Why We Can No Longer Get Along

 

Acceptable

Unacceptable.

Years ago, on an email list that shall remain nameless, I expressed some dissatisfaction with the government interfering in some way in free markets. This in a resolutely left-wing milieu.

There was no immediate backlash. Instead, they wanted to know if I was a Randite, a follower of Ayn Rand.

It was when I objected to Rand’s philosophy as immoral that the backlash began. Had I been an objectivist, it seems it would still have been okay.

So the issue that divides the left and right is not really free markets vs. collectivism, or big government vs small government, as one might have imagined.

Similarly, when people learn I am a vegetarian, their first question is whether it is for health reasons. Why is this the inevitable question? Why does it matter?

Because people do not resent vegetarians if they do it for health reasons. If they do it for moral reasons, I can attest, another’s vegetarianism is indeed resented.

Along the same lines, why do so many object so much to members of minority religions evangelizing them at their door? At a minimum, the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Salvation Army do it of good heart; they want your fellowship, and are trying to save you from Hell. What could be a greater kindness?

The problem is that a growing number of people have very guilty consciences. Those who have a guilty conscience will hate anyone bringing up the subject of right and wrong. They will even hate anyone who acts morally.

To the point of crucifixion.

This explains the current breakdown in civil discourse. The US even seems to be barrelling toward civil war.

The same principle can explain the eternal persecution of the Jews. The Jews, after all, invented/discovered ethical monotheism. They personify and embody The Moral Law.

It also explains the familiar saying, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Which those who have lived to my age can generally attest is true. Good people will appreciate a good deed; but many bad people will want to hurt you for it.

And it explains why it is those who were most favourably disposed towards Canada’s Indians, Sir John A. Macdonald, Edgerton Ryerson, the Catholic Church, are now so defamed and their statues toppled; in America or Britain, those who were most openly against slavery, like Thomas Jefferson or Sir Henry Dundas, are those condemned as slavers—and not the advocates of slavery.

The usual charge against all moralists, as in these cases, is “hypocrisy.” Which does not apply here at all. . Hypocrisy means holding others to a higher standard than oneself. Believing in and advocating morality is not a claim of personal sinlessness. It is those who old moralists to a higher standard than themselves for believing in the importance of morality who are hypocrites.

I fear a pending housing crisis in hell.

How About a Mass in Pig Latin?

 

Uneasy lies the head ...

There are rumblings of a coup in the Vatican.

That is surprising. There seems to be no legal means for unseating a pope. 

Nevertheless, discontent with Pope Francis has become quite open. Cardinal Pell, widely respected, has been revealed as author of a letter some months ago describing Francis’s pontificate as catastrophic for the church. Rumours are flooding in of a group of cardinals planning to oust him. Word is that Francis is isolated and has no friends in the curia, largely due to his penchant for individual and autocratic rule.

The flash point seems to be an also-rumoured upcoming crackdown by Francis on the Latin mass.

I am no special fan of the Latin mass. To me the mass is the mass, either way. But it also makes no sense to prohibit it. We allow masses in every other conceivable language—except Latin? How is that sensible, or doctrinally important? How is that the hill for Francis to die on? Especially since insistence on the vernacular mass has already caused one split in the church, the Society of St. Pius IX.

As it happens, having gone through various religion departments for my own education, I have some idea. Or my friend Xerxes, nominally a pillar of the United Church; he shows the same tendency. Among the ministerial elite of mainstream denominations, there is a sort of competition to see who can be most theologically transgressive. The great opponent becomes, not unbelief or immorality, but those who take traditional teachings too seriously.

Xerxes writes frequent columns against Biblical literalism; against those who have clear ideas about God; or who advocate conventional morality. He rarely rails against the ways of the world, only calling vaguely and blandly for peace, voting NDP, and giving to the poor.

A professor at Syracuse suggested in passing that an atheist would and should feel comfortable in the religion department. A major religious publisher considering my manuscript wanted to be sure that it was fully welcoming to atheists. The paper that attracted the most interest and admiration at a departmental conference was titled “So Meaning is Your Hangup?” Open rumour was that the author was in an adulterous relationship with her thesis advisor. “Rumour,” in that small department, is perhaps not the correct word.

This is what Pharisaism looks like. The problem with religion is that it imposes obligations on you, in matters of belief and conduct. If you are in the power elite, you don’t like to be constrained by anything. So once you rise to ministry, your chief opponent becomes the actual teaching you are charged with spreading. 

Some, like Cardinal McCarrick or Jimmy Swaggert, will simply continue to preach what they reject for themselves. These are the classic Pharisees. Some, like Xerxes or Pope Francis, perhaps more honestly, will instead devote their energies to undermining the faith. They will set up public services for Pachamama; they will hold “clown masses.” And they will attack on any premise those who continue to follow the faith: those who annoyingly quote the Bible, those who don’t embrace transgenderism or some other current moral fad, those who “judge,” those who want the Latin mass. Largely because they feel judged by them, and found wanting. How dare they act holier than their minister? Than the Pope? Who do they think they are?

Being Pharisees, they never stop to ask themselves who they, themselves, think they are.

Christianity and Hypocrisy

 

In my book Playing the Indian Card, I point out that Christian missionaries coming to Canada had every reason to try to preserve Canadian First Nations cultures, and they did. This is the opposite of the usual claim. They are commonly scapegoated as supposed cultural imperialists. In fact, most of what we know today about Canadian First Nations culture comes from their work and writings. For the natives had no writing system.

This makes sense purely in terms of self-interest. Keeping the natives separate from the civil culture magnified the authority of the missionaries as intermediaries. But more nobly, the Jesuits and Recollets were concerned with the depravity of the general culture. Far better for the souls of their charges that they not venture into the cities with their alcohol, prostitution, and sharp trading.

My editor objected. Surely they were imposing on them their culture, their Christian religion?

Only the irreligious see religion as culture. To the religious, religion is counter-cultural.

Andrew Breitbart famously said “politics is downstream from culture.” Similarly, culture is downstream from religion. True, adopt Christianity, and you are liable to come up over time with things like empirical science, liberal democracy, and the Enlightenment. But Christianity, or Catholicism, is highly culturally diverse.

For people who are not religious, it is true, religion is their culture. These are the people who have never thought about it, or read the texts. They just do it because those around them do it. They celebrate Christmas, because it is a party, and everybody does. They get married in a church, because that is the way it is done.  They attend mass because their grandmother did, and their father.

But this attitude is the very opposite of true religion, which is above all a search for the truth: for the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

And it produces something social that is the opposite of true religion. It produces a dull uncreative social conformity. It produces “happy happy joy joy” Hallmark-card-sentimental self-satisfied “be nice and get along” attitudes and behaviour.

Christianity is profoundly counter-cultural. If that is not obvious to you, consider that its founder figure was crucified by his culture as the worst of criminals.

So are the other great religions, but for Islam.

A recent example of how different the cultural facsimile is from the real article: one of Xerxes’s readers, a United Church minister, recently opined that she saw no distinction between secular and sacred Christmas songs for her services. “After all,” she remarked, “We are called to be a people of this world.”

This is the opposite of what the Bible says. 

1 John 2: 15-17:

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

John 17: 14-17:

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

John 15: 18-9:

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

The cultural Christianity almost systematically asserts the opposite of the actual Christian message. It generally asserts what is most comfortable, especially for the rich and powerful.

It is, in itself, proof of the existence of the Devil.

We are warned of this, of course, in the Bible. This is the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

This is why everyone should actually read the Bible for themselves; and Catholics should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

True Love Ways

 

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery

The Catholic Church attracts a lot of hostility for condemning abortion; not to mention this, that, or the other peccadillo. This is supposedly “hypocrisy.” Didn’t Jesus say “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Didn’t he say “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”?

He did; this is an illustration of Shakespeare’s principle that Satan himself can quote scripture to his advantage. This is “proof-texting,” pulling quotes out of context to distort their meaning. Perhaps the perfect example is the fact that the Bible says in so many words that there is no God. “There is no God.” Psalm 14:1.

Of course, the full verse reads “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

Context matters.

Of course, even without any context, we can see that this strict "judge not" interpretation of Jesus's words is impossible. If it is wrong to judge anyone, then it is wrong to judge the Catholic Church for judging you. You are ipso facto a hypocrite.

Let’s look at the immediate context of these verses, so often quoted by atheists and evildoers against Christians.

In the NIV: Matthew 7:

“1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

It ends with the obligation to, in fact, judge. And the analogy, of removing a speck from your brother’s eye, shows judgement as an act of kindness. The issue is that you must be able to “see clearly,” to judge clearly.

The caution is against hypocrisy, meaning judging another by a different standard than yourself, applying different rules to them.

Now let’s look at the woman taken in adultery, and casting stones:

John 8

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

It ends with Jesus judging her, referring to her life of sin. He is simply refusing to enforce the legal punishment, which I think we can agree to be extreme.

Our attention is drawn to another detail, because it is so odd: asked a question, he looks down at the ground, and appears to be writing something. He is deliberately looking away. Then he looks up, and all the men are gone, but the woman is still standing there. 

Although she faced death, she did not take the opportunity to slip away.

It shows that the woman admits her fault and accepts punishment, even one we might consider extreme. She is prepared to sacrifice her life if that is what is just. 

This is what is essential to forgiveness; it is the same in the sacrament of confession. It is what keeps us out of hell. In order not to be punished for one’s sin, one must fully admit it, and be fully prepared to accept justice. Only then can one receive mercy.

Rather than hypocrisy, pointing out that another is doing or has done wrong, to you, to themselves, or to a third party, is both a virtue and an obligation. 

See Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1829:

The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction…

For “charity” one can also read “love.” Pointing out the faults of others is an act of love. If we do not do it, we do not love them. We want them to go to hell, and we are prepared to frog-march them there for our own benefit.

Consider the case of an alcoholic. That is a vice we all can understand. Who is it who loves the alcoholic, the one who warns him he is drinking too much, or the one who smiles, slaps him on the back, joins him in a toast, pours him another drink?

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following definition for “fraternal correction”:

“Fraternal correction is here taken to mean the admonishing of one's neighbor by a private individual with the purpose of reforming him or, if possible, preventing his sinful indulgence.”

It goes on to say:

“That there is … an obligation to administer fraternal correction there can be no doubt. This is a conclusion not only deducible from the natural law binding us to love and to assist one another, but also explicitly contained in positive precept such as the inculcation of Christ: ‘If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother’ (Matthew 18:15). Given a sufficiently grave condition of spiritual distress calling for succour in this way, this commandment may exact fulfilment under pain of mortal sin.

It can be a mortal sin, if someone is sinning, not to tell him so. It is always a virtue to tell him.

Human Rights Hypocrisy

 

Justin Trudeau is slamming Pierre Poilievre in the Commons for failing to condemn Doug Ford’s use of the notwithstanding clause to force Ontario teachers back to work after years of school closures over Covid. This, according to Trudeau, is an assault on charter rights.

Trudeau is vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy, as he recently suspended all Canadians’ charter rights by declaring the Emergency Act. He has also failed to object to the use of the notwithstanding clause by the government of Quebec. So his sudden selective concern for human rights is obviously political and insincere.

But is Poilievre also being disingenuous? Should he be condemning Ford, as he did Trudeau, for suspending human rights?

First, it does not seem to be a federal politician’s business to criticize the provinces on what they do in their own jurisdiction. In Canada, doing so could provoke a constitutional crisis. Which is why nobody goes after Quebec for using the notwithstanding clause.

Second, the notwithstanding clause is a part of the Canadian Constitution. It makes no sense to simply object to its ever being used—why is it there? The question is whether it is justified in this case. The same question applies to use of the Emergency Act. There is a need for an Emergency Act--for emergencies. The question is whether there was an emergency.

I submit that Ford is using the notwithstanding clause as intended. Trudeau used the Emergencies Act illegitimately.

By the definition given in the statute, there was no emergency when Trudeau invoked the Act. That makes it an illegal action.

But Ford’s use of the notwithstanding clause is necessitated by judicial overreach. This is why it exists, to ensure the continued supremacy of parliament and the will of the people over a possible cabal of judges.

In recent years, Canadian courts have grown increasingly irresponsible and autocratic, abrogating to themselves legislative power. In the present case, they ruled a few years ago that workers had a right to strike that prevented governments from forcing them back to work in any circumstances, even for essential services.

This cannot be allowed in an orderly and civil society. It means those in essential services can force whatever deal they choose on the public. It gives them dictatorial powers.

Accordingly, Ford must use the notwithstanding clause.

Given the current Canadian situation in general, a more aggressive use of the notwithstanding clause is long overdue. Just as stronger restrictions on invoking the Emergencies Act are clearly required—ideally, specific penalties for any government using it improperly.

Really, in a just and ordered society, Trudeau shoud be behind bars.

Preach It, Brother!

 

The audience for friend Xerxes’s column seems to be composed mostly of Protestant ministers. At least, those are the readers who comment. I was interested if not surprised to see that they seem universally to have approved of his last column, about putting a warning label on Christianity.

“Preach on, brother, preach on!”

“Your column should be nailed onto every religious building’s front door ―a new 95 Theses.”

“There is a good case that organized religion has done more harm than good.”

“After a lifetime in various forms of various ways to share spiritual health care, I have concluded that religions, and in particular Christianity, are toxins; we spend most of our lives trying at least to turn it from poison to a healing substance. Sometimes one wonders if rescuing the bible, defending God, examining the sins of scripture, finding original blessing and reclaiming Jesus has had any real effect. Maybe the smile message we should be about is ‘Don't swallow it!’”

It might come as a shock to many that the average Christian minister does not much believe in Christianity. Having spent a lot of time with Christian ministers in grad school, I am not surprised.

In a sense, too, they are right. “Organized religion” is toxic. The Bible itself, the New Testament, warns us so. But not in the sense they mean. Religious authorities are inclined to be hypocrites, Pharisees, playing a role they do not themselves believe in. That is the original meaning of “hypocrite”—an actor wearing a mask.

This is perhaps not a clear example. These ministers are not exactly concealing their true feelings: they say they want them nailed to the church door, and one imagines they express it in their counseling. But if they feel this way, why are they ministers? And isn’t calling themselves a Christian minister without endorsing Christianity itself a grievous deceit? Shouldn’t they, in conscience, refer the seeker on to someone else who does believe in it?

I remember explaining to Xerxes once why I had not become a Catholic priest: because I felt my faith was not strong enough. I was not sure I could commit to always believing all of Catholicism, into the indefinite future.

And his answer, at that time, was immediate: “so what?”

I see the same phenomenon in teachers. Our teachers do not actually believe in teaching anything. Instead, the class is supposed to “construct their own knowledge.” And the teacher is free to do the same.

To be honest, I just don’t understand this attitude. Maybe the explanation will come to me. In the meantime, I think it is important to notice it. I guess the moral is not to blindly trust the “experts” in any field.

Pope Francis on Hypocrisy

If it has been accurately reported--a big "if"--Pope Francis has said in a recent homily that it would be better to be openly atheist than one who attends mass daily, yet does not demonstrate love for your fellow man.

There is logic to the claim. At least the atheist does not cause scandal and bring the religion into disrepute. Jesus himself railed against religious hypocrisy in the New Testament.

Still, in pastoral terms, supposedly Francis’s talent and chief concern, this seems the wrong message. True enough, scribes and Pharisees would prominently attend synagogues purely for the sake of social status. They were not sincere about their faith. The same might be true of a Catholic who attends mass regularly.

The problem is, in these times, few are likely to attend mass daily or even weekly for the sake of higher social status. Society as a whole is at present far from impressed by such things. Throughout the developed world, attending a Catholic mass risks social stigma, rather than prestige. It is counter-cultural behaviour.

Granted, within their own mind or within a small group, they might be acting hypocritically. Still, this seems a secondary worry, and all but counterbalanced already by the moral courage required, and the value of the moral example.

Instead, given the present social and intellectual climate of hostility to Catholicism and religion, it seems to amount to publicly undermining the faithful. The implicit message—surely at least the message the world will take from it—is that sincere faith and being observant is less than worthless. Best to avoid it altogether; you are only risking hypocrisy. All that matters is doing good.

In practice it seems an argument against religion and in favour of secularism, or perhaps, to use Francis’s own quoted term, atheism. And it must plague the conscience of the scrupulous, who will always fall short of moral perfection, moral perfection not being available to us mortals. So, since they are not morally perfect, and are painfully aware of this, must they avoid the mass and the sacraments, for fear of being worse than an atheist?

Pope Francis may only be being misquoted--as so often in the past. Still, he bears some blame that he seems to so often leave mistaken impressions. That is hardly pastorally sound. If he is unreliable on the theology, and unreliable on pastoral matters, where are we?