Truth

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth.
  - Jacques Maritain

Beneath all controversial issues, at the very root of things, lies the question about truth. Does truth exist? Can the human mind know truth? This is the pivot; upon it hinge all moral and cultural consequences.

If truth does not exist, or if it can never be known, all other moral and ideological debates are pointless. All I have in that case are my own subjective conjectures, the accumulated observations of my limited 58 years. All we have collectively are opinion polls - the aggregate pool of multiple subjective conjectures. The most heinous crime is acceptable and the most natural affections are shunned if only a majority will say that it must be so. Tomorrow, a new cultural wind may blow, and different values ascend. Nothing may be relied upon except the current poll.

But if truth exists, and ours minds can know it, the story is completely different. The truth becomes objective, solid, and reliable. The truth remains true, even if few or none follow it.

The Catholic faith assumes this to be the case. The word Catholic simply means universal; it signifies that the principles and dogmas of the Faith apply to all people in all parts of the world of all ages, races, backgrounds, and aptitudes, throughout all of human history. The tenets are absolutely reliable and trustworthy.

We get this from Jesus Himself, who said

". . . For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."
  - John 18:37b [RSV]

Moreover, Jesus is Truth Incarnate. ". . . I am the way, the truth, and the life. . ."  (John 14:6) 

Ideas have consequences. This idea has foundational consequences.

The least of these

The threefold Lenten discipline of prayer, fasting, and giving can and should have a purifying and clarifying effect. Prayer and fasting lead the soul to generous giving. Fasting and giving lead the soul to reflective prayer. The following is a personal story, covering the past 36 years or so.

I was a young man in 1973 when Roe v. Wade shocked the American culture. From the very beginning, I knew that was wrong, and must be reversed. But within a fairly short span, I let myself be cowed by more liberal thinkers into a broader way of viewing things. Restoring legal status to the unborn, while important, was just one of many equally important issues. We must not become too narrow-minded; we must not be single-issue voters and thinkers. That much was axiomatic.

I believe it was through prayer and fasting that I eventually came to consider more thoughtfully the essence of giving to the poor. The Gospel passage that grabbed me at some point was Mt.25:31-46. This well-known story tells of the return of the King at the end, how he separates the sheep from the goats, judges them on the basis of how they gave to the poor and needy, and issues this divine judgement: "...as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Mt.25:40b RSV)

And who, I pondered, are the very least of my brethren? Who are the poorest of the poor? To whom should I be especially generous, so as to be found giving to the Lord Himself?

There are poor people right here, even in my home town. I must give to them, and so I shall. But - are they the very least? Well, those in third-world countries are certainly poorer. Are they the least? What about those who actually die in war or in natural disasters? Loss of life is certainly more serious than mere poverty. Are these the least?

You already know where this leads. I was eventually forced to see that there was no greater poverty than that suffered by those who were wholly innocent and also wholly defenseless. These little ones could not even raise their voices in a plaintive cry for help. These were the very least. Giving to these would be giving to Jesus.

With renewed clarity of vision, I was cowed no longer. Although often unfaithful, and frequently forgetful, I have since endeavored to make this a major focus of my life, liberal goats notwithstanding.

What is truth?

To love only to seek - on condition of never finding - to want only disquietude, that is to hate truth.
  - Jacques Maritain

Before Pilate, Jesus said

". . . For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."
Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"
  - John 18:37b,38 [RSV]

Pilate's question seems unmistakably cynical, a clear implication that, to Pilate, there is no such thing as truth, or that it cannot be attained.

It strikes me that this same disparity of viewpoints toward truth exists today, and explains much of the widening polarity in our culture. Both in politics and in the Church, the liberal or progressive thinker doesn't believe that the truth can be known with any degree of certitude. Thus, abortion may be lamentable, but not an absolute evil. Our definition for marriage or for family can be fluid, and can change as our understanding enters into broader horizons. Religions are all basically the same; none should be disparaged, and none should be especially esteemed above others. The conservative insistence upon unchanging values appears rigid and stubborn, probably rooted in fear, bigotry, and ignorance. The conservative's claim to know the truth seems arrogant and elitist. After all, no one can really know anything with any absolute certainty, so there can be no such thing as unchanging truth or immutable values.

At the other end, conservative thinkers often try to reason with their liberal friends, using the rigorous rules of logic, dialectic, deduction, induction, Scriptural exegesis, etc. But the arguments fall onto deaf ears, or onto ears that don't recognize such language. It's frustrating, like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

And so, we have an impasse, an ever-widening breach. Now, I don't know how one would go about bridging this gap, or if that is even possible, or desirable. But it occurs to me that the exchange between Jesus and Pilate may mirror the confrontation in our own culture, and so may shed some light upon what's really at stake here.

In many passages besides the one already cited, Jesus speaks of truth and seems to put great emphasis upon it. He says, for example, that ". . . you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."  (John 8:32)  In the early Church, the apostles likewise take up this mantle and speak quite forcefully for truth and against erroneous doctrines.

In perhaps the most telling passage, Jesus identifies Himself as Truth personified when He says, ". . . I am the way, the truth, and the life. . ."  (John 14:6)  Taking this utterance at face value, one would have to conclude that to seek and embrace the truth is to seek and embrace Jesus; to deny or avoid the truth is to deny or avoid Jesus. (Of course, someone who denies truth would probably not take this or any other Scripture at face value anyway [sigh]).

Well, maybe it all just comes down to whom you believe is the more laudable role model: the open-minded Pilate, or the narrow and rigid Jesus.

Sermon on the Mount

Senator Barack Obama recently expressed confusion over what the Bible teaches on homosexual unions, and suggested the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.5:1-7:29) for clarification. This struck me as sage advice, so as a Lenten exercise, I have prayerfully reviewed that passage, with an eye especially for anything regarding homosexuality.

The Sermon on the Mount is, of course, a deep and multi-layered discourse, saying much about the path to God and the life of faith, containing way too many profundities to even mention in one blog post. Here are just a few little thoughts:

Early in His discourse (Mt.5:17-20), Jesus declares that He has come, not to abolish or diminish Old Testament teachings, but to fulfill them, to enlarge upon them. Now, it is well known that homosexual activity is categorically condemned in the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament. In Leviticus 20:10-16, for example, homosexuality is listed along with adultery, incest, and bestiality as the capital sexual sins, i.e., deserving the death penalty. So, as to the special focus here, Jesus would seem to be confirming and even strengthening the Mosaic prohibition against homosexual acts. This becomes even clearer in the remainder of chapter 5 (Mt.5:21-48), where Jesus gives six instances of His fulfilling or strengthening of O.T. precepts. In each example - murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, justice, and love - the commands of Jesus go beyond what the O.T. required; His commands are stricter and more comprehensive than the Mosaic statutes. Note that adultery, one of the capital sexual sins, is explicitly included. Not only is adultery condemned by Jesus, but even the lustful thoughts leading up to the actual adulterous act. One would have to conclude that the same principle applies to the other capital sexual sins as well: that we must be vigilant against the very thoughts and intentions leading up to the actual sins of incest, bestiality, and homosexuality.

As noted in a recent post, many have interpreted Mt.7:1 ("Judge not, lest ye be judged") as somehow providing license for all kinds of moral mischief. But the context (Mt.7:1-5) clearly talks about judging rightly, with clear vision. It condemns the condemning of certain behavior in others while excusing the same behavior in ourselves. It may also prohibit judging the inner secrets of another's heart which we cannot know. But in context it cannot reasonably mean that we must approve or condone sinful behavior, either in ourselves or in others. The apostles, the prophets, and Jesus Himself constantly exposed and judged sinful behavior.

The principle is profound but simple: love the sinner, hate the sin, both in ourselves and in others. To excuse sin is to belittle God's law and His holiness. To truly love the sinner (including myself), I must hate the sin which encumbers the sinner and keeps him from God. To excuse sin is to ignore the sinner's moral danger, and so to despise the sinner himself.

This principle applies to the special focus. Currently, many who profess the Christian faith have singled out homosexual behavior as something to be lauded or affirmed, rather than repented of as sin. This turns out, ironically, to be the ultimate homophobia. By their unwillingness to call this particular sin a sin, such Christians place a huge stumbling block in the path of their brothers who are so tempted. They single out homosexuals from other sinners, excusing them from the need for repentance, thus depriving them of the saving grace of repentance and forgiveness, and thus consigning them to eternal perdition. This is serious hatred! In contrast, Jesus loves the homosexual, and so calls him to repent. As with all sin, this is the only path to salvation and sanctity.

In Mt.7:13,14, Jesus warns us to avoid the easy way leading to destruction, then warns of false prophets (Mt.7:15-20), which also seems germane to the special focus. In the closing paragraph (Mt.7:24-27), Jesus gives another solemn warning: heeding His teachings leads to life and strength, ignoring them leads to collapse.

For once, the senator from Illinois got it right: the Sermon on the Mount has much to say on this and on many, many other issues. It is highly recommended reading.

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.