Prayerful sin

Did you know that prayer can be sinful? It's true. The great moral teachers say that some things are intrinsically evil, i.e., they are always sinful, under all circumstances. But no human act is always and without exception virtuous. Even something like prayer which is ordinarily good can, under certain circumstances, be sinful. Here's an illustration:

Scenario #1:

Suppose you're walking all alone on a quiet, empty beach. Suddenly you hear a cry for help, and, looking out to the water, briefly see a child's head, with arms flailing about uselessly. Then the child goes under again. That child is drowning! Though an adequate swimmer, you're not sure you can swim well enough to reach and save the child, so instead you kneel on the sand and pray for God to save him. Such prayer is a sin, a sin of omission. It is a sinful prayer, or, if you prefer, a prayerful sin.

Scenario #2:

Now suppose that the beach is not empty, but crowded with thousands of people. And, out in the water, not one but hundreds of children are drowning. Some of the people on the beach seem not to notice the children. Others notice, but are deliberately ignoring them. Still others are watching with interest, some even laying bets as to which child will last the longest. Finally, you find a large group of people who are kneeling together on the beach, praying for the children. Two individuals are in the water, actually attempting to rescue some of them, but many will surely perish for lack of assistance.

Scenario #3:

Finally, suppose that the children are deliberately being drowned by an armed detachment of government agents. Any attempt to rescue the children or even to interfere is immediately quashed. Moreover, everyone on the beach is being compelled to assist in the drowning operation. Some people are praying for the children, for a miraculous rescue, even as they willingly comply. Some are also fasting. Some are mailing red envelopes in protest.

From a moral standpoint, the biggest difference between scenario 3 and scenarios 1 & 2 is that the sin has become one of commission, not omission. To actively cooperate in evil is of greater moral magnitude than to passively omit doing good.

Please consider how your taxes pay for the slaughter of the innocents, and what your willing cooperation in that slaughter really means.

Related: A citizens' movement to refuse abortion taxes

Transfiguration

We are accustomed to hear the account of Christ's transfiguration without the surrounding context. The full story can be found in Mt.16:21-17:21, Mk.8:31-9:29, and Lk.9:22-43, with all three synoptic Gospels giving the same contextual details:

Jesus tells his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to die and then to rise again. Then he tells them that every disciple of his must also deny himself, take up his cross and lose his life. Then he says that some of them would not die until the Kingdom of God had come. Then he takes Peter, James, and John with him up Mount Tabor, and appears in great glory with Moses and Elijah. The three disciples are dazzled, Peter wants to erect booths (tents? tabernacles?) for the three glorious figures, a cloud overshadows them, and they hear God say "This is my beloved Son; listen to him.". After that, Jesus alone is to be seen, back to his normal state. On the way back down, Jesus orders the three disciples not to talk about this event until he has died and risen. Once down from the mountain, Jesus casts out a demon which the other disciples had tried to expel but couldn't.

It seems significant that the surrounding details are consistent in all three accounts. It would seem that the transfiguration, that foretaste of resurrected and heavenly glory, is inextricably tied to self-denial and to the cross. This is true not only for Jesus, but for us as well. The flip side is that, in the midst of our crosses and of our desert times, we can take heart and derive strength from the promise of victorious resurrection life. The cross and the resurrection are two sides of a single redemption coin. Our battle against sin and against Satan will be futile outside of this reality.

Knowing good and evil

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just what did that mean? At face value, it seems to simply say that Man became a moral being, capable of knowing right from wrong, and capable of freely choosing either. We cannot be amoral like the animals; we can only be moral or immoral.

No less than John Paul II has suggested a deeper meaning as well. Namely, that the original sin of Man involved deciding what is good and what is evil, in direct rebellion of God's authority. Note the serpent's words: "You will be like God, knowing good and evil". Rather than agree with God's judgment of sin, we want to make up our own rules.

Sound familiar? Of course it does - we hear this all the time, even perhaps from our pulpits. "Each person must find his or her own truth" or: "Only you can decide what is right and wrong for you" or: "Sin is whatever you feel it to be" If this relativism is questioned, the inevitable out-of-context comeback is "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Whether you call it a serpent's hiss, or "Values clarification", it's still a deception. Repentance starts with agreeing with God, and recognizing that what He says is good is good, and what He says is evil is evil.