Loading ...
In a post last week, I mentioned Blackfriars in Oxford and their numerous fair-trade posters at the back of the nave near the confessional. After listening to the homily at this evening’s conventual Mass, given by Fr. Richard Finn, O.P., I now understand why one finds those posters so near to the confessional.
Before I say more, I do want our readers who are fans of the Dominican Order to know that this is not just another post of mine beating up on the Dominicans. I have a genuine concern about them - at least some aspect of their Oxford priory - and I offer it in the full knowledge that they are intelligent, sincere men living a profound life of commitment to Our Lord.
Tonight’s homily was about the vision from the Book of Daniel in which St. Michael sets things right at the end of time. Fr. Finn explained that for the recipients of this vision, it was a source of consolation as they struggled to live in exile, in a land where social advancement required idolatrous practices. As the people of Israel in exile struggled to remain faithful to the covenant, the thought that God, through the heavenly prince, Michael, would eventually triumph was inspiration to live faithfully in the present.
Then Fr. Finn turned to consider the struggles which the people of God face today in remaining faithful to their baptismal covenant. He said that if we consider this struggle to remain faithful, we will find that, in the West, our greatest challenge to maintaining our baptismal purity is the temptation to neglect the poor. If this is what Fr. Finn and other Dominicans at Blackfriars in Oxford think, it’s no surprise that they have the fair-trade posters near the confessional!
I have no doubt that Fr. Finn is a very intelligent man; I spent a little time with him a few years ago, and one can sense his careful thinking in the delivery of his homily. But whenever I hear this sort of talk, I have to roll my eyes. Fr. Finn went on to say that for “particular people” more “particular” challenges will present themselves in maintaing the baptismal covenant. But he said not a word about what these “particular” challenges might be. Instead, one gets the impression our Christianity is something we live primarily as a whole society and that the one imperative with which Christ left our society was to exercise the so-called preferential option for the poor.
I don’t know what the other people in the congregation thought about the homily, but by the time Fr. Finn had come to reminding us that the greatest failure of our lives is the failure to care for the poor, it was already quite clear to me which politics of “caring for the poor” he had in mind. Now St. Michael forbid that the Church or churchmen should endorse one particular party, political system, or economic path! and Fr. Finn didn’t violate this taboo in an explicit fashion. Yet he began his homily by remarking how this passage from the Book of Daniel (and the Gospel passage with which its coupled) speaks against a sort of Christian Zionism whereby the return of the Messiah at the end of time is connected with the political well-being of the modern state of Israel.
To interpret Scripture as endorsing Christian Zionism is an “obscenity” (an archaic sense of the word; notice his breadth of vocabulary) which leads to an “atrocity”, namely the unjust imposition of Israel upon Palestinians and other Arabs. Oh, those poor A-rabs! By this point of the homily, I was nearly in tears as I thought of Bible-wielding Evangelicals and blood-thirsty Jews in league against the poor Palestinian.
As I recall saying once in writing to Msgr. Robert Smith of the Cornell Chaplaincy, while these are the kinds of digressions in a homily which may relate true things, they are so distracting, either because they are only remotely related to the Scripture itself or because they have little place in strengthening virtue, that they should always be kept from the homily. Yet if you thought that virtue, in fact, consists in pursuing a political path of checking Israeli attempts at self-defense at every turn, then you’d also think that Fr. Finn was right to include such material in his homily.
Between the anti-Israel polemic and the admonishment to care for the poor, Fr. Finn had clearly shown his political colors by the end of the homily.
There is a mistake in Fr. Finn’s approach, though, a mistake which I see on two levels. First, as Catharina Oxoniensis rightly reminded me, there can be neither social justice nor political peace apart from Christ the King. As Pius XI made abundantly clear in Quas primas, Christ must reign, not only in the hearts of individuals, but over the whole of society before true and lasting peace can be had. Secular democracy is a rejection of Christ’s rule over the whole of society, and Fr. Finn’s conception of the just society is probably no more in line with Pius XI’s (than the one I explain in my link). We cannot repeat too often Pius’ words:
If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day.
“With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.
So Fr. Finn’s view, along with the whole leftist, neo-modernist, post-Conciliar, Cardinal Casaroli approach to the just society in relation to the Church is rotten at the core. Just as with the individual, there can be no happiness and lasting peace in the life of a society when Christ is absent.
Second, on a different level, even if we could bracket concerns about the social kingship of Christ, Fr. Finn, in his homily, though not in so many words, endorses one political way and one economic system as the “Christian” way. I mean, for instance, in England, is it hard to identify the parties which are “concerned” for the poor and which would just as soon have Israel wiped from the map? So Fr. Finn gives the congregation the impression that supporting such parties is the Christian thing to do.
But this is precisely the type of meddling in secular affairs which churchmen oughtn’t do, because judging about these concrete particulars is beyond their competence. The Church can pronounce on the abstract moral issues, to be sure, but what is Fr. Finn going to say to the young Israeli whose grandfather still has a number on his arm and whose neighbors have sworn to elimiate the entire race at the first opportunity? As in all other human matters, there are moral issues to be adjudicated when Israelis are shooting Palestianians and vice versa. But I’m disgusted when Fr. Finn or some other holier-than-thou liberal professes to have found the Israelis guilty on all counts.
So also in economic matters. Even if Fr. Finn or the chaplains (present or former) at Cornell University belief that European socialism (heavy welfare, endless handouts, the nanny state) is the salvation of the poor, a belief to which I think they’re entitled, though I also think they’re wrong, yet they do the rest of us a great injustice when they suggest, implicity or explicitly, that European socialism, for example, is the Christian response to the plight of the poor. While emphasizing the need to be concerned for the poor, can’t they leave the particulars to the economists, recognizing that there will be disagreement about the best approach?
Save the homily, please, dear priests, for helping the Catholic to combat pride, lust, anger, etc. and leave the politics of the Israelis and Palestinians for parlors and private meetings. And, while it is true that we all can probably do more to help the poor, please remember that Christ did not come to establish welfare states around the earth, our dear island home. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
At the risk of being accused of taking sides with the OP’s, I must agree with Br. Lawrence here. I know Fr. Finn and I think he is quite clear about the reality and dangers of personal sin. I understand Iosephus’ concern, however. In the States the Social Justice homily is a genre fraught with problems–the most prominent being the sublimation of personal sin under a general rubic of social sin. Personal sin can be safely ignored in favor of combatting social sin…and this inevitably looks like the social engineering agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Knowing the English Dominicans, I can say that the Oxford Priory is populated with incredibly bright and talented preachers of the Gospel who take seriously our Lord’s admonitions in Matt 25. The perfected love required to carry through with the Matt 25 requirements comes exclusively from God’s grace generously cooperated with by the willing human soul. Social justice of this caliber is possible only as a consequence of a deep holiness and an abiding spirit of love.
Let me say how pleased I am to see this conversation! This is precisely what the Dominican charism is about…the disputed questions honestly addressed and vigorously debated.
Cheers….Fr. Philip, OP
Oh you Dominicans, can you show us a definition of ’social sin’ from the pre-conciliar magisterium? And I don’t mean the collected works of Karl Marx.
This concept is foreign to the Catholic tradition, and you should know better.
Thank you, Clara, for your reply. However, my point was a bit more than to say that Christian Zionism is false. It was also to say that massive amounts of land were confiscated from Moslem *and* Christian Palestinians, including churches. Whether this was done by secular or religious Jews is not exactly to the point. I grant the obvious fact that the state of Israel is indeed a full-fledged sovereign entity (well, as full-fledged a state wholly dependent on a massive U.S. subsidy can be) with a right to exist, which I bet is more than most Palestinians, Arabs, or Iranians, etc., would ever admit. And prudential questions of how to handle the Middle East crisis are not appropriate for a homily — agreed. But to state a fact regarding what historical acts of violence a skewed version of Scripture can lead to — that seems appropriate. Many priests have commented on the horrors imposed by Communists and Nazis without thereby implying what prudential response their parishioners should take.
On the whole, I don’t doubt Iosephus’ characterization of what Fr. Finn was really getting at and how/why it was off-base. I am just trying, in an admittedly imperfect manner, to clarify what particular aspects of his homily were wrong. To that extent, I’ve been playing devil’s advocate.
Joseph Shaw:
Do you not consider the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church to be part of her sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching?
Your distinction seems to imply that Vatican II and the fruit of her teaching expounded by Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, is a break from Catholic tradition?
‘Social sin’ as properly understood in the teaching of Pope John Paul II and CCC 1869, is a part of the Church’s teaching on social justice which has its roots in the Scriptures and Pope Leo XIII.
Moreover, Catholic social teaching frequently distinguishes itself and refutes the assumptions of Marx.
It is a complete mis-understanding of the Church’s teaching in this area to liken it in any way to Marxism!
For what it’s worth…I don’t think social sins could exist w/o the reality of personal sin. We are first called to personal conversion–away from sin to holiness. The sometimes ridiculous emphasis that social sin receives in your average US Catholic parish has more to do with the pastor’s reluctance to see his poll numbers (and his collection plate numbers!) go down than it does with any real concern about we can go about addressing real social sin. IOW, as a preacher it is easier for me to denounce racism than it is for me to denounce divorce. Racism is an amorphous sin that no one seriously defends. Divorce can hit too close to home. My point is that the overemphasis on social sin should not be taken as a cue for us to ignore personal sin. But we have to be careful about moving in the other direction as well. We can become so focused on personal holiness that we forget our moral obligations to the larger society–even if you only want to think of that society as the Church!
I wonder if someone out there could come up with a social sin that isn’t first a personal sin? Hmmm…
Fr. Philip, OP
Br. Lawrence,
Nice way to side step Joseph’s question.
Always this response of questioning the Catholicity or loyalty of anyone who breaks with the Novus Ordo world view.
You easily instead could have rattled off one or two citations from some Church Fathers, saintly theologians, or pre-Vatican II papal documents in order to satisfy his request.
By the way, was not Vatican II a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one, so said Pope Paul VI? So, why this insistent rush to always hold up that council as some epitome of Catholic teaching and then judge the Catholicity and orthodox of others by how dearly or not we adhere to the teachings of this non-dogmatic, non-infallible (so said Paul VII) Council?
Imagine if a father ran his household the way that you want us to believe Vatican II is supposed to run the Church –
“Little Jimmy you really should consider not playing with fire it could do you bodily harm.”
“Children, I think we should all use some discretion when watching television. Let’s all remember to do that. I’m not going to tell you specifically what’s good for you or bad. That’s largely a subjective matter for each of you.”
“Mary, on your date tonight I’m not going to give you any hard and fast rules on behavior. Instead just allow mean to give you an abstract discourse on the theological glory of the human body and Christian virtue.”
It’s too pre-Vatican to say:
You will not do X, or if you do you will suffer Y punishment. You will not kiss. You will not go here or there. You will not do this or that. etc. etc.
This is how fathers used to speak to their children. This is how the Church used to speak to its children. Indeed this is how God spoke to his children from the time of Adam to Moses and on and on as recorded throughout all of Sacred Scripture.
Strangely this is not how Vatican II speaks to the children of today’s Church,, you we are constantly remonstrated by Br. Larry and other Novus Ordaniarians how we are close to schism itself if we dare to deny Vatican II in all its ambiguously wordy, non-dogmatic fallibility!
My point is that the overemphasis on social sin should not be taken as a cue for us to ignore personal sin. But we have to be careful about moving in the other direction as well. We can become so focused on personal holiness that we forget our moral obligations to the larger society–even if you only want to think of that society as the Church!
I’d like to know how one could get too focused on their own personal holiness so as to forget our moral obligations to the larger society. A holy person is by default living the beatitudes which in their very essence bring to fruition works of mercy to those in need. You can’t give what you don’t have.
I understand the point but it’s really a bit off, in my humble opinion. I’d say the issue at hand would be the over-emphasis of the other extreme, but certainly not the other.
Joe Six Pack:
Frankly, I am amazed that I have to spell things out so explicitly, but seeing as you seem rather slow to comprehend the points in my argument, I shall have to digest the information provided for you.
But first, let me be clear: name-calling and any diminutive form of my religious name is not tolerated, so please stop it. I think it is notable that thus far I have avoided being personal, but your inability to engage in reasoned discourse and charitable discussion is becoming obvious and your rudeness needs to be checked.
The Servant of God, Pope Paul VI, in his address during the last general meeting of Vatican II said:
“This is our hope at the conclusion of this Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and at the beginning of the human and religious renewal which the council proposed to study and promote; this is our hope for you, brothers and Fathers of the council; this is our hope for the whole of mankind which here we have learned to love more and to serve better.”
As this was the aim of the Council rather than to refute heresy or seek doctrinal definitions, it was called a pastoral council rather than a dogmatic council. This does not mean the Council was thus non-dogmatic and fallible. That would be a deeply flawed understanding of the role of Councils within the Magisterium of the Church.
Let there be no mistake: I am not in any way “side-stepping” the issue, as you suggest.
In fact, I am taking issue with Joseph’s assumption that the Second Vatican Council is in someway not part of the Church’s tradition and indeed, that the teaching(s) of that Council, as interpreted in the magisterium of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is somehow deficient and “foreign to Catholic tradition”.
Having asserted that Vatican II and the teaching of the Church since then is part of the doctrinal deposit of the Truth and squarely within her Sacred Tradition, I mentioned that her teaching on social justice can be traced to the magisterium of Pope Leo XIII and that itself has its roots in Sacred Scripture.
I offered no citations, because the corpus of social justice teaching is not encapsulated in sound-bite quotations, but I assumed that you had the intelligence and diligence to check them out? I’m beginning to think I was too optimistic!
Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to the Roman Curia last Christmas explained why the Council has been and must no longer be prey to a “hermeneutic of discontinuity”. Joseph seemed to suggest that Vatican II was not in continuity with Tradition and this is simply untrue and an error. Do read this address .
As for your being “close to schism”… it is you who say it. It would seem to me that anyone who in fact denies the truths taught in Vatican II and considers the council to be doctrinally fallible would not just be close to schism but may actually be in schism.
I am not saying you are; what right have I? I leave that judgment to you and your conscience and to the mercy of God.
First, sorry about using the informal form of your name - I was only trying to comply with common Novus Ordo parlance — in my last job I worked with a Novus Ordo Benedictine named Br. Larry..
Paul VI said in his General Audience on Jan. 12, 1966, that Vatican II “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.”
And again, it’s all smoke and mirrors. No one questions that social “justice” is part of the tradition of Catholicism. You can get that directly from Our Lord’s mouth as recorded by Sacred Scripture.
The question is social sins as taught by the post-Vatican II Church. Fair trade, environmentalism, income redistribution,…
The Church is in full communion with the United Nations when it comes to all their diabolical work too - teaching poor 3rd worlders classes on “sexual health” and “sexuality”.
You in no way substantiated your case with that paltry quote from Pope Paul VI that Vatican II is infallible. Nor did you even name an encyclical that we could turn to where we can find some historical continuity to back up your claim that the current teaching on social sins are in some way part of the true ordinary universal magisterium — “true” meaning something that has been held by the church since the time of the Apostles; not the Novus Ordo definition which is something that has been held by the church for more than 3 weeks.
I’ll invite you to read this article..
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/conservative.asp
“Frankly, I am amazed that I have to spell things out so explicitly”
I think some traditionalists would be saved from falling into despair and true schism if you and so many others did not keep up this foolish argument that we are in a new springtime and that Vatican Council II did not initiate a serious departure from traditional Catholicism in so many areas.
Maybe within the walls of your monastery things are rosy, but in most of the rest of the universal Church, Catholicism is dying.
You would have to be a complete kool-aid drinker to not be able to see this.
When I’m traveling and go to a random Novus Ordo Church for confession, I’m always praying mightily before and during the absolution that I get a valid one. I’m tired of confronting priests in the confessional and pleading with them to use the proper formula. Just several months ago, I had a priest who refused to say “I absolve you” and insisted that HE did not absolve me, but “God absolves you.” This is not uncommon. This happens all over the place. It happens with Catholic Chaplains administering the sacraments to our troops in Iraq. Yes, these same men who are about to go into mortal combat with our muslim enemies are getting invalid absolutions. I can attest to this personally. And I’ve confronted these chaplains and almost to a man they refuse to say “I absolve you”.
And in each insist I inform the respective bishop. I end of talking to the chancellor or some other monsignor-type, and the answer is always the same: well, I’ll look into this thank you for your call and of course, be comforted that God did in fact forgive your sins.
Monsignori in several chancelleries have said they same thing. Can you believe it; I guess my Father Hardon Catechism is wrong: Priests do not have to say “I absolve you” in order for the sacrament to be valid.
Br. Lawrence how can the highest authorities within so many archdioceses and dioceses (and “conservative ones at that: Hartford, the Military Ordinariate, Bridgeport, Kansas City..) tell me that I do not need a valid absolution in order to get my sins forgiven. Don’t you think any true pastor of souls would advise me to go to confession again? Or, invite me to their office so I can re-confess? No, instead, in true Novus Ordo style, they make their own rules.
You can live in your dream world, but in the real world, we have serious problems and the root of these problems is the 2nd Vatican Council.
So what of your conservative argument that it’s not the council but the misapplication of it. How long must we endure this mantra? Only on college campuses must we continue to hear it wasn’t communisms fault that 100 million people died in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc. and the rest were subject to abject cruelty and slavery under communist regimes. Communism was never applied right.
Do you think ever for a moment that perhaps all this mess within the Church throughout the entire world (not isolated or scattered, but the entire church) is by design? Is there even a small chance that all these homosexual bishops perhaps do want a break with traditional Catholicism? Or are we to believe they actually want continuity with tradition?
Would an atheist meeting “conservative” Novus Ordo Monks have a similar experience to what this video shows?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d20nzljVYPM
Frankly, I’m amazed too. That so many are deceived and are intent on deceiving others.
If priests are giving invalid absolutions to folks, which is the ordinary means established by God to return one’s soul back to the state of grace, then how will they get to heaven?
The Church is exists for one reason, Br. Lawrence, and it’s not to promote social service programs and fair trade. It exists for the purpose of GRACE. Everything the Church does needs to be about GRACE. Infusing it into souls – Restoring it in souls – Strengthening it in souls. That’s it. That’s all that matters. That’s the whole point of the Church.
The Novus Ordo hierarchy is failing in this the Church’s ONLY mission on Earth.
When we don’t invite heretics and pagans to join the Church, with charity explaining their errors, due to a false sense of “ecumenism” – be it because we are all brothers in Christ (for protestants), sons of Abraham (for Muslims), inheritors of two separate covenants (for Jews) – we are not being Catholic, but Masonic.
Joe Six Pack:
Thank you for your comments which have provided me some food for thought and I am shocked by your woeful experiences of Confession. It seems things in the USA are worse than I thought… how sad and your reaction is justifiable.
I’ve been to confession in at least 15 different countries and never have I had the misfortune to hear a priest refuse to pronounce the proper form of absolution.
It is clear from what you have now said and also from the article you recommended that we both come from a position of deep love for Christ and His Church and concern for her divinely ordained mission and its contemporary practice. I hope we can agree on this.
If so, I ask you to email me: “lawrence.lew@english.op.org” where we may continue this discussion further, if you desire. I know I would certainly enjoy further dialogue on the issues raised by Fr Ripperger’s article.
I think I have dominated this comments section long enough and I thank this blog’s owners for their indulgence.
Thank you for the edifying video. You ask: “Would an atheist meeting “conservative” Novus Ordo Monks have a similar experience to what this video shows?”
The answer, shown on the recent BBC documentary ‘The Monastery’ filmed at Worth Abbey, must be in the affirmative. Abbot Christopher Jamieson and his community clearly were used by God to bring Tony, an atheist, to a knowledge and love of Him and this relationship grows and continues. It may not be immediate but it is a conversion of hearts. You can read about Tony here. And he is not alone as my work with ‘Youth 2000′ shows time and again.
A final note: persist in your efforts to reform the Church in the image and likeness of her Head: St Catherine of Siena worked assiduously for the good of the Church and we need saints like her in our day who love the Christ and His Church, who are bold but respectful before His priests, and who seek the Truth with holiness and purity of heart.
In fact, I am taking issue with Joseph’s assumption that the Second Vatican Council is in someway not part of the Church’s tradition and indeed, that the teaching(s) of that Council, as interpreted in the magisterium of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is somehow deficient and “foreign to Catholic tradition”.
I must reply to this remark of Br Lawrence. I did not claim that VII was not part of the magisterium, and I regard it as uncharitable - indeed, slanderous - to claim that I hold this view. Please retract it.
Rather, my challenge relates precisely to the question of the hermeneutic of continuity. Either VII and subsequent documents reiterate the constant teaching of the Church, or they say nothing of interest. If it is the former, then in each instance it will be possible to cite earlier statements of the teaching. If there are no earlier statements, then the alarm bells should ring. Unless, that it, you embrace the hermeneutic of discontinuity, regarding VII as what BXVI ridiculed (before his elevation) as a ’super-dogma’.
Our Dominican friends are silent in response to my challenge, so I suggest we have a problem. They cite a technical term - ’social sin’ - but are unable to point to a definition. Definitions of sin are not hard to find - and in ’sound-bite form’ too, indeed - but all the authoritative ones assume that a person capable of acting is involved, not ’society’. It follows that the concept ’social sin’ is foreign to the tradition.
Social sin deals with the structures of sin rooted in the society at large. They stem from personal sin on a large scale.
Social sins are, for example, abortion, euthanasia, or inversely according to many liberal democrats anything that could effect the environment and the lack of health care.
I have already cited parts of John Paul II’s teaching in ‘Reconciliation and Penance’ (1984) and do so again, albeit a lengthier quotation this time:
“Also social is every sin against the rights of the human person, beginning with the right to life and including the life of the unborn or against a person’s physical integrity…The term social can be applied to sins of commission or omission-on the part of political, economic or trade union leaders, who though in a position to do so, do not work diligently and wisely for the improvement and transformation of society according to the requirements and potential of the given historic moment… Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.”
This makes very clear what I and others have already said here: social sin stems from personal sin. If you like, the analogy is like an epidemic that develops from the illness of an individual person that is unchecked and this epidemic continues to infect all of society and more people and cultures and nations if unchecked.
I really don’t see what is the difficulty and what is so foreign to Tradition in this. Just because the term ’social sin’ is new does not mean the teaching is novel. It’s teaching based firmly in the Scriptures, as other commentators here have noted.
For example, in the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah (1:15-18) says:
“And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you: and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear: for your hands are full of blood.Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes, cease to do perversely; Learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow. And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.”
And in the New Testament:
“… For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me… Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.” (Mt 25:36, 37, 40).
These are not merely personal sins, but they have a societal impact, as when certain societies become blind to the poor and needy who live in their midst. Yes, it comes from personal selfishness and sinfulness but it becomes truly endemic and hence societal.
As I have also noted, this teaching of the social impact of sin can be found in ‘Rerum Novarum’ (1891) by Leo XIII, in which the pope addressed the conditions of the working classes and highlighted unjust employment as sinful. The pope said then:
“The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven.”
As such, sins on a wider scale between employers (which may be huge corporations these days) and their employees are grave sins indeed. Clearly these injustices are structural, societal and not merely personal and individual sins even though these stem from the sinful heart of the individual.
Lest you doubt too that a society can sin (and thus be sinful), look at the number of times the prophets address the nation and people of Israel and call them collectively to repentance for their sinfulness. Consider Jonah and his message to the people of Nineveh, etc etc.
There is undoubtedly no discontinuity in this teaching and it’s ridiculous to think that Benedict XVI would have had this in mind when he spoke of such a hermeneutic. Yes, this doctrine has and can be abused for ends which are not in the Church’s tradition, but many doctrines have tragically been so appropriated without thus invalidating them.
This is my last post on this issue. People who wish to continue the discussion may email me.
Joseph, as you’re the LMS rep. for Oxford, you could even come and see me, if you’d like, but do feel free to email me.
If you feel I have slandered you, I apologize, but I still believe that based on what you’d said, I am justified in reading into that an implication that what came after Vatican II is not to be regarded as part of the Tradition, since you ask for only pre-conciliar texts, as if these somehow carried more weight or were more ‘true’?
My own assumption (which is a just and true one) is that the Council and her popes are entirely in line with tradition and their predecessors’ teaching.
You seemed to me to assume otherwise and the article by Fr Ripperger which Joe Six Pack directed me to, did a lot to help me understand why this is so.
Asking for a definition of a technical term from before the Council is not equivalent to saying the Council and what followed it are not part of the magisterium. Don’t they teach you logic at Blackfriars?
I absolutely demand you retract your insulting and damaging allegation, which is without the smallest justification.
I see you have been unable to respond to my challenge to give a definition of the term ’social sin’ from before the Council, and I rest my case. The Tradition recognises personal sin and Original sin; ’social sin’ is a misnomer, at best.
Joseph Shaw,
Your argumentation reminds me of some sincere Protestant folk who believe Transubstantiation is not real because it’s not a term found in the Bible.
In any case there’s plenty of talk on social sins before the Second Vatican Council–though I do not wish to sift through pre-Vatican II documents. I recommend you check out the “Precis of Official Catholic Teaching on The Social Teaching of The Church” by Catholics Committed to Support The Pope.
Good grief Johnboy, how neo-conservative can you get: Catholics Committed to Support The Pope.
Doesn’t even the name of such an organization ring any alarm bells?
How about Catholics committed to support Our Holy Faith?
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/conservative.asp
L’Eglise c’est moi
For the record, one should not infer from Joseph Shaw’s comments here that he does not accept the validity of the Second Vatican Council and the magisterial teaching of the popes subsequent to that Council.
He has since clarified that he does, of course, “accept that the Second Vatican Council was a valid, ecumenical council, and that
the popes and the other organs of the magisterium subsequently have not mysteriously lost their power to teach authoritatively.”
On this basis and in this light, I deeply regret if at any time here I have given the impression of calling his orthodoxy on this matter into doubt.
Br. Lawrence,
Very gracious of you! Bravo. The surest sign of charitable intelligence is the willingness to admit that one may have gone too far. I don’t for a minute believe you have gone too far; however, it’s the willingness to apologize for the sake of good form that makes one gentle.
Fr. Philip, OP
Dr Shaw,
This concept is foreign to the Catholic tradition, and you should know better.
With all due respect, it is you who should know better. Amongst the propositions on moral matters condemned by Alexander VII’s decree of 24th September, 1665, you will find the following:
“A nation does not sin, even if without any cause it does not accept a law promulgated by the ruler.” (Dz. 1128)
Evidently there is scope for the language of national (and, by extension, social) sin in the Tradition; here we have evidence of it some 300 years before the closing of the Second Vatican Council.
Naturally, one must bear in mind the point made by John Paul II in his Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (already cited by Br Lawrence) that “sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community.” Nonetheless, as has been shown, the contested usage is perfectly in keeping with the Church’s tradition, and for that reason if no other you owe Br Lawrence an apology at least as handsome as that which he offered you.
Iohannes, while I’ll grant your point, do we agree that the upshot of the condemnation is not to condemn the idea that “nations cannot sin” but rather that “rulers’ laws are not morally obligatory”?
tobias,
Of course; the Holy See was not, in condemning the proposition quoted, asserting that - properly speaking - nations can sin.
The quotation given by Br Lawrence bears repeating in this context: “Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins.” (John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia).
Okay, just making sure — sounds good to me.