"Just" Catholic

 

I was presenting today at a professional conference. I keep my religion fairly private, as I don't have the benefit of working amongst people of faith. I suppose as a "religious person" I could technically fall under the umbrella of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and be welcomed as one thread in the beautiful tapestry of what makes us all different. 

But in my industry, if you are a believing Christian, it's best practice to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove when talking openly about the faith, lest the specter of cancel culture overshadow you. That doesn't mean I shy away from it should the topic of personal faith or religion come up; I just don't throw my pearls before swine injudiciously. 

I have, however, thought a lot about the nomenclature one uses to describe themselves and their religious affiliation in a secular or professional environment. This is one of the struggles in our current fractured Church as well, but that is a different arena altogether. In the faith circles, it's no longer enough to just refer to yourself as "Catholic." What kind of Catholic are you, you might wonder? Are you a 'traditional' Catholic? A 'conservative' Catholic? An 'orthodox' Catholic? A 'progressive' Catholic? An Eastern Catholic? A JP2 Catholic? A LGBT Catholic? For better or worse, we resort to these qualifiers because, it seems, being "just Catholic" is no longer enough. 

Then you have those--both in and outside of those faith circles, but also in the world at large--who will refer to themselves as 'Catholic' because it was the faith they were raised in, or what they mark on a census form under 'religion', or because they were baptized, or perhaps because it is part of their culture. It all these instances it is accurate to call oneself Catholic, but it doesn't tell us much. Do you go to Mass on Sundays? Do you believe what the Church teaches? Do you live it out? 

So it is relatively safe to refer to yourself as I'm Catholic in the workplace or social circles because that could hide you under the accepted cloak of Catholic apostates who do not believe at all, 'wink-wink/nod-nod' Catholics who disregard Church teaching, cultural heritages ("Irish/Italian/Mexican Catholic", etc). 

But if you are an intentional Catholic willing to live by faith and die for it, that categorization seems...inadequate.

When you get marched into the HR office because you used the wrong pronoun at work, I could see one answering why they did that with "I'm Catholic" and the HR Director saying, "Well, I know lots of Catholics and they don't have a problem calling Sam a she." You get the idea.  

When I look at the evangelical world, I associate those who take a stand for something and proclaim "I am a Christian" as the reason for their particular actions with a degree of intentionality that is lacking in the 'Catholic' label. While the Baptists and other fundamentalists would vehemently disagree, Catholics are, in fact, Christians. We are the O.G. disciples, after all. 

That is one potential and appropriate way of referring to ourselves, if we do in fact hold to what the Church, the Bride of Christ, teaches and live out our faith: I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. A disciple is a follower, one who has left everything to put himself under the tutelage of a master. It does not imply passivity and is unconcerned with a label, for his actions of subjugation speak for themselves. 

But it seems awkward, and overly distracting. You're a what now? I just meant what is your religion? We could use the intentional term 'I am a Christian'  and that would be accurate in the umbrella sense or world religions. Or we could resort to saying 'I am a Catholic' and leave it at that.

But what I've finally settled on for myself personally, should the topic of my religion ever come up in a secular environment, is that I am a "Catholic Christian." The "Catholic" qualifies the "Christian," and the "Christian" underscores the intentionality of the "Catholic." That it is more than a census category or a cultural identifier, but a matter of true belief and a willingness to live it out which doesn't concern itself with insider-baseball ("Traditional Catholic," "Conservative Catholic," etc) or political affiliation ("Right-wing Catholic," "Catholic Republican," etc). 

It's a shame we can't all be "just" Catholic as a unified body, and that be enough. But this is nothing new. The heresies of today aren't Christological (Arianism, Modalism, etc) or matters of discipline or rigor (Jansenism, Donatism); no, the heresies of today are the iron fist we all live under: Relativism, Wokeism, Indifferentism, and we need a more nuanced religious nomenclature that is both intentional and succinctly communicative to account for this.

So, while it may not be perfect, Catholic Christian I am. No trademark necessary--borrow at will if you have the same struggles I do in this sphere.

The Collapse of Trust

 I'm watching the Daily Wire What Is A Woman? documentary on Twitter while it's available for free (ending soon). If you see this post in time, you may still be able to watch it. 

I wasn't going to at first. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a huge Matt Walsh fan, but he did a really good job with this piece. He was respectful and not inflammatory, and the production was well done. Just asking fundamental questions (ie, the title of the documentary) which people seem to have trouble answering. Because like Pilate, it comes back to the issue: What Is Truth? What is reality? Is there an objective reality? Objective truth? 

Something weird is going on in Western civ. I especially liked the part when he flew to Kenya to visit an African tribe. They laughed and laughed at the bizarre questions  "Can a man become a woman, or a woman become a man?" as if it were a mistranslation, and answered his question of What Is A Woman? very matter-of-factly with simple common sense.

I think COVID really blew the floor out of the house.  We are all being institutionally lied to, and you don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that. Not just COVID though. From the AMA to the APA to the NCAA to the U.S. of A., it is clear we cannot and should not blindly trust institutions that should be in the service of the common good. If you don't have common sense, how can you know what the common good is?

There are good agents in every field, people who want to tell the Emperor he is naked. But they get smothered and drowned out. I think Matt Walsh, given his temperament, is telling him plainly--not in a hysterical manner, but calmly and rationally. Of course all documentaries are slanted, but nothing is neutral today anyway.

In some ways, this is nothing new. But it just seems to be accelerating. 

When we get in a car, we trust other drivers on the road to have the competency to be behind the wheel. We can be as careful as we can be, and yet still be broadsided by a distracted or drunk driver; our lives, for better or worse, are in the hands of others. 

If we can't trust the government, our therapist, our doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, our institutions of higher education--or if that trust has been compromised with even just little turds in the carboy--then that is a foreboding sign for our society as a whole (as you'll get a taste of, if you watch Matt's documentary)

Like abortion, one can make oppositional claims against abortion and trans ideology without appeal to religious reasoning, though the Natural Law, philosophy, and theology can inform that truth. Christians do not (or should not) oppose trans ideology not because of hate or being bigoted or fear, but because we must tell the truth. That truth comes with a cost, as it always does for those who choose not to live by lies. 

A Practical Guide To The Works Of Mercy

 

One of the lamentable pendulum swings in the Church today is to associate the works of mercy we are commanded by the Lord throughout scripture to perform with the "SJW" camp. It's not an unmerited reaction: at the small CINO college where I used to work, the Catholic identify of the institution was summed up in a pithy "we do service." And indeed, the students made sandwiches for the homeless, ran clothing drives, and visited the elderly sisters in the convent's nursing home.  All good things that we are called to as Christians--and all things a secular humanist could do just as well. 

So what makes Christian charity different? Love undergirds everything in the true Christian life, as the Apostle writes, "let all your things be done in charity" (1 Cor 16:14), while charity comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith (1 Tim 1:5). 

In the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul also writes of the different gifts of the Spirit given to the brethren:

"And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ep 4:11-12)

Likewise, the Church lays out for us once again a "both/and" charge to do the works of mercy-- corporal and spiritual. Whereas a Social Worker (who may or may not be Christian) may devote his or her life to the former as a matter of vocation (in the secular sense), a devout Christian may see his work primary as spiritual in nature: praying, making reparations, etc. And indeed some cloistered religious do devote their life to this noble calling 24/7 (Carthusians, Carmelites, etc) 

But for many of us lay persons living in the world, I think a both/and approach is appropriate for our state in life. The degree to which we are able to serve and in what capacity given our constraints varies, but I do think many of us do structure our lives in a way which precludes much "space" for charity--the way we often given "from our surplus, not our need" (Mk 12:44) when God calls for first fruits. As Catholics, we know we are capable of structuring our lives to put "first things first," i.e., the Divine Law, as evidenced in making Sunday Mass and the laying fallow of the Sabbath a priority regardless of our schedules and circumstances. But do we also prioritize the practical exercise of charity to evidence our faith in the same way?

It is harder to do when we see the exercise of charity and the works of mercy as an obligation (which it is) rather than an opportunity and means of blessing for both giver and those that receive it. This is not always easy to do, especially for those who tirelessly work in fields in which their exercise of this work goes unappreciated and taken for granted. But this, too, is a blessing from the Lord, who sees in secret and repays in kind (Mt 6:4). And the Lord makes this a practical opportunity, for "when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just (Lk 14:13-14).

So, we are called to exercise charity, to perform the works of mercy--both corporal and spiritual. So, what are they, and what are some ways we can live them out in a concrete manner? See below (note, in the interest of brevity I may share some links of things I've written already on the particular work of mercy from past posts):

THE CORPORAL

Feed the Hungry

Give Drink to the Thirsty

Clothe the Naked

I am grouping these three corporal works together because in the hierarchy of human needs and in our modern society, they can be performed simultaneously. At our old parish, we would pack snack bags with granola bars, fruit, sandwiches, etc with bottles of water and do a "walk around the block" before Mass so our kids could hand them out to the veterans and others who seemed like they could use some nourishment. We also encouraged them to pray beforehand and ask the Holy Spirit to "send someone" into their purview to receive this offering.

In recent years we have pulled back on donations to formal charities and instead have also prayed for opportunities to exercise this in a way that hurts a little more with particular families in need. In more than one occasion we were made aware of large families in which the husband had been laid off, or injured; in many of these instances the families were not destitute but it was also harder for them to qualify for aid (the "fall through the cracks" dilemma) and we wanted to simply ease the burden for them. In every circumstance so far, they were eventually able to get back on their feet and use the money for groceries, mortgages, and other necessary expenses. I try to write the check quickly, for an amount bigger than I would rationalize if I was using my head, send it off and forget it was ever written. 

Visit the Imprisoned

This work of mercy, too, can be a literal application. It took me a while to get clearances at our local county prison, but once I did I made monthly visits to both large groups of men (to read the scriptures to them out loud) and to individual inmates. Not everyone may be able to do this, but in lieu of physical visits there is always the opportunity to be a pen-pal to someone who is incarcerated. What's nice about this is even busy homemakers or working dads can carve out a half hour to write a letter and all it costs is the price of a stamp. When was the last time you got a letter in the mail? Isn't it nice?

Shelter the Homeless

Sheltering the homeless can be taken literally, but for many of us with families and small children, it is not always prudent and takes discernment. However, one thing we have done as a family is host families of limited means for a few nights whose child with cancer needed treatment at a nearby city hospital when Ronald McDonald house was full. We did this through this organization, which is not religious but nevertheless provides a good service for those who may not be able to afford hotel accommodations. 

Visit the Sick

This afternoon my daughter and I paid a visit to an elderly woman in a rehab facility. This is really low-hanging fruit that really cheers the neglected Christs in places like this, many of whom do not have families to visit and suffer from crushing loneliness. We brought some flowers from the yard in a jelly jar and a Miraculous Medal on a chain as a small gift. We stayed and chatted for about ten minutes total. It's also a nice thing to do with your kids, since the elderly seem to really love seeing them. I got the contact from our parish secretary who knew of shut-ins and those unable to get to Mass. It wasn't complicated, took no special skill, and took all of half an hour. 

Bury the Dead

This is one where many us, unless we are undertakers, may not do. We have a funeral to go to in a couple weeks, but are of course not actually doing the burying. But we did have a Mass said for the deceased, which is a great spiritual benefit to their souls. 

THE SPIRITUAL

Admonish the Sinner

See my post Why (and How) To Admonish a Brother In Charity. This can be a very hard work of mercy, and takes discernment, but may save his soul in the end. 

Instruct the Ignorant

I had a co-worker mention that she went to Mass recently because her son was going through CCD and doing his first Penance. I knew she didn't go to Mass regularly, but mentioned she received Communion. I mentioned (as charitably as I could) that the Church expects us to go to Confession at least once a year, and always when we are in a state of mortal sin, and that not attending Mass every Sunday and HDO is a mortal sin. I emailed her a detailed examination of conscience and told her to read it and encouraged her to join her son and make use of the Sacrament of Penance. She admitted she is a "bad Catholic" for rarely attending Mass outside of Christmas and Easter and never going to Confession. But at least she can't claim ignorance now.

Sometimes we need to pop people's bubble as a spiritual work of mercy, regardless of how uncomfortable it is and how badly they have been catechized so they no longer have any excuse. We can do it charitably, but we need to do it when we have the opportunity, or we will be judged just as harshly as a sin of omission.

Counsel the Doubtful

Comfort the Sorrowful

My wife is good about being available to women with things like a kitchen table and a cup of tea. She's a good listener, and a good encourager too. Many people today are struggling with doubts and anxiety, and we can encourage by making time and space for them in invitation. As St. Paul says, "encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing" (1 Thes 5:11) And when we encounter someone who is downcast and hurting, we share their cross, mourning with those who mourn (Rom 12:15). "Love and hurry are fundamentally incompatible. Love always takes time, and time is the one thing hurried people don't have."

Bear Wrongs Patiently

See what this looks like in my post By Your Words You Shall Be Condemned, where I cover some of St. Ambrose's treatise on the matter. 

Forgive All Injuries

Forgiveness can take really deep work, and grace is necessary for it to be perfected. See Forgive Quickly, Before You Change Your Mind. If we do not forgive our brother, our heavenly Father will not forgive us. So it's important!

Pray For The Living And The Dead

See my article The Tender Favor of Indulgences for more on this efficacious and much neglected work of mercy.

+

We will be judged on our tangible charity (Mt 25) and true religion is caring for widows and orphans (Ja 1:27). But it doesn't have to be complicated! As mentioned above, a lot of these are low-hanging fruit, and don't take any special skill--just charity, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to anyone who asks (Mt 7:11). You may also find you do not hit all of these, and that's okay too. But it's also okay to "try out" different works to round out your character as a Christian. These are just some suggestions, and I only share what we have done not as any kind of merit, but to give some tangibility and examples of what one can do. The perfect is the enemy of the good. As one of my friends is fond of saying, "half the battle is just showing up!"

Soliciting Your Assistance

 

A few years ago I was referencing the (1995) Catechism of the Catholic Church and came across the following, which made me go, "Hm, that seems weird but okay": 

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (emphasis mine)

Fundamentally, the question is "Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God?" And I thought to myself, "Well, we know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH, the God whom Jesus called Father, so we share a religious patrimony with the Jews, though they do not know the Father because they do not know the Son (1 Jn 2:23).  And we know the shoot who is Christ comes from the Davidic stump of Jesse, the God of the Torah is not a "different God" from the first Person of the Trinity, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy throughout the Old Testament, Emmanuel, God with us. 

But Muslims? There's is a Christian heresy. We have no patrimony with them. They are human brothers, but enemies of the Cross, and unredeemed (though God's plan and invitation for salvation extends to them as well).

So, back to the CCC. Is this a matter of semantics, carefully worded language that honors a distinct religious tradition and affirming a degree of commonality? Or is it patently a "reimagining" or reframing that gives more weight to ecumenical brotherhood over plainly spoken clarity about this theological question?

A kind of delayed cognitive dissonance ensued, which I shelved for a while until a friend called this morning asking about this issue, as his son attends an otherwise orthodox school but whose teacher purported to the class that "Catholics and Muslims worship the same God"...and pointed to the CCC to back up the assertion. 

When my friend's son said, "I don't think that's correct," the teacher would not allow him to take it further, but instead put the onus on my friend's son to "cite his sources" proving otherwise. He hasn't had the opportunity to do so yet, which is where you, dear reader, come in.

I told my friend most traditional Catholics would not source the new Catechism and would instead refer to the Catechism of Trent for Catholic teaching. It also highlights one of the multitude of issues the Second Vatican Council has introduced beyond just liturgy that I, like many others, are starting to wake up to (side note: I loved this piece at USC on "liturgical innocence" posted today. Do yourself a favor and check it out. It speaks the words I could never articulate since experiencing and moving over to the usus antiquior)

I also mentioned to him that it is disconcerting, and tends to undermine my confidence, that we reference the 1995 CCC so much as Catholics....but is it really the teaching of the Catholic Church in "updated" language...or is it something altogether new?

So, that's a little disconcerting, and as someone who was catechized with the new Catechism (and honestly not altogether familiar with the Catechism of Trent) I realize I have a lot of catching up to do to reorient in the faith of our fathers. 

So, I'm asking for your assistance. Can you share (in the comments) if you have knowledge on this subject, some source material to refute this teacher of my friend's son who claims that Christians and Muslims "worship the same God?" I look forward to learning and being enlightened as well. 

Deo Gratias. Deus Vult!

Religion Is Not A Dirty Word

 One of the things I love most about Catholicism is the "both/and" (rather than "either/or") approach to things. Faith and works do not stand in contradiction, as it is written "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?" (Ja 2:24). Likewise, faith and reason "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth" (Fides et Ratio). Great doctors of the Church like Augustine and Aquinas did not shed the philosophies of old completely but baptized them in Christ. We fast and we feast. We abstain and we imbibe. 

So, when I see Protty reductionist posturing like this, I can't help but roll my eyes a bit:

It smacks of the upcoming generations of young adults in Europe and even here in America who do not see the legal and sacramental bonds of marriage as a necessary pre-requisite for a life-long partnership with another person or for having children. In these instances, the attitude is "I don't need a peace of paper (a certificate of marriage) to prove my love for so-and-so. We know in our hearts we are committed to one another." And so on.

But the fact is, you do need vows to sustain a relationship, you do need legal recognition as marriage is a common good, and you need public witness in addition to private commitments. 

Like many anti-reason, anti-intellectual, and anti-works Protestant lines of thinking, the "It's a relationship, not a religion" is the either/or, reductionist approach to faith. It sees "religion" as a sullied thing, a dirty word, unworthy to be yoked to the Savior's redeeming cross. And it downplays St. Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians to "stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" (2 Thess 2:15)

I have used this example many times, but can you imagine a body that was "all heart" or "all head" without the benefit of a skeleton? There would be no structure, no form, not ability to move. The body would puddle on the ground in a pile of skin and organs. The skeleton provides the necessary protection of organs, form for the muscles to operate in, and the ability to move about. If "relationship" is entering into the heart of God, religion is that composition of bones which protects it.

In fact, in the first part of the second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul preaches against the "Man of Lawlessness" (2 Thess 2:1-12). What is a man of lawlessness but one who lives by his own standard, his own canon, deceiving with disorder and anarchy against the law which has been established by God (the natural law and the moral law)? Like Satan, he says, "I will not serve," I will not abide by a standard which is not my own. Like the sarabaites that St. Benedict spoke of so detestably in his Rule, "Their law is what they like to do, whatever strikes their fancy. Anything they believe in and choose, they call holy; anything they dislike, they consider forbidden." (Rule Ch 1.6-9)

Protestantism is reactionary in its founding. It reacted against the abuses within the Church by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Christians who attempt to do the same with regards to holy religion set themselves up as holy sarabaites with no need for the law of God beyond what they interpret themselves apart from tradition. 

Of course, we should not be like "white washed tombs" that our Lord warns about, washing the outside of the cup while the inside remains filthy--the detestability of empty religion. And yes, we must work for justice for the widows and orphans, to hold the "true religion" St. James speaks about (Ja 1:27).

But to live the Christian faith--especially when doctrine is challenged and defrauded by the coming man of lawlessness and in times of persecution--necessitates holding fast to tradition (ie, the religion of our fathers) and it's holy doctrine. It becomes too easy to justify stepping on the fumie, renouncing the faith, when we reason "God will forgive me...after all, we are in relationship. He will understand." Religion is like a vow--it protects the hearts of the treatise holders, it is the rope binding us to the mast, it allows us to live with integrity when we are clouded by doubt of what is true and right--a compass in a tempest. 

Why would anyone other than a fool throw religion overboard in a storm? Holding to religion and being in relationship with Christ are not mutually exclusive things. Like a marriage contract, a legal vow, a covenant between man and wife, it protects and gives form to the essence of that bond--the love and commitment rooted in the vow to be true til death. 

No, religion is not a dirty word; don't let any well meaning evangelical with no tradition to stand on and no fathers in the faith convince you otherwise. 

Preventing The Scar Of Religious Trauma In Your Children

 

Mark Laita started his career as a professional photographer for some of the biggest corporate companies in the world, but left it to pursue a project called "Soft White Underbelly" in which he interviews prostitutes, drug addicts, PTSD survivors, corrupt NYPD cops, drifters, victims of incest and abuse--basically all the people we avoid in polite society--and gives them a platform to tell their story. I appreciate his interview style, as he has a deft way of interjecting when needed to advance the thread of someone's life while at other times simply sitting back and letting the story be told without interference. 

As someone who has lived with and ministered to prostitutes, criminals, gang members, drug addicts and dealers, those who are developmentally handicapped, and the mentally ill, I'm not easily scandalized by these types of interviews, and I appreciate his channel because of the perspective it affords. As a secularist, he's not pushing an agenda and he bears no judgement towards those whom he interviews, who have most likely been judged by society their entire lives. Some of the interviews are better than others, and some are simply amazing story-tellers who have suffered the butt-end of life with remarkable resilience.  

One particular interview I watched last night was with a woman named Chasya who grew up in a Hassidic/Ultra-Orthodox Jewish family in Brooklyn (please note that Chasya in the interview is dressed rather revealingly, so I would advise averting the eyes if you are a man planning to watch and simply listen to the audio, or maybe don't watch at all). Her family was "religious" in the strictest sense of the word--large family (8 children), severe discipline by her parents, and strict adherence to the Jewish law. It was also religion in the worst sense of the word--fear-based, no toleration for dissention or individual differences, in which she experienced a lack of love and a culture of abuse and protection of the community at all costs. 

For children growing up in such perceivingly insufferable circumstances, Chasya developed a kind of religious-PTSD. While I realize this is only one side of the story, she appears in the interview to be a head-strong but kind individual. She has no reason to make up things, and such abuse and protection/cover up of abuse is indeed an issue in many of these communities (the story of Rabbi Baruch Lebovits in Brooklyn is one disturbing example of a "protect the community at all costs" situation). This happens in Orthodox Jewish communities, it happens in Protestant churches, in religious cults, and yes, it happens in the Catholic Church as well. It is a scandal and a mar that will earn its millstone at the Final Judgement.

We are close with a family in our traditional Catholic circle in which our friend suffered a similar (though not abusive) scarring due to a fear-based religion (in this case, her parents' Traditional Catholicism). Our friend has a sensitivity to heavy-handed and sensationalist "end-times" portrayals of the faith because of her upbringing. And yet the way our friend is raising her children is one in which she has balanced keeping the Faith while infusing extra-helpings of love, kindness, and accceptance in her family. They are one of the most lovely, faithful, and--dare I say it, normal families we have the privilege of knowing.

I want to emphasize the "normal" thing for a moment, because that is something I have made a point of considering in the way my wife and I raise our own family. Traditional Catholicism can be a tough tightrope to walk. Some in traditional circles pride themselves on modest dress, veiling, and more-regimented family prayer. Because I grew up in an a-religious household, this always held a kind of mysitical quality for me, and I was attracted to it. But I imagine, given my particular temperament, were I to be raised this way, I may have rebelled and become a full-on Buddhist or secular humanist. 

Thankfully our particular traditional community is not cliquey or fringey; if it was, we probably wouldn't have been invested in it as long as we have been. 

My wife and I do discuss sometimes whether we are doing things the "right" way. On the way back from the beach yesterday, and other trips, we play secular music. I want to like Christian music, but I just don't. Our kids know who Post-Malone and Nas are. I encourage my daughter to veil, but don't force her. We pray the family rosary, but not ritualistically or every evening. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but we are not good at playing parts we are not made for. We try to not strain out gnats while letting camels through. Because I grew up drinking in high school, when I got to college I didn't go off the rails too much. I think that's something parents struggle with--how tight to keep the reigns and for how long. I saw more than one sheltered student go completely nuts when they were given the freedom college affords, and that's something, personally, I would like to avoid with my own kids by maybe bleeding the valve a little when they are younger. But that's for each individual couple to discern. 

Religion is a powerful force for good, but it can be perverted and weaponized as a menas of control, like all things. Our Lord was hard on the Pharisees, and yet Mary and Joseph, and apostles like Peter, were model Jews and adherants to the Law as well. Tradition melded with charity has a great potential for renewal of the Church. Christianity, especially, has the greatest potential for good because it holds love as the center hub that holds all the spokes; without it, we are resounding gongs, as St. Paul says. And true religion is carrying for widows and orphans, as St. James says, so it is not "religion" that is the enemy; religion is the exoskeleton that protects the heart and other internal organs of faith. Were we not to have a skeleton--the bones of structure and doctrine--we would be a blob of skin and blood unable to exercise our body and carry out the work of charity. 

I think it's important when we raise our children to make sure they always know they are loved and accepted for who they are. This can be hard if a child comes out as having same-sex attraction, for instance, because we must love them but cannot accept this particular lifestyle because of the tenants of our faith (this can apply to other situations as well, of course). That doesn't make us religious bigots, and takes great discernment when it comes to actually how to live out that love as a parent and, more importantly, communicate it to the child. And we should never weaponize religion as a tool for coersion or fear lest we inflict potential scars of religious trauma and encourage the association of religion with things contrary to love (remember, discipline is not contrary to love, but must be exacted appropriately). If we want our children to continue in the faith, we must live it ourselves and not succumb to religious hypocricy. It's ok to be super-trad, as long as you have love. It's ok to be more 'normy' as well, as long as you have love. Love is the greatest commandment, brothers with faith and hope, but the greatest of these (1 Cor13:13).

When we encounter those, like the woman in the interview I described above, who have suffered great religious trauma, we must be compassionate and sensitive to the deep scars such upbringings can inflict. We must model for our own children and the world what true religion looks like. We should consider tendencies to prophelitization in such circumstances, and consider whether a different approach--simply listening, not judging, etc--may be more approriate. Healing from such trauma can take a long time for many of these individuals. So we must not inflict further pain by our actions, but model true charity and the tenants of our religion as our Lord prescribed.

The Offense of Religious Hypocrisy

In the Gospels our Lord makes repeated reference to the call of disciples to be a light to the world (Mt 5:14-16). He speaks of salt which, when it loses its saltiness, is not even worthy of the dunghill (Mt 5:13). Those in the world who are not believers may be blind, but they are not dumb, and Jesus affords them this merit, "for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light" (Lk 16:8). He calls followers of the Way to perfection (Mt 5:48).

People hate what they do not know. The world hates the Faith not because it is false, but because there is a latent suspicion that it is, in fact, true. But for those in the world who suspect and can admit that it may, in fact, be true, the Faith is also despised when it does not live up to what it claims to be. This is the essence of religious hypocrisy, which deserves the scorn it earns for itself in the eyes of believers and non-believers alike. Why?

The Pharisees of Jesus' day exemplified this religious hypocrisy in that they sit on the chair of Moses but "they say and do not do" (Mt 23:3). Jesus' entire life was one of spiritual integrity, as he was not compromised by sin, which scandalizes the Church, as well as believer and non-believers alike. "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh" (Mt 18:7)

What does it mean for a believer to live with integrity? They stand behind their word; their yes means yes, and their no means no (Mt 5:37). For those who believe, they act as if they believe. It is the challenge to "be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

And yet the tension exists that we are in fact not perfect. Religious hypocrisy is made manifest when Christians claim to be good but do not in fact live up the standard they profess. Spiritual integrity, on the other hand "delights in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties" because it is in this that God's glory is made known (2 Cor 12:9). Those who claim to be perfect and sinless are liars and make the Lord a liar (1 Jn 1:10). But those who know their weakness and yet strive for perfection against the bonds of concupiscence at least have integrity in the admission of faults. The solution to religious hypocrisy is humility, the cornerstone of all virtues, and integrity of word and deed.

You can tell someone has integrity when you look them in the eye. When a believer stands on conviction, they are not a "man of two minds, who doubts" (Ja 1:8), but one who is willing to go his death unwavering, even when challenged. He is steadfast and firm, speaking the truth in love, regardless of the cost. Even among non-believers, this can earn respect.

Religious hypocrisy, on the other hand, deserves no respect. It is inconsistent, inauthentic, hollow. It permits figures like Ghandi to be able to proclaim, "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity." 

When Christians claim to serve a God of love but do not love others themselves, they fuel the animus and provide evidence to the prosecutors that Christianity, in fact, cannot be true. When they claim moral superiority in sexual ethics and fail to live up to them themselves, they fill those who view their actions (and who are sometimes victims themselves at their hand) with disgust and revulsion. When we get drunk on Saturday night and sit with hands folded in the pew on Sunday morning, what does that say to those outside the church looking in who we ourselves are judging? When Jesus calls us to love and serve the poor and we live high on the hog ourselves, we fail to do as he commands and cause non-believers to doubt our motives. 

Religious hypocrisy and lukewarmness are bedfellows. And what does the scripture say of the lukewarm, those neither hot nor cold? "He vomits them from his mouth" (Rev 3:16). He would rather us be one or the other! (Rev 3:15). 

As the abortion debate ramps up, Christians will have the opportunity to speak the truth in charity, and suffer for it. They will have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. The worst thing he can do in those instances is be mealy-mouthed or tepid. But he must also rise above the animus of the world, the demonic vitriol which coats his face with the flecks of bloodthirstiness, and take his beating as Christ did at the pillar and in the shadow of the judgement before the Sanhedrin. Do not give ammunition to the ungodly. He must not be intimidated, but give witness. 

Can you blame the world for not being converted when we ourselves fail so often to live out our calling? "When he comes, he will convict the world of its sin" (Jn 16:8). No one escapes this terrible judgement except those who repent, cast themselves on the mercy of God, and amend their lives, producing for the divine court the evidence of their scars which the world will inflict upon them for the sake of the Truth.