ACAT 22: Sin and Law

Original Sin – Actual Sin – Mortal Sin – Venial Sin

Many people have heard by rote the types of sin “taught” by the Catholic Church.  This line of thinking characterizes the Church as a group of elders who gather to define what constitutes naughty behavior, and who further go on to assign spiritual penalties to such transgressions.  Such ideas go all the way back to the Middle Ages and beyond, and are about as accurate as thinking the public education system invented the alphabet for the purposes of issuing report cards.

No church or religion invented sin.  And, no church or religion “teaches” sin.  The Catholic Church ascribes to the idea that there are metaphysical laws which define the universe in which we live, meaning that God created all things and all creatures with its own purpose and design.  Humans, as you may recall from previous posts, were created and designed to know God, to love God, to receive God’s love and to live harmoniously with the way in which God imagined all people to express and fulfill their talents.  Just as we plan and design our crafts with particular form and function, so too does God create people with intentional design.  The intended form and function of something can be said to be the laws under which that “something” operates.  An automobile has form and function which can vary from car to car but must have certain basic principles met before it is a “good” automobile.  In other words, if a piece of machinery follows the “laws” which makes something an “automobile,” it functions well.  If not, it falters, or fails, or functions as something that does not qualify as an automobile.

The same phrasing can describe humanity.  The “laws” which make something “human” are how well we know God, love God, receive God’s love and respond to God’s intended design.

Sin is the consequence of not following the law… that is, not following God’s intended design.

Thus: Nobody can “invent” sin.  Sin is a state of misalignment.

With that in mind, let us see now the two ways that misalignment occurs:

  • ORIGINAL SIN: The inherited misalignment that originated with Adam and Eve, the first two humans, whose very makeup was altered by their choice to see and know evil;
  • ACTUAL SIN: The choices people make which go against God’s intended design.

The phrase “original sin” is meant to signify that we begin our earthly lives in misalignment, since God’s intended design for humanity was not to know evil.  Yet, once our ancestors chose to do so, it could not be un-seen.  Our lenses no longer pointed solely at God.  Think of it as someone altering the process before it even begins, such that everything coming out has this design flaw, and our minds now have a sharp focus on, and skew toward, things that divide and destroy relationships (since that is, in essence, what evil is – the destruction of our relationship with God).

NOTE!

“Original sin” does NOT mean that God created damaged goods, or that people are set up to fail from birth.  In fact, God provided a correction – a “patch,” if you will – for original sin, and that is baptism.  (We will discuss baptism in greater detail in future posts.)

Another note!

Humans have free will, free choice, and are never coerced or manipulated by God or His Church into doing anything.  If one finds an example of coercion, it is not authentically of God.  Period.

“Actual Sin,” then, is the term used to describe those times when we choose something that is not part of God’s intended design.  As one can imagine, there are degrees of sin which range from accidental to carefully calculated.  The bottom line is, all sin is a deviation from God’s intended design (or, in metaphysical terms, a violation of natural law).

With such a range of degree of sin, can we expect that sin’s consequences are equally variable?

NO.

Earthly, material consequences are variable.  Spiritual consequences are not.  The consequence of every sin is a break in our relationship with God.  Sin disrupts our act of loving God and our ability to receive God’s love.  Each and every time.

ACAT 21: A Study of Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve.

There cannot be many who have not heard some version of the Creation Story.  Adam and Eve are humanity’s notorious duo, the first of our kind and the first to bungle things up.  So numerous are the commentaries on these two that it borders on cliche to find their names in the Catholic Catechism.  Yet, there they are, occupying the entire Lesson Five of the Baltimore Catechism, and likewise, our discussion for this week.

The Church believes Adam and Eve truly existed.  They were created as man and woman were intended to exist, innocent of any corruption, fully expressing the rich gifts of their endowments of body, mind and soul by God, who loved the idea of them into flesh and bone and breath.  Whether or not there was a botanical tree with literal fruit, or a spiritual construct embodied by metaphorical assignment, it is certain that God warned Adam and Eve of “partaking of the knowledge of good and evil.”  God wished to preserve the innocence of the first man and woman by keeping their intellect focused on that which is good, beautiful and true.  Could God have created anything that was evil, ugly or false?  No… but He did create angels with free will, some of whom rebelled and set out to destroy and undermine God’s work.  God likewise gave free will to Adam and Eve.  While allowing them this freedom, he still intended them to live in purity and perfect balance.  There would be no useful reason to follow any of the doings of the renegade angels.

As we know from the story, Eve was tempted by Satan to partake of that knowledge of good and evil, despite God’s warning.  Satan asserted that God’s motive was to keep the man and woman from becoming a threat to God’s omnipotence.  “You will not die if you eat the fruit,” Satan said.  “Rather, you will become like God.”  It was a clever exploitation of human nature: arouse curiosity, plant doubt and watch the rumor spread.  Once Eve ate the fruit, Adam became curious and, using the disobedience of the other person as his rationale, followed suit.  Part impulse, part calculated risk, part willingness to listen to a voice sowing seeds of distrust… our ancestors’ eyes were opened.  Innocence was spoiled.  Now, instead of seeing the good and the beautiful and the true, they saw it in terms of every way it could be perverted, distorted, exploited and ruined.

Horrified, Adam and Eve no longer felt safe.  If goodness and beauty and truth could be corrupted, what guarantee did anyone have of anything?  What once was seen in abundance suddenly became scarce.  The present was no longer enough.  Security became risk.  In the presence of evil, God no longer seemed sufficient.  In short: FEAR was introduced into humanity.

Our previous posts have emphasized a consistent theme: 1 John 4:18.  Perfect love casts out all fear.  And, in Adam and Eve, we see the inverse at work: fear deprives us of perfect love.

In the story, Adam and Eve cower in fear as they comprehend what they have done, and they can’t un-see the evil they now know.  They understand why God instructed them to leave that fruit alone.  What will God think?  How could he love them now?  Fear and doubt paralyze their once clear intellect.  To make things worse, Adam and Eve now realize their very bodies can be used in perverse and corrupt ways, compared to the innocence and majesty of purpose they knew before seeing the ugliness of gluttony, lust and gratification.  They covered themselves in shame.

Of course God knew what happened.  With great sorrow, God watched His beloved man and woman fall away.  Their responses betrayed them.  Even God’s all-encompassing love fell into doubt in their minds.  Fear gripped Adam and Eve… and they could not bear the perfect love of God.  Perfect love casts out all fear… and so, Adam and Eve, enslaved by fear, were cast out on their own.

God did not abandon Adam and Eve.  He continued loving them and all of their descendants no less than perfectly.  With the institution of fear, however, humanity remains separated from God by the degree to which that fear holds sway over our minds.

Is there any hope for redeeming humanity’s relationship with God?  Yes.  In fact, God began laying the foundation for that redemption almost immediately.  Through promises and covenants with the ones who trusted Him in spite of this primal fall, God led the way for the eventual birth of Jesus, the act through which God would become human himself and go before us in a story that would reverse every misstep of Adam and Eve, eventually taking on every conceivable fear and facing it himself in an incomprehensible demonstration of solidarity and desire to restore faith in Divine Love.

Remember, our task here is to annotate the Baltimore Catechism in ways that speak to the contemporary autistic mind.  The Baltimore Catechism does a thorough job of explaining the “what” of the fall of humanity from grace.  We aim, with the help of St. Thorlak’s theology of merciful love, to explain “why” – because, without a sense of why, the Catechism reads increasingly like a book of arbitrary rules… which speaks little to autistics and non-autistics alike.

Reference: Lesson Five, Questions 39-49.

 

ACAT 20: Angels 101

Lesson Four of the Baltimore Catechism turns now toward God’s creatures.  The first two questions review:

  1. Q: Who created Heaven, Earth and all things?

A: God.

  1. Q: How did God create Heaven and Earth?

A: God created Heaven and earth from nothing, by His word; that is, a single act of His will.

Now it gets a little more interesting.

  1. Q: Which are the chief creatures of God?

A: The chief creatures of God are angels and humankind.

  1. Q: What are angels?

A: Angels are pure spirits without a body, created to adore and enjoy God in Heaven.

  1. Q: Were angels created for any other purpose?

A: The angels were also created to assist before the Throne of God and to minister unto Him; they have often been sent as messengers from God to humanity; and are also appointed our guardians.

  1. Q: Were the angels, as God created them, good and happy?

A: The angels, as God created them, were good and happy.

  1. Q: Did all the angels remain good and happy?

A: All the angels did not remain good and happy; many of them sinned and were cast into Hell; and these are called devils or bad angels.

Angels are certainly well-depicted in pop culture.  As most imagery goes, angels are large, winged, human-like creatures said to come down from the heavens.  They can be visible or invisible, and are most often (but not always) benevolent.  Pop culture’s angels are the celestial counterpart to fairies, who are smaller, winged, human-like creatures said to rise from the earth and can likewise be seen, unseen, kindly or malicious.

The Baltimore Catechism speaks of none of these attributes, instead stating that God created the angels for His delight in Heaven.  Implied in questions 32-38 are several points of note:

  • Heaven and Hell are separately delineated, and exist
  • Angels are of high importance
  • Angels exert influence on humanity

Let us look now systematically at the attributes which the Catechism names regarding angels.

  • Angels are pure spirits, without bodies, created to exist in the Heavenly realm. This negates most of the popular imagery people have come to expect when discussing angels.  People cannot be angels, nor do loved ones become angels when they die.
  • Angels exist to adore and enjoy God. At first, it may sound arrogant to think that God created angels “to adore him.”  That word, adore, means to deeply and profoundly love and respect another.  In the absence of context, it seems like quite the power trip for an all-perfect Creator to design beings specifically for adoring him.  However, we do have context.  We suggest in recent posts that God is the essence of love itself, and his acts of creation are his uncontainable love taking on living expression.  Angels are no exception.  If God creates for the sake of loving the created, then how do we expect his creatures to respond?  Also: Nowhere does it say that God demands angels’ love.  In fact, just a few lines later we will find some angels rejecting God, which negates the idea that God controls angels like puppets.
  • Angels assist and minister to God. In the context of love, this also flows logically.  “Minister” here means “attend to the needs of someone.”  When existence begins with love and is sustained by love, we can guess that those who assist and minister do so freely, happily and willingly.  No coercion here.  The bigger question is, what could God – all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing – possibly need?  Again, the context of love provides an answer.  Love, by itself, can exist; but love cannot stagnate.  Love needs a beloved, and needs to give to that beloved.  Could the angels’ role in ministering to God be… to allow themselves to be loved by embracing God’s love?  With what we’ve discussed about God so far, that seems to be the only answer that makes sense without needing immediate exception and qualification.
  • Angels communicate with and defend humanity. Here is where most of us imagine angels as winged messengers and celestial warriors.  There are numerous instances in Sacred Scripture where “an angel of God” appears, yet there are no concrete descriptions given, nor is it explained if the words imparted are spoken and heard aloud or more intuitive and interior.  The angels’ role in defending humanity is the source of the Catholic tradition that each person has a dedicated guardian angel.  While this is not meticulously outlined in Sacred Scripture, the one passage which implies this very clearly is Matthew 18:10, where Jesus says, “See that you not look down upon any child; their angels always see the face of My Father.”  It is noteworthy that Jesus gives this reference without any further need of clarification or explanation; it is merely a given.
  • Angels are created fundamentally good and happy, but have the capacity to rebel and become devils, cast into Hell. Talk about foreshadowing!  In the midst of the “angel facts” section, the Catechism tosses in both “devils” and “Hell” – two concepts that have not yet been discussed in any context.  Will this topic get more due in later lessons?    But for now, consider this as both preview and basic introduction.  Devil, here, refers to a creature with destructive and hostile intentions.  Hell is a spiritual state of torment and suffering.  There is no reason at this point to define “hell” as a mappable geographic location where flames, pitchforks and sulfur make up the landscape.  It is sufficient to think that God’s realm is infused with the benefits of loving and being loved.  Who could reject or doubt God’s perfect love?  It would have to be only the most hostile and destructive creatures, indeed; and such creatures would deny themselves any comfort of loving and being loved.  With the opposite of love being fear, “hell” is no doubt a dreadful state of being in a constant sense of terror, abandonment and untended suffering.  But, again, these topics will get more attention later on.

This entire topic seems by itself an interesting study in God’s creatures.  However, it sets the stage for understanding what the Catholic church teaches about the roots of good and evil in the tangible world we live in.  Though the existence of angels and devils remains unseen and cannot readily be proven using the scientific method, accepting their existence does provide a logical foundation for much of what is to come.  For many, it is a stretch.  For all, it is why we call it “faith.”

ACAT 19: The Holy Trinity

Lesson Three of the Baltimore Catechism takes on the mystery of One God in Three Persons.  Scholars and theologians have worked with this conundrum since the beginning of Christianity.  While we claim no superiority or edge in offering our explanation, we hope that we can present the concept in a way that enhances our pursuit of faith.

  1. Is there but one God? Yes.
  2. Why can there be but one God?

The Catechism says there can only be one God because God is supreme and perfect, and has no equal.  It is a matter of definition.  Since God is the exemplar of perfection, and is the source of all else that exists, He is a single point which cannot be duplicated.  If we were talking branding, which we certainly are not, God is universally recognized as unique and unable to be repeated.  His perfection (and the fact that He is the creator of all things) transcends patent, trademark and copyright.  There is no possibility of a knockoff, clone or generic formula which could even come close enough to be called “God.”  It is not a matter of supremacy; it is a matter of recognition by all of creation that God’s essence is beyond anything which could ever be manufactured.

  1. How many persons are there in God?

A: In God there are three divine persons, really distinct and equal in all things: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Catechism adds in Questions 30 and 31 that we can never fully understand how this is; only in partial glimpses and analogy.  The full comprehension of this concept remains a mystery, which is defined as a truth we do not yet understand.

There is so much already written about the Trinity that readers are better off exploring this on their own than trying to learn it here.  The better part, here, is to present a recurring theme in the Catholic faith, which is comfort with the unknown.

Autistics are known for concrete, predictable and logical thinking.  Uncertainty can be an autistic’s archnemesis.  So, the first point we want to make is that there is no uncertainty in discussing the Trinity.  We are quite certain that there are three distinct and equal persons in one God.  This, to us, is not up for question.

The HOW becomes the sticking point.  Many want a solid explanation in order to accept the conclusion.  But, just as scientific research must accept in part the unknown, so too our faith must accept that we humans have neither terminology nor paradigm to relate to something as utterly impossible as one entity consisting of three distinct, equal persons.  Every known creature has a one-to-one correspondence with its essence, whether human or plant or animal.  No species has been discovered which has multiple distinct, separate and equal essences.  Even if we looked to the extremes, we’d find that polymorphic organisms or multiple personalities do not express the full criteria of distinct, separate and equal all of the time.  Scientific research requires faith, or trust that a truth exists even if we have not yet reached it.  Our second point is that something is not negated just because its explanation has not been found.

One person’s suggestion of the HOW of the Trinity employs geometric imagery:

Finally, WHY?  Why have three distinct, equal persons?  Well, we don’t know… not definitively, anyway.  But, sticking with our answer from the past two posts, we believe it fits our notion that God is the essence of love, personified.  Love cannot exist by itself; neither can God.  Once again, there is much to be explored by readers on the theme of love within the Holy Trinity.  Two such articles, written by our spiritual director Fr. Mark Nolette, explore this topic in greater detail:

First, by way of the teachings of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia, “The Joy of Love”

Then, this, by way of reflecting on the Gospel of John.

ACAT 18: God’s Governing Style

In exploring God’s infinite perfection, the Baltimore Catechism leads us to three more attributes to ponder, and all in one sentence.  Question 20 of Lesson Two explores the style in which God governs his creation by asking if God is just, holy and merciful.  The answer given is a threefold, interrelated “yes,” with each attribute explicitly defined:

Just: Providing what is deserved, whether merit or punishment

Holy: Exalted in goodness

Merciful: Less exacting than justice demands

The Baltimore text gives an example of a judge in a court of law who is motivated by wisdom and virtue.  A criminal found guilty in this court will be sentenced according to what is right – no more, no less.  Occasionally, circumstance will arise where the person’s guilt is mitigated by factors beyond control, such as impaired thinking, ignorance of the law or extreme and immediate need.  In such cases, a just judge would show mercy by overriding the typical sentence with something more fitting, and in no way does this suggest the judge is corrupt or bending any rules.  A just judge follows the rules.  A holy judge asks what is morally right.  A merciful judge considers each person’s humanity and frailty, and keeps or adjusts decisions based on what will lead that person to a better way of life.

When taken together, these three attributes form a solid platform of checks and balances.  Any overreliance on one detracts from the ability of the others to achieve their intention.  God’s justice is no less real than God’s mercy, yet neither dominate, nor do they switch off and on.  All three operate simultaneously at any given moment: justice and mercy bound together in holiness.  However many sermons, books and homilies may focus on one aspect over the other, the reality is a constant, perfect and simultaneous triad.

Our post last week considered God in the spiritual tradition of St. Thorlak, which portrays Him against the backdrop of His purpose, which is LOVE.  God brought creation into existence with love, through love and for love… so, it ought to follow that God governs creation likewise: with love, through love and for love.  This is where we can find a solution among those who assert one aspect of God’s governance over another (that is, the fire-and-brimstone image on the one hand, and the none-are-ever-condemned image on the other).  LOVE is what motivates and binds justice, holiness and mercy into one cohesive truth.  1 John 4:18 shows how this works:  “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.”  If God is wrathful, there is reason to be afraid – either fearing God’s punishment for what we have done, or fearing that we can never reach or maintain a level of goodness to stay in the safe zone out of God’s way.  Likewise, if God holds none of us to any standard of virtue, nothing in any other part of the catechism, or any religious teaching, makes sense.   Some will say that Jesus’ death erased sin and guarantees salvation for all, even to the point of eliminating the concept of hell or damnation.  That also fails to hold up under scrutiny and test, and it gives rise to a different kind of fear – that of everyone making up their own rules, justifying themselves without consequence, and gradually losing sight of the common good.

Perfect love casts out fear.  If God is the essence of love, there ought to be no fear or chaos in God’s governance.  The triad of justice and mercy bound by holiness is perfectly balanced, with neither fear of wrath nor moral chaos.  Loving justice defends those who are abused and restores what is taken by holding abusers accountable.  Loving mercy considers those who stand accused and invites them to choose the better way before the evil of their actions is locked in.  Both exist simultaneously.  Nobody loses.  Those who decline God’s invitation to holiness reap the fullness of justice… and, those who accept God’s invitation to holiness reap the fullness of mercy.

ACAT 17: A Concept of God

Lesson Two of the Baltimore Catechism outlines the characteristics of God which most of us have heard in one way or another.  Most of these qualities are beyond anything we can relate to in human terms:

  • Spiritual
  • Perfect
  • Infinite
  • Without beginning
  • Without end
  • Everywhere
  • All-seeing
  • All-knowing
  • All-powerful

Without anything like this in our concrete reality, it falls to our imaginations to construct our idea of God.  That presumes, however, that we have a well-functioning imagination.  Many of us do not, and even who do still find this far past the range of speculation.  It often seems that our concept of God comes out like the mythical gods of long ago: Giant, thunderous, demanding, frightful in abject perfection (with ourselves, by comparison, looking like wretched fools or worse). In other scenarios, God ends up like a forerunner of Santa Claus, a benevolent grandfather figure who sees everything we do, knowing all that we feel, think and say, and exists to dispense gifts to us based on our merit.  Imagining God can feel like living in a snow globe, existing solely for God’s amusement – or abandonment when He tires of watching us.  It gets to be such absurdity that we eventually dismiss the whole thing as either too big to imagine, or outright fiction.  Autistics particularly struggle with the contradiction of concrete realities which consist of abstract qualities.  Perhaps, then, we might start with the implications of God rather than trying to comprehend His descriptions.  St. Augustine took this approach in his teachings, and over the centuries, he would influence many others, including our own St. Thorlak.  How did he – a scholar, and also a likely autistic – present these heady realities of God to the medieval Catholics of Iceland, few of whom were literate, all of whom labored day and night to survive on fishing and farming in an unreliable and punishing climate?

Thorlak’s intellectual leaning was a peculiarity to his fellow Icelanders, including those at the Oddi, the center of Icelandic scholarship.  He found his niche 1,359 miles (2,187 km) abroad, studying theology at the renowned Abbey of St-Victor in Paris.  He never intended to subsist on academia, though.  Thorlak was eager to return to his homeland with the mission of bringing this marvelous knowledge of God to those unable to pursue theology.  And, in the way many fellow autistics have of drawing out profoundly simple yet powerful solutions to confounding complexities, Thorlak showed a way to see the unseeable God by using the backdrop of His purpose: LOVE.

In that manner, then, let us employ the Catechism’s list of attributes to understand not a demanding deity, not an indifferent toymaker in the sky, but One who embodies and defines the essence of love.

We, being human, have the limits of our minds and senses; thus, the first three attributes reflect the limits to how we can know God.  God is spiritual, perfect and infinite.  Spiritual suggests He exists within the interior and unseen realm, the experience itself of being.  One of the earliest translations of “spirit” is “breath.”  We can think of God as the breath that says “yes” to all that has existed, exists now, and will exist far beyond our participation.  Perfect means complete, whole, without flaw.  Infinite: God encompasses the totality of all that is.  Since creation is very much alive and unfolding, that totality is not finished, nor can we comprehend how far back it goes or how far ahead it will go on.

Without beginning, without end… everywhere… all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful: These are, in one sense, embellishments on the notion of being infinite.  God’s essence and intentionality infuses and sustains all creation, which includes us and the world around us and the universe in which our world exists.   But more specifically, these reflect the intentionality of God.  He exists not just to exist, but to be, see, know and act.  Why?

What if the answer is love?  If God is love’s very essence, then creation is the expression of joy so ripe that it had to be given form.  The “love” that is God is that creative love underpinning the interests which propel our spirits.  God’s love is no mere greeting card sentiment.  God’s love is all-consuming, all-knowing, all-seeing and without end.  God’s love of the very notion of humanity and earth and universe, and all its intricacies, is indistinguishable from God Himself, and exceeds the capacity of God to remain statically fixed or detached.  It is such a burning drive that God, unable to be contained, brought it all into being to experience it.

Repeat: God did not simply imagine us.  The delight He took in imagining us was so consuming that He was moved to experience us.  Hence, God actively sees, knows and empowers what He has given form and substance.

Autistics know the difference between thinking about something and experiencing that intense rapture which drives us, draws us forward, consumes our minds and feels like the meaning of life itself.  Onlookers call this our “special interest.”  We go along with that terminology because it avoids degrading our joy into something pejorative, like “obsession,” but it grossly dismisses how greatly that joy affects us.  (To the point, who would ever gaze upon a loved one and whisper, “You are my special interest?”)

With “love” as God’s backdrop, we see that he is neither dictator nor spy in the sky.  God supplies all, designs all and sustains all because He is love which cannot be contained.

This may still be too much to comprehend or believe, especially when we look around and see everything that is NOT love.  Where did all the mess come from, and why does God not step in and clean it up for us?  We will continue this discussion as we explore more of the Catechism.  In the meantime, let us recall that list in answer to the question, “In what manner does God love us?”

Spiritually.  Perfectly.  Infinitely.  Without beginning or end.  Everywhere.  Seeing and knowing all, and loving us with all His power.

ACAT 16: What Are We To Believe?

From the Baltimore Catechism:

How shall we know the things which we are to believe?

We shall know the things which we are to believe from the Catholic Church, through which God speaks to us.

Where shall we find the chief truths which the Catholic Church teaches?

We shall find the chief truths which the Catholic Church teaches in the Apostles’ Creed.

Let us comment, then, on these two questions as we pick up our look at the Catechism once more.

The Baltimore Catechism was ostensibly prepared and published for use by school-aged children being raised in the Catholic faith.  However, it is still a valid and informative resource outside that context – for instance, as a starting point for those unfamiliar with, or seriously questioning, the Catholic faith.  To that end, this week’s questions seem almost circular.  “How do we know what to believe, if we want to be Catholic?” – “Find out by being Catholic.”  It also seems a bit too direct for many sensibilities if we conceptualize “The Catholic Church” as a monarchy (or worse, a dictatorship).  Autistics often feel the tension between a desire for truth and the cultural persuasion to see truth as a relative construct.

In reality, the Catholic Church is a much broader entity than a mere governing board.  “Church” means both the community of believers and the structure surrounding us – both in a literal and figurative sense.  The structure can be both bricks in the building in which we worship and the beliefs we hold as part of that community.

The Catholic Church as a community of believers does indeed have people in charge, from the top down, and these people are as human as anyone we know.  Some of them are skilled leaders.  Some are shining examples of honesty and integrity.  Some are insincere.  Some are manipulative.  Some start out one way and are influenced into acting another way, for better or for worse.  All are human.  All have the same potential for growth, for grace and for salvation.  If any of us are looking for that one leader who makes no mistakes, who never lapses in judgment, who has no weaknesses, let us stop here.  We will not find perfect people in the Catholic Church.  But this is a function of our humanity, not a failure on the Church’s part.  We are exactly as likely to find flawed people anywhere else we look.  The Catholic Church was not established on any pretense of perfection, and anyone who tells us otherwise is plain wrong.  (The Church does exist, in part, to teach us to strive toward perfection, but the understanding has always been that we are not there yet, and cannot reach that mark until we have completed our earthly lifetimes).

The phrasing of the Baltimore Catechism does reflect its nineteenth-century origin.  However, it remains accurate to say, “If we want to understand the Catholic way of life, study the totality of the Catholic Church, and we’ll find out.”  And, yes: Catholics do believe that God speaks to us through the design and operation of this Church.  The Baltimore text explains that this includes the teachings of the Pope, the councils, bishops and the priests.  We can go further and add deacons, lay ministers and earnestly practicing Catholics in the pews.  The lives of the saints also give us great insight about what it means to live the Catholic faith.  Though there are certain basic tenets, there are as many valid expressions of this faith as there are individuals following it.

These basic tenets are indeed enumerated in the Apostles’ Creed.  This prayer is more often recited in private or small-group prayer than the Nicene Creed, which is prayed by the entire congregation at Holy Mass each week.  The two creeds are basically the same, with the Nicene Creed being a revised wording to more specifically define elements of the faith causing confusion prior its clarification in the fourth century.

The Baltimore Catechism proceeds next into a detailed discussion of the Apostles’ Creed.  Our Spiritual Director, Fr. Mark Nolette, has written a series of articles diving into the relevance and complexities of Nicene Creed.  Find them in these issues of Harvest Magazine, a publication of the Diocese of Portland, Maine.

September/October 2019 Issue

November/December 2019 Issue

January/February 2020 Issue

 

ACAT 15: Soul Lost and Found

How exactly is a soul lost?

If a soul is lost, can it be recovered?

We have talked about a soul being “lost” in the sense of losing one’s sense of direction, or losing track of where we should be on a given path.  There are those other senses of “lost” which we must not fail to discuss, such as no longer being able to have or keep something; also, giving up by acknowledging defeat.

These two senses do apply to the idea of a soul being lost.  It is possible to give such little regard to the God-endowed value of our soul that we are not fit guardians of that which God has entrusted to us.  It is just as possible to approach life as a game or a gamble, and if we fail to invest our strategy wisely, we will be overpowered by the forces that act in opposition to God.

This is the first time we have looked squarely at the idea there might be forces actively, deliberately opposing God.  Our Baltimore Catechism has not yet gotten into the particulars of demons, temptation and sentient sabotage.  We are a little ahead of ourselves, perhaps, but no less needing these questions answered, if we are to be looking at good soul care.  Are there such things as demons?  Is the Satan story real, or just a parable representing our free will?

Question 38 of the Baltimore Catechism explains that Satan and the fallen angels are real, as do many other sources within the Catholic and other Christian traditions.  Rebel spirits go by several different names.  Fallen angels, demons and false gods are some of the most common.  In the interest of keeping things simple, it is accurate to say that these rebel spirits are an unseen force actively working against God.  Demons cannot steal or destroy souls, but they can contribute confusion, division, frustration and temptation to our everyday lives in their ongoing aggression toward God.

Can a soul be “lost” as in no longer being able to have something?  Or “lost” as in a battle?

In either case, yes – if we actively, knowingly choose to decline or resist God up until the last moment of our earthly life.

God does not destroy what He creates and endows with value.  God does not reject us.  He does not even reject us when we waver or question.  He does not even penalize us for acting in ignorance (for reference, see Luke 23:34).  The only way our soul can be forfeited is if we, as its custodians, review the options and decisively reject God – whether as a solitary act or in a spirit of solidarity with the fallen angels.  Yes… some people do choose to distrust, divide, rebel and oppose, usually for the chance to exercise maximum control.  In seizing that choice, our soul is lost from our care – and forfeits eternity with God.

In sum: A soul cannot be lost if it chooses at any point to seek God, even if this is at the very last moment of earthly life.

A soul can only be lost if it chooses to reject God, definitively, in its last moment.

A soul who is lost at the end of its earthly life cannot be recovered.

Where is our hope, then?

Earthly life.

Seeking God.

Learning to trust.

ACAT 14: Care for Our Body

How can we take care of our body without compromising our soul?

The tone of this question may sound a little confusing.  How would taking care of our body compromise our soul in the first place?  In a reasonable manner, not at all.  Caring for our body is responsible and Godly.  There is no conflict between practicing physically wellness and spiritual wellness.

The problem is, physical wellness, as a concept, has become very marketable, and very profitable.  Wellness has been taken from its place of common sense and elevated to an ideal which we are encouraged to strive toward at all costs… particularly those costs transferring from our pockets to those selling products promising to bring us that much closer to this nebulous but never quite fully defined state of “well.”

In the spirit of keeping things simple, we look back to why our bodies exist (= to know, love and serve God), and feel that provides a sufficient enough answer to the question.  We can take care of our bodies by optimizing their ability to help us know God, love God and serve God, and by minimizing the things that interfere with our knowing, loving or serving God.

Every principle of wellness seems to flow logically from the know-love-serve-God formula.  If God endowed us with the body we have, we naturally have an obligation to give it care that reflects our acknowledgment of this gift.  We ought not to abuse or overindulge our bodies’ capacities for pleasure or pain.  We ought to recognize the interconnection between physical, emotional and mental wellness and strive for balance in all that we do, produce and consume.  We do well to notice the chain reactions between mental distress, emotional distress, physical distress and spiritual distress.  A healthy body promotes a healthy mind, and a healthy mind promotes a healthy spiritual connection to God.

Anything truly good promotes wellness without cultivating worry or scarcity.  Godly wellness flows from the abundance and peace characteristic of God Himself.  Within this formula, then, nothing can compromise soul care.  Physical fitness, self-care, food and beverage, leisure, expressions of love and beauty all have a place within a God-knowing, God-loving and God-serving life.  Only when any of the above take excessive attention from knowing, loving or serving God does soul care become compromised.

How can we tell when something takes excessive attention from knowing, loving or serving God?  We dare say, when it reaches the point where we wish God weren’t watching.  If we feel like we have to sneak something we intend to do, take a closer look.  Why sneak it?  Who will disapprove, and why?  Would God disapprove?  If so, it’s not good for the soul.  If we’re not sure, it’s probably a very good time to find out first.  And, if not… then maybe this is a good time to revisit how we understand God.  There are definite limits to the bodily pleasures God intends, and definite reasons for the limits of Godly order… along the same lines as the limits imposed by a wellness-oriented lifestyle.  Denying indulgence in one area is often the avenue to produce a greater good in another.  This is just as true in soul wellness as it is in body wellness.

In the end, recognizing that “caring” is far healthier than “pleasing” is a shortcut that applies to body care, soul care… and even our relationship with God.

ACAT 13: Body Vs. Soul

Does taking care of our body somehow interfere with taking care of our soul?

We come back to the interconnectedness of soul, body and mind with hopefully a little more clarity.

All three elements – body, mind and soul – are integral parts of who we are.  The core of our identity rests in the soul, the center from which our thoughts, feelings, intentions, impressions and actions arise.

Much has been debated over the centuries as to the role the body plays in the health of our soul.  Some contend that the body and soul are in constant battle, with the cravings of the flesh ever drawing us toward pleasure at the expense of virtue and morality.  Some feel that morality is subjective, and that contentment of the body reflects, or promotes, contentment of the soul.  Some fall somewhere in between.

The Catholic Church has a very well-defined moral code spelled out in its Catechisms, consistently seen from the Baltimore edition to the 1992 edition published under Pope John Paul II, to the most recently published 2011 Youth Catechism (YOUCAT).  The Catholic Church is very specific in telling us that comfort of the body must not take more importance than the integrity of our soul.  Why?  Because, a life ordered around pleasing the body is incompatible with the intended design and operating parameters of the soul.

Here is a way to summarize the right order of living:

The role of body and mind is to promote and uphold the purity and integrity of the soul.

  • Purity: Preservation from corruption
  • Integrity: Wholeness; being undivided

We can use a chart like this to compare operating parameters:

Body Soul
Mortal (will die) Immortal (cannot die)
Tangible Intangible
Can change appearance Cannot change appearance
Does not determine who a person is by itself Determines who a person is by itself
Has infused, actual cellular identity Has infused, actual essential identity

 

Though we might see this as a list of opposites, taking care of our body does not have to interfere with taking care of our soul, or vice versa.  It would be absurd to think that God would set up a creature opposed to itself.  The two are not designed to be at odds.  In fact, when each maintains awareness of the other, body and soul work in harmonious balance which upholds the wholeness of the entire person.

Imbalance occurs when we exaggerate emphasis on our body’s needs or consider our bodily needs more frequently than considering the needs of our soul.  Think in terms of the chart above.  If we spend a great deal of energy on things that are mortal, we have less to devote to the immortal.  If we focus on sensual feelings, we spend less time feeding our intangible needs.  If we put more stock in our body’s appearance than our soul’s identity, we neglect that core part of ourselves that makes us who we are.  It begins to sound like common sense.

Living in right order means that our body’s actions respect our soul’s operating parameters.  Choosing body over soul neglects the immortal.  What does this mean, since a soul can’t die?  It will never cease to exist… but, if neglected, a soul can starve.

One last question: Can it ever be that we give too much emphasis to soul care, and not enough to body or mind?  No.  Here’s why: The soul is the essence of our life.  A healthy soul produces a sound mind and actualized body.  A very, very healthy soul produces a very, very sound mind and a very, very actualized body.  Shall we keep going?  Is there such a thing as too much health?  Thankfully, no!

When we look at it this way, then, the best way to care for the body is to lavish excellent care upon the soul.  Does care of the body interfere with care of the soul?  No; it BEGINS WITH, and THRIVES UPON, care of the soul.