unprecedented attack on the Catholic concept of mercy, both from within the Church and without. The Church's traditional understanding of mercy will be ridiculed and distorted to be more palatable to the perversions of modern man, who desires to be told that he need not renounce his concubine in order to receive Holy Communion. We should mentally and spiritually prepare ourselves for a very fierce onslaught on the Church's praxis in the next year and a half, such that will make 2014 seem like a mere rehearsal.

Still, God is in control. God either wills all things positively or else permits all things for a greater good. We have documented how the Year of the Priest, Year of Faith and Year of Consecrated Life were all failures - setbacks for the very objects they were supposed to promote. Why is God allowing this? Why has God so orchestrated things that, in His Providence, the themes proposed by the popes are being thwarted?

I believe the answer lies in the Scriptures. Let us begin with the Book of Isaiah. The prophet begins in chapter 1 by recounting the sinfulness of Israel and the poor state of the Israelite kingdom:

"Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards. For what shall I strike you any more, you that increase transgression? the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is sad. From the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein: wounds and bruises and swelling sores: they are not bound up, nor dressed, nor fomented with oil.Your land is desolate, your cities are burnt with fire: your country strangers devour before your face, and it shall be desolate as when wasted by enemies" (Isa. 1:4-7).

Despite that Israel is "laden with iniquity", they continue to participate in the feasts and sacrifices without repenting and changing their ways. Because they refuse to acknowledge their corruption, their participation in the festivals, the new moons, and the sabbaths become especially displeasing to God, such that He even compares them to Sodom and Gomorrah:

Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.“When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow (Isa. 1:10-17).

Because Israel has "forsaken the Lord" and "blasphemed the Holy One of Israel" and refuse to repent, God is so angry that He says He "hates" their festivals, that he "cannot endure" them because of their iniquity. Thus, though the people may pray and stretch out their hands - though they may call for Years of Faith, Years or the Priest, etc. - God says "I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen."

The prophet Amos gives a similar admonition. God says:

"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream" (Amos 5:21-24).

How can God bless the Year of Consecrated Life when the Church allows consecrated life to be mocked? How can He bless the Year of the Priest when corruption is not rooted out from the priesthood? How can He bless the Year of Faith when prelates and theologians continue to worship before the idol of evolution and reductive scientism? And how can He bless a Year of Mercy when most in the Church are only interested in promoting a worldly, false mercy? These endeavors will continue to fail until we recognize the depth of our sickness and return to God in spirit and truth.

Brethren, what shall we do?

God's word helps us identify the problem, but it also gives us grounds for hope:

"Thus saith the Lord to you: Fear ye not, and be not dismayed at this multitude: for the battle is not yours, but God's"  (2 Chronicles 20:15).

"And all this assembly shall know, that the Lord saves not with sword and spear: for the battle belongs to the Lord..." (1 Sam. 17:47).

May the Lord bless and keep our Holy Father, and may His will be done at the 2015 Synod on the Family. May sinners, in the great mercy of God, be brought to repentance, turn from their evil deeds, and embrace the fullness of the Gospel. May this repentance begin with myself and all who read these words. Amen and amen.

Contact: uscatholicam [at] gmail.com

On Right Reading of the Old Testament (part 2)

Continuing on in our series on right reading of the Old Testament, we come today to some very practical questions. Having established the first principles that the Old Testament is truly the Word of God, that there is no one interpretive scheme that fits the whole Old Testament, and that assigning a high value to the Old Testament texts was a characteristic of patristic exegesis, we can go on to consider some further questions in our approach to these sacred books.

To what degree are Old Testament principles applicable in the New Testament age?

Our first query is to what degree Old Testament principles are applicable today, in the New Testament age? There are many disputes on a range of topics that Old Testament passages can be invoked for. Let us look at some examples of how Old Testament principles may be invoked in contemporary debates.

A great example is the question of whether or not parents should employ corporal punishment in the discipline of their children. A great passage to cite is Proverbs 13:24, 

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he that loves him chastens him earnestly." 

Or suppose the question is on the justice of levying interest on loans. In that case, Psalm 15:1-2 may be invoked: 

"O Lord, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,and speak the truth from their heart; who do not lend money at interest,and do not take a bribe against the innocent." 

Perhaps we are debating whether there is a moral obligation to speak to friends and family we know to be committing grave sins. Then Ezekiel 3:18-21 is very appropriate: 

"If I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” and you give them no warning, or speak to warn the wicked from their wicked way, in order to save their life, those wicked persons shall die for their iniquity; but their blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and they do not turn from their wickedness, or from their wicked way, they shall die for their iniquity; but you will have saved your life. Again, if the righteous turn from their righteousness and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before them, they shall die; because you have not warned them, they shall die for their sin, and their righteous deeds that they have done shall not be remembered; but their blood I will require at your hand. If, however, you warn the righteous not to sin, and they do not sin, they shall surely live, because they took warning; and you will have saved your life."

It is not our purpose here to answer these particular inquiries, but rather to point out examples of arguments in which Old Testament passages may be relevant.

The question then becomes "How relevant are they?" Some do not treat them as relevant at all. Suppose you are in a debate about whether parents ought to use corporal punishment and you cite Prov. 13:24 in support of the proposition. Now suppose your interlocutor says, "I hardly think we can settle the argument by quoting a passage from Proverbs." The interlocutor clearly has a dismissive attitude towards the contemporary relevance of Old Testament texts.

It is true that, in many parts of the Old Testament, doctrine is not strictly established. This is because of the provisional and incomplete nature of Old Testament revelation itself. We cannot build a complete doctrine of God from the Old Testament alone, since there is no revelation of the Incarnation or the Trinity. 

But the fact that the Old Testament is provisional or that certain doctrines are shadowy or incomplete does not mean that no doctrinal or ethical conclusions can be drawn from it at all. Sure, there is no revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, but there are very clear affirmations of God's omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. In fact, if I had to argue those attributes of God from the Bible, I would take the text of Psalm 139 as my starting point. The whole truth might not be affirmed, but what is affirmed is certainly true. Thus, the Old Testament is very valuable for serving as a foundation or jumping off point for particular theological discussions.

This brings us to the answer to our question - while the whole truth might not be asserted in the Old Testament because of its provisional nature, what is asserted must be held as the Word of God and therefore most assuredly true. The Church has never suggested that assertions of the Old Testament are somehow not binding because they are found in the Old Testament. Leo XIII famously taught:

"It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred... For all the books which the Church receives as Sacred and Canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost" (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

Now it often happens that an Old Testament teaching must be completed or clarified in the New, like the laws regarding divorce or polygamy. These are cases of behavior tolerated (but never affirmed) in the Old being specifically proscribed in the New. But if something is positively affirmed in the Old, then how can we argue it is not relevant now, since every book of the Scriptures is inspired "with all their parts"?

Thus, if someone says corporal punishment is always wrong, I believe they err, and that they err precisely because Proverbs 13:24 specifically commends it. When Aquinas is formulating the classical Catholic doctrine on usury, he appeals to Exodus 22:25 and Ezekiel 18:17 as his scriptural basis. (STh, II-II, Q. 78). These positions can be established on Old Testament foundations.

What we must realize is that while the Old Testament overall is provisional in nature, not every particular Old Testament maxim is provisional; some are universal - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul and all they strength" (Deut. 6:5), for example. The Old Testament contains many principles that are reflections of natural law or very basic theological truths (the immorality of adultery, the right of parents to discipline children corporally, the omnipotence of God, etc). Because these principles do not cease to be true just because they are found in the Old Testament, they are always valid, and saints and scholars, such as Aquinas, have never balked at citing them not only in support of their arguments, but as the centerpiece of their arguments.

Aquinas would have never envisioned an argument in which his teaching on usury was thrown out because it cited the Old Testament. He had a much more unified approach to the Scriptures than we.

How to distinguish between the temporary, ceremonial law and the permanent moral law?

Our previous answer presumes that we understand that there are some things in the Old Testament which are temporary in nature and others which have permanent validity. How is the Catholic to distinguish between the two?

We mentioned above the provisional nature of Old Testament revelation. This means it is fundamentally incomplete; it awaits the New Testament and Christ for its fulfillment. But nevertheless, it still is a real and true revelation, and to say it is incomplete is not to say that things fundamentally change in the New Testament. After all, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" and God has "no variation or shadow due to change."(Heb. 13:8, Jas. 1:17). This is why Old Testament principles can retain a permanent validity, especially when they touch upon issues of the natural or moral law (For example, Malachi 2:16, '"I hate divorce', says the Lord").

The major exception to this, however, is if we are looking at passages of the Mosaic Law specifically. Too often the Old Testament is equated with the Law, as if the entire Old Testament were nothing but the Law. The Law, however, refers specifically to the ceremonial statutes enjoined upon Israel by God in the time of Moses, as found in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. If something, say a particular law or regulation is specifically part of the Levitical Law, we may safely assume it has been superseded by the New Testament. Examples of this are prohibitions on pork, the practice of circumcision, regulations about Temple worship, etc. These have all been superseded because they concern the Levitical law exclusively.

Principles that are part of the moral law, natural law, or are teachings on the very nature of God Himself retain a permanent validity, whereas principles that relate exclusively to the Levitical law of ancient Israel are no longer binding. Inability to make this distinction is the source of many errors, for example, the argument that Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality are invalid because the Old Testament also prohibits the eating of shellfish (see here).

It sometimes happens, however, that we see a regulation of the Mosaic law encapsulating or affirming a universal moral principle. These situations can be particularly vexing. For example, the passage "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex. 22:18). If someone asks if this passage is still valid, then the answer would be both yes and no. Yes, insofar as God hated witchcraft then and He still hates it now, and it is just as sinful now to participate in witchcraft today as it was then; but no insofar as we are no longer under the Mosaic law, and as such, the particular injunction to put the witch to death as a civil crime is no longer in force.

So we see that there are occasions where just because the particular law or regulation has passed away does not mean that the principle is invalid. Ex. 22:18 teaches that witchcraft is not pleasing to God; this has not changed, even if the particular discipline of how it is handled has. Thus, a person would be in grave error if they tried to argue that witchcraft was now pleasing to God based on the fact that we no longer are commanded to put witches to death.

We will continue with more on this topic next time.

Summer Theology Program in Norcia, Italy

You may have noticed the new sidebar ad to the right. Our long-time friends at the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies asked that we post some information about the summer program that they will be holding in Norcia, Italy from June 16th-29th.

For two weeks room and board in Italy, you can't beat the price! And Norcia, the birthplace of Sts. Benedict and Scholastica, is an absolutely beautiful town. For anyone who has an interest in studying the Faith of the Church, I would wholeheartedly recommend attending the program.

From their website:

Contemplating the Faith in Umbria

From June 16-29th, the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies will hold a summer session in Norcia, Italy. In partnership with the Monasterro San Benedetto, this will be the third year they have held the Summer Institute.

The St. Albert the Great Center is dedicated to the revival of higher studies in theology undertaken according to the mind and method of the great scholastics, and in particular the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

This summer's program is focussing on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. With the sacred text as our primary source, we will also follow along the interpretive tradition of the Church by reading commentaries of the Fathers and in particular St. Thomas's commentary on the epistle.

In many ways, the epistle is already an early synthesis of the Faith that the Evangelists witness to, and it offers us the opportunity to explore in depth many theological questions such as grace, justification, the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New, and the salvation of the Jews, to name a few.

Besides the daily seminars, there will be a guest lecture by Fr. Cassian Folsom, OSB, the founder and prior of the monastery. The two-week program reaches its climax in an authentic scholastic disputation, moderated by one of the monks.

In addition to the academic program, we will, of course, be participating in the daily life of worship (High Mass, Divine Office) of the Benedictine monks who live and pray at the birthplace of SS. Benedict & Scholastica. There will be excursions to Assisi and to Cascia, as well as attendance at the Papal Mass in Rome for the Feast of SS. Peter & Paul at the conclusion of the program.

For more information, visit their website: http://www.albertusmagnuscss.org

"A saint in Heaven"

Today is the 50th anniversary of the death of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, OP, who was perhaps the greatest theologian of the 20th century.

While he is known for many things, the least of which includes directing the doctoral work of Karol Wojtyla, two of his lasting contributions to 20th century theology are his synthesis of systematic theology with spiritual theology and also his vehement defense of the scholastic tradition against modernity.

Regarding the first, Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange undertook the synthesis of Thomistic theology with the spiritual works of St. John of the Cross, showing how the two were in fact complementary. His most well-known spiritual work is entitled The Three Ages of the Interior Life, and can be found online in its entirety.

He is perhaps more well-known for the second of the two, his defense of the scholastic tradition against modernity. He is alleged to have ghost-written Pope Pius XII's great encyclical Humani generis, "Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine". Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange also gives a clear, concise, and very readable treatise against the Nouvelle Theologie in his famous essay, "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?"

His book, Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, is perhaps one of the best introductions to theology in existence, apart from the Summa itself.

While his intellectual merit is beyond dispute, Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange also lived what he taught. Asceticism was not merely an intellectual pursuit, but a way of life, the way of holiness for a humble Dominican friar. Perhaps today, then, we can ask for the intercession of Sts. Dominic and Thomas for the raising of this holy man to the altar of our Lord.

For more information on Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, please see the biography written by Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P. to be found here.

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

Today is the Feast of the Angelic Doctor, the "Dumb Ox", in the Ordinary Form. In the usus antiquior, we do not celebrate the feast until March 7th, which is more proper since that is the day of his death and entrance into Heaven.

However, today is still an important day because it commemorates the translation of his remains to Toulouse, which is the home of the Order of Preachers, and so we should not allow the day to go unobserved.

St. Thomas should hold a special place in our hearts as Catholics, not only for his immense intellect, but  also for his profound holiness and witness to the Faith. Lest we forget, the great Eucharistic hymns, the Tantum Ergo, the Adoro Te Devote, the Pange Lingua , and the Sacris Solemniis, were composed by St. Thomas, and perhaps in their own way rival the depth of truth contained within his Summa Theologiae.

Of all things, however, Pope Leo XIII said,

this is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw counsel, reasons and answers.

Finally, St. Thomas is unique in that of all of the Saints, he is the only one of whom in the liturgy we ask that we might "understand what he taught and imitate what he accomplished".

And so, today, perhaps let us ask for his intercession in our lives that our devotion to Our Lord, especially in his Eucharistic presence, might increase, and also that our knowledge of the Faith might be enlightened so as to gain the true path to holiness.

Collect:

O God, who made Saint Thomas Aquinas

outstanding in his zeal for holiness

and his study of sacred doctrine,

grant us, we pray,

that we may understand what he taught

and imitate what he accomplished.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, for ever and ever.