Adoration Meditation: Loving Your Enemy

The Background

Yesterday the fiance and I went to Adoration for some much needed prayer time.  On the way there we had a discussion which left me with a topic to pray about (even though I didn't necessarily want to).

I'm working in a parish again, and it has its stressful moments.  The actions and words of various people, inside the parish and out (abortion and HHS debates, rude drivers, control freaks, and just generally uncharitable people), have made me question why some people can even call themselves Catholics (for they in no way act like it), and unfortunately I have started to lose faith in humanity, the Church, and its people.

Worst of all, I have found a growth of hate in my heart, and it was this very thing I wanted to take to prayer before the Blessed Eucharist.  It's hard to feel hate in front of the embodiment of love.

On our way there we were nearly hit (and likely seriously injured) by a driver who was at the very least distracted, but most likely made a stupid or selfish decision to turn left (I realized later that I really should give him the benefit of the doubt).  I made a comment that I should have hit him as a matter of justice, to which my fiance began to lecture me about God's mercy.  So, considering I have, as of late, lost sight of God's mercy, that is how I decided to approach the topic in prayer.

The Meditation


I opened the book of Psalms (one of my favorite books, especially in times of trouble) and started reading from the beginning.  After about 7 of them, I realized something--the Old Testament is filled with examples of people calling to God for Justice.  In the Old Testament, this was natural and perfectly acceptable, as God was the deliverer of his people, and Israel trusted him to judge their oppressors.  Furthermore, it was this belief in justice after life, that the wicked would parish and the good would be united with him, that gives Christians the consolation they need to not kill or seriously maim those incredibly stupid people (I exaggerate...but only a bit).

I realized however, that Jesus calls to more than that--though asking God to rain down judgement on those who have hurt us (my fiance' pointed out the story of James and John) may be acceptable and sometimes just, it not what the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross calls us to.  We are called, in fact, to wish that that person is actually received into heaven.

This is hard, because in doing that, we are left with no consolation of Justice, except for our own reception and union with him.  I relate it to the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in which everyone, even those who worked less, gets paid the same amount.  This parable, and this act of giving up our own consolation of judgment is SO hard for humans because it is contrary to our nature as human beings.  Mercy is divine, and thus it can only be given through the help of Christ.

We should all only be concerned with how WE will be judged, and furthermore, be seeking to help others "get paid" by receiving the beatific vision.  This is impossible to do ourselves, and thus the only way to truly love, is to let Christ love through you.

Further Reflections on Political Parties and the Religious Middle

I was thinking about things on my way to work today, and one of the things that crossed my mind is the fallacies that occur in the philosophies of our political parties, particularly in concern to social and moral issues.

I'm not a political genius, but here's how I see it breaking down.  The primary mistake Democrats as a whole make in their social-moral philosophy is thinking that social issues are actually individual issues, whereas Republicans, as a whole, overlook the value of free-will and personal choice.

Democrats believe that what happens in the bedroom or in the womb is an individual choice which doesn't affect the population as a whole.  Ironically, this is despite what the individual might think concerning the "moral rightness" of an act.  They say, "I believe abortion/Birth Control/Homosexual Marriage is wrong, but I have no right to impose that view on others, especially when it doesn't affect me".  Granted, some Democrats think abortion is a moral good, but that's not the point here.  What I'm trying to say is, we ARE our brother's (and sister's) keeper.  This is actually an act of love, despite what much of the modern secular world might think. Individual acts do affect the greater population both immediately and indirectly.  Abortion has negative effects on women, birth control in one woman can affect various sexual partners, the psychological ramifications of damaging acts affect how the individual relates with others, it leads others to do those immoral acts (through scandal), and from a theological standpoint it further corrupts the state of the world, increasing the presence of social sin.  All those baptized are part of the Body of Christ.  Sinful acts damage the world as a whole, not just the person(s) committing them.

However, some of these acts in and of themselves, should not be so far as outright banned on a federal level.  This is where, I think, Conservatives sometimes overlook the value of personal choice and free-will.  It's the same reason why the Church doesn't hold socialism as legitimate economic system.  Just as you can't FORCE people to give up their hard-earned money, you cannot FORCE people to uphold the positive norms in every and all instances.  While I agree that negative norms should be prohibited, we must still find a way to assure that people are able to live lives focused on a freedom to choose love rather than obey the religious law. 

Its a hard balance to tread.  I'm sure there are gaping holes in my argument.  I also realize that I'm arguing a primarily religious position.  Indeed, this is written mostly to my Christian brothers and sisters, those of whom think we should not hold each other accountable, those who think we need to control every action, and those of us who are stuck in the middle not knowing which side to take.

Being a Christian is hard work, often there is no apparent right answer.  However, I believe there is a middle way somewhere in this mess; a balance of Christian morality and civil law that helps people avoid moral evil and yet challenges them (without forcing) them to live out the fullness of the positive norm Christian Charity.  I have no answers, just observations about some of our problems.  I realize this was kind of a rambling post, but hopefully you found a nugget or two of Truth within it.

Peace.

Whether "Cliques" are Opposed to Christian Charity

I think this is an especially relative question... should devout Christians belong to a group, in an exclusive nature, and decline interaction with "lesser" or non-believers?  This question is raised constantly in Christian circles, especially among teens and young adults, and on college campuses.  Should we ignore those who could lead us to sin or who aren't as holy as we... or should we invite all manner of sinners into our midst in an attempt for conversion?  What's more Charitable?  Most would say that exclusiveness is not loving, and that would should welcome every type of person into our groups to best love them.  Let's examine the question further.

For the purpose of this post, the definition of clique will be, an exclusive group of people with shared interests who spend time together.

Now let me say this first, group-forming and cliques are part of the psyche from the human condition.  Because we have an innate need to belong, we naturally form groups to fulfill that need, and thus we form "out-groups" to distinguish what we "are not".  However, just because we have a disposition to something does not mean its automatically alright.

Now for the issue at hand--as Christians, can we form exclusive groups and still be charitable?  Well first, lets look at what Charity is.  

Another word for Charity is love, we know that God is love, and that Jesus told us to not only love God with all our being, but also to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Aquinas states that love is "benevolence", or willing the good of the other person.  Basically this means that to love another person we must want them to be with God, to love ourselves we must wish to get to heaven, and to love God we must want to do his will.

Now we know we must love God with all our being, so it is him that we should love first and foremost.  We then must love ourselves, and then others, for we cannot give what we do not have, and so to be charitable to others we must abide in charity to ourselves.  This, above all, means avoiding sin, for it is in sin that we are separated from God and reject His Charity.  In avoiding sin, we must also be careful not to allow others to lead us to sin, but also must not condone or support the sinful lives of others.  If we are to love our neighbor, we must be his keeper.

Further, each person as a varying degree of strength in God, some are strong and others are week, and each person has particular areas of sin that we fall into habitually.  If we are expected to help others we must be strong and not fall into sin ourselves, and thus if a person is going to lead you to sin, how can you help them? Yes, Jesus ate with sinners, but in his perfection he need not worry about falling into the sinful acts of those he fell around, nor did he partake in sinful acts as a means for their conversion.

So here it is... it is from this knowledge that I conclude that certain Christian Cliques are not actually (inherently) contrary to Christian Charity, but rather may help to guard it.  Sadly there are some people who, for our own well being, we just shouldn't associate with.  If someone will lead you to sin, away from God and His charity, you will no be able love them fully while living in that sin, and so to preserve the love for yourself and the love of God, you can "love them from a distance" ie, pray for their conversion and happiness.  But the will of God and your purity must come first.

Now, some people are strong in faith or have a particular resistance to certain vices.  If this is the case than you should prudently discern if you are called to evangelize to a group or person in that they may be converted.  You should only do this if you are strong enough to resist this sin.

Finally, Cliques can be misused.  When used as a means of judgment or self-edification they not only hinder charity on all three accounts, but damage the charity of others as they grow contempt for the Church.  If an individual is in need of guidance and fellowship, and your "clique" is solid enough to encourage them in that way without falling itself, the charitable thing to do is to invite them into your group.

Consider the groups you are part of, why you are part of them, and if they are exclusive to the detriment or support of Christian Charity.