Tag: faith

On Original Sin within various Traditions

I was recently talking to a friend about how various religions seek to explain or deal with the concept of original sin. I believe that virtually all the explanations (and exposition) attempt at explaining this mysterious aspect of the human experience will offer some wonderful insights. Here I would like to focus briefly on some insights that have helped me; both in my personal life and my social analysis work.

I very much believe that one way to understand sin is as a rupture in the foundational relationship to reality. It is a case of misapprehending that which is true or more accurately The Real. The Buddhist might speak of surrendering to Maya. If sin is understood as believing in The Lie then it makes sense that the Devil is called the Father of Lies. This also bring greater clarity to the understanding of living a righteous life as simply living in right-relationship with the Real. Because there are so many layers to this reality and so many relationships, we can only address a few in this entry. Understanding that any deviation from fully grasping The Real is a strong case for our finding ourselves in the arena of sinfulness. It may be more accurate to speak of allowing the Real to possess us, rather than our possession of the Real.

  1. I think it is important to understand that within the Creation myth offered in Genesis God creates all reality from nothing (ex nihilo). I think it is so easy to forget this in our highly individualistic (some might say hype-individualistic) world. It is cliche to speak of the ‘self-made’ man (or fill in the blank!) I constantly remind my students that to accomplish anything in life it is already a ‘team effort’ (this includes the next breath you take!) When one is allowed to engage in the silly, absurd and yes, sinful talk of having accomplished things by oneself one is already in the arena of idolatry. This may begin with a benign intention, but it does lead to greater and greater human sin, and misery. Not only for humanity but for all creation. For me it is helpful to realize that I frequently have more resources than I allow myself. I am reminded of how in my recovery from addictions I have had to rely on the ‘We” of the recovery community and not ‘my own unsteady willpower…we are all together now’. What a great blessing and movement forward in my healing. One way that this inaccurate and sinful perception is unhealthy to our political discourse is in how we deal with the resources of creation. When we speak of wealth and poverty we frequently talk about the arena of taxation. The danger can be that we begin with the supposition that anyone’s wealth is solely produced by themselves (or a small group). So, we inevitably get to the questions that is expressed in some variation of; “Who are we to tell Elon Musk what he should do with HIS MONEY” It is such a painful reality to accept that we have already ‘taken a bite of the fruit that the serpent has offered’ in speaking in these terms.
  2. One of the ways that the insight of the communal nature of all created reality has been in the Catholic Social Tradition concept of the “Universal Destination of Goods.” This understanding of original intent of creation seeks to create a balance between the right to private property and the right to use in speaking of economic reality. This is expressed in the Catholic Catechism in the following phrasing; “The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of humankind” Note that for us the Real is that private property is not an ABSOLUTE RIGHT. It is always to be circumscribed by the larger commitment to the reality of how the universe is actually constructed. We are speaking here of a very foundational way of apprehending reality.

Given the way in which the Logic of Capitalism engages this highly consequential relationship between right to private ownership and right to use we can ask the very pointed question; can Capitalism accommodate the Real of the Universal Destination of Goods, and Original Intent of Creation. This question, for some people will instantaneously bring up alarms of ‘Marxist’ or “Communist” overtones. I think we have to be honest and forthright about accepting that there will be echoes and resonance from within that tradition. As many of you know, I have much deep affection and love for the Historical-Materialist tradition(s) in general and the Marxist tradition(s) in particular. My loyalty to various insights is guided by how much they adhere, guide us towards, or reflect the Real. In this sense, I am a fan of Marxist analysis. I am also aware of this loyalty towards the doctrine of the Universal Destination of Good. It is also one of the reasons that I don’t have that degree of loyalty to all of the insights expressed in Humanae Vitae.

When I have taught morality and ethics to students, I remind them that the word sin in Hebrew is chet which literally means to miss the mark. The obvious question becomes “What is The Mark?” and in our highly postmodern influenced world another key question is; “Who decides what is the Mark?” so we can begin with the latter question first. Using the wonderful insights of Emmanuel Levinas, we can speak of ethics coming before ontology. Before all being there is The Other. This would require an entire entry in itself, but the simple answer is that that which decides The Mark can never be the person taking ‘aim’ at the target. We (however we conceive ourselves) can ever be the ultimate arbiter of the Real. We have the capacity to apprehend elements of the Real but are, precisely because we are creatures, and products of the Real, incapable of fully grasping its totality. In terms of responding to the question What is the Mark, I suspect that is much more difficult a question to answer accurately. We are given a hint to this in the passage found in the Gospel of Matthew. Specifically, Matthew 25: 31-46. It is a well-known passage for many reasons. But an element of the pericope that is frequently overlooked is that Jesus is claiming to be in the exact location as the poor, the hungry, the naked etc. He is saying if you wish to see the world in its most accurate or Real manner you must be in this location. This is the only chance you will have of even seeing the Mark that you are trying to hit! What a powerful hint indeed. The corollary is that the further one is from this location the further one is from seeing the Mark, much less, hitting the target.

One way of measuring the authenticity of all religions is their ability to help us land in this location. In this way we can see that the Prophetic/Mystical/Wisdom elements of all the religions speak in a broad sense of sin in the same way. Whether it is the deep commitment that the Hindu tradition has to the Monistic vision, the dedication that Buddhism has to tear the power of Maya (Illusion) for its followers to the deep dedication that all of the Abrahamic traditions have to a life called to service of the Other they seek to locate oneself in the sacred place to encounter the Real, ,that is a love connection with the Other.

The Authority of Our Master

 “Do we believe in God? or do we believe in our beliefs about God and, in so doing, perhaps really believe only in ourselves or in what we would like to think about ourselves?”

Johann Baptist Metz: A Passion for God, Theology as Theodicy.

          I sometimes write impelled by rage. This is one of those times. I am writing as I contemplate the full repercussions of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. I am also speaking not only to the secular forces but also to the religious forces that allowed this to occur. Because I believe that they are, in a phrase made popular by Cornel West, “inseparable but not identical”. I am very conscious that this event occurred sometime ago. I began this entry back then but have recently come back to it. Particularly given that this an election year and that I know these issues (like it or not) will have some visibility in public discourse.

I am a very proud Theologian/Ethicist who is formed (and informed) within the broad Catholic tradition. I always seek to shape my conscience (I aspire to a ‘properly formed conscience’) using the tools of this broad and inclusive tradition. When I teach the proper formation of conscience, I remind my students that they are to always engage three sources in making am moral decisions: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience. In the debate or discussion about two particular issues that are seen as so significant in importance I am constantly amazed at the way in which all Faith has been lost, this is particularly true among some of the religious hierarchy.

I remember Alan Jones in his wonderful work entitled Soul Making writes that ‘The opposite of faith isn’t doubt it’s certainty’. I find this to be a deep, wise, and significant insight. I have always found that my authentic Faith has sprinkled in a healthy dose of lingering doubt. The doubt comes not from my lack of belief in there being an actual Truth but in my acknowledgment of my inability to fully grasp this, Truth. I have faith in God/Truth/Reality not in my beliefs about God!

I am constantly amazed that the two vital issues that have shaped Catholic/Christian political discourse in the United States is abortion and homosexuality! What is most staggering, and I truly mean utterly stunning is that neither of these issues is ever addressed by Jesus. The Master of our Religion. The person we claim is God on Earth! In the entire corpus of Gospel writings (and even the apocryphal writings, to my knowledge) Jesus never, ever, ever, ever (yeah, I know…. a lot of ever!) ever, ever, ever, ever brings up either of these issues. This is not a matter of trying to ‘interpret’ what he means on this issue! I mean that he never speaks about this at all! In the ‘language’ of the young folks that I teach….wtf!!! How in the hell did inclusion into a Faith tradition that is explicitly based on the life of one person (The Scandal of Particularity!) have been hijacked by idiots who can claim, with a large degree of impunity that the central tenet of Faith is something which the Master never spoke of! How is this possible?

I would like to briefly go through some of the dumbest ‘lines of defense’ that many folks who defend these positions speak about. I also want to be exceedingly clear about where I stand on these issues. I obviously think that as a person of Faith, and even particularly as a disciple of Jesus, I am called, as we are all called, to have positions (and dispositions) on various issues. This will include a variety of issues not addressed in the Gospel texts, and even within the larger Living Tradition. I also want to be very clear that we are, thanks to the great advancements in Biblical Scholarship, more aware than ever before of the wariness one can have on exactly what ‘Jesus said’. I am sympathetic to the danger in getting completely wedded to the ‘words’ of Jesus. That being said, when I teach the use of Scripture I teach the students to think thematically, or what I informally call the ‘big ideas’ found in Scripture. These idease include, part are not limited to; Covenant, Widows, Orphans, and Sojourners, the place of God’s Sovereignity amon many others.

I also remind the students that the Tradition is much, much larger than its remarkable moral wisdom, heritage and insights. I obviously have a deep love for this component of the Tradition. My favorite classes during my theological education were always the ones that dealt with ‘moral issues’; although I still have love (and curiousity) for all areas of the Tradition (Sacramental understandings, Christian Anthropology etc.) I am also deeply aware that all components are deeply imbricated in practice.

In terms of the experience piece of the moral method, I remind the student to be particularly atune to the various individuals, communities etc. that are involved in any moral issue. I remind them of the particular attention that we as Christians give to ‘the least among us’. This was articulated in liberation theological writings succinctly at a ‘preferential option for the poor’. This will require a being in constant vigilance towards the ‘signs of times’. This is particularly true in a commitiment to the best of social analysis and pastoral practice.

With all this foundational work. I want to address the frequently stated concern and defense given to the way in which the Catholic Church addresses the issue of Abortion and Homosexuality.

In common language the concern or defense might be articulated like this: “Yes, Rene you are correct, Jesus didn’t address either abortion or homosexuality however there are many things he didn’t address. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about these. Or worse, not take a moral position on these important issues of our day”

I absolutely agree with the latter portion of this statement. I do think there is so much which Jesus didn’t talk about nor truly could address given the nature of historical reality. I know he didn’t say anything about nation-state ideology, Capitalism, Communism, labor unions mass media, the internet, invitro fertilization etc. I also equally believe that we are called to respond; as followers of the Master on every one of these issues and many others. I openly acknowledge that there is literally nothing in my life that is not influenced by my Faith and my commitment to follow Jesus. I think my entire world view is deeply formed (and informed) by my Faith. I also know that there are ‘layers’ to the certitude that I would give to certain moral positions and insights. In general I try to hold my moral perspectives with some degree of humility and openness. So in addressing things not spoken of in somewhat ‘explicit’ terms I would be humble in my appraisal. Let me give just one example. I am certain I am not alone in this, but nonetheless it might serve as a model. I for much of my life have been called as Communist, Socialist, Marxist etc. I will be honest, I have deep love for all of these labels. I don’t run away from identification with any of these identities but I can say with 100% assurance that my political, economic, social etc. worldview is most deeply influenced by my attempt at trying to live the Gospel values. This may shock people but I would say that given our historical juncture the best (maybe only) way to truly live out the Gospel value is to have a Socialist/Communist/Anarchist world view and to be explicitally anti-Capitalist. Obviously there would be many caveats I would put on this perspective but my for mY purspose of this entry I will just allow this simplistic articulation of my position to be stated in this manner. This being said, I would never, ever, ever say that this is THE CATHOLIC POSITION. It is precisely because Jesus didn’t talk about Capitialism or Communism or Socialism or Finance Capital or Extraction of Surplus Labor etc. that I would humbly say that this is the best articulation that I have of how to live the Gospel values given this historical period in these areas and on these specific issues. I believe that what grates me the most about how the Catholic Church (specifically elements within the Magesterium) and certain members of the Body of Christ speak to the issue of abortion and homosexuality is the profound arrogance and certitude with which they speak about these issues. Again, the opposite of Faith is not doubt but certitude. I also would never allow myself to even entertain the idea that I could dictate participating in the Sacramental life of the Church on ones position on Labor Unions ! Or that mebership in the Body of Christ (not Body of Rene!!) is based on your being in lock step with me on the proper functioning of the State in regulating the excesses of Financial Capitialist formations in 21st century reality! It is not that I think you should be ‘Pro-Choice’ (a label that I frankly detest) to be Catholic but rather that I think to speak of this issue with such a truncated and distorted understanding of the complexity of, not only the issue itself, but the entire Living Tradition is morally shallow, and lacking in critical engagement with both the issue and the Tradition.

The second issue that I have with this defense is that it consciously or unconsciously allows (or disallows us) from engaging in things that are addressed in the Gospel and teachings of Jesus. It is very true that he did not speak explicitly about abortion or homosexuality but he is said to have said the following words.

12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 4:12-14)

 24″No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24)

12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. (John15:12-24) (Here it is important to note that it is not to take somones life in defense of another but rather to die….lay down one’s life! for the defense of another)

I wish to be very clear; I am opposed to the proof texting in defense of one’s political position but nonetheless these are actual words credited to being spoken by the Master. The God/Man we are told to follow. To show the profound hypocrisy and distortion in our claim to be following the Gospel let me site two statistics. (1) The United State possesses the largest military budget in the world. In fact, at one point, we spent more than the number 2-10 countries combined. (2) We have many leading church members regularly engage in fellowship with the moneyed class. This includes our current Catholic University systems deeply beholden to wealthy donors to continue their various programs. I think it is somewhat apparent why it rings so hollow to speak with such assurance of our need to ‘protect the innocent unborn child’ (which I am in agreement with) while we give a ‘pass’ at other situations found in our current milieu. Particularly when it doesn’t take much hermeneutical expertise to figure out what Jesus’ teaching might mean for today’s situations!

I want to remind people again that even with the level of clarity offered by the texts mentioned above (among, many, many others) I would still be resistant to saying ‘this is the Catholic position’ on wealth, military spending etc. I certainly think I can make a strong case for certain positions and would challenge other positions as not as tenable. But in the end if we are serious about the Primacy of Conscience then we must be willing to submit in humility to something larger than one’s own position. This is not only true of each individual member of the Body of Christ, but I would argue that it is even more of an imperative for the entire Body of Christ. For we must remember we are members of the Body of Christ, not the Body of Rene, Cardinal X or Pope Y. At our best we are a Pilgrim People helping each other along the road.

I will close with the beautiful quote by Rumi who reminds us that in the end “We’re all just walking each other home”