The First and Last Noel

 

“No Hell, no Hell, there is no Hell.”

My father, as a child, heard the refrain of the familiar Christmas carol this way. He took it as the essential Christian message.

Many do. After all, Jesus died for our sins, right?

A priest argues that the greatest danger to the faithful is not atheists, but universalists within the church; and he argues that universalism is the source and essence of what is going wrong in the church today.

Universalism is the idea that no one is in Hell. It is indeed a popular thought among the Catholic clergy. Bishop Barron has expressed this opinion, as at least a possibility: “we can hope.” The original translation of the Novus Ordo mass in English used to intone every Sunday that Jesus died “for all” –a deliberate change from the previous Latin “for many,” as if to promote the universalism heresy.

And it is a heresy; declared so in the times of Origen, who first propounded it.

It makes sense that this might well be behind the current push to “pastorally” downplay objections to divorce, pedophilia, same-sex unions, and the like. After all, why make such a fuss about sin, if nothing is really at stake, if we all end up in the same place? Then judgement only becomes unkindness, an extra burden on the shoulders of the “faithful.” Religion should be all about joy and forgiveness.

Happy, happy, joy joy. Who cares, after all, about beheaded children and the like?

Even if there is no Hell, this is not kind or charitable. All morality boils down to “love God and love your neighbour.” Turning a blind eye to sin is condoning predation on the vulnerable. The strong can look after themselves; the sufferings of the weak will multiply.

But if God exists, he must be good; for goodness is an aspect of perfection. And we know, through multiple rational proofs, that God exists. If God is good, he must be on the side of justice, for that is what goodness means. He must have created the world in such a way as to ensure ultimate justice.

Yes, there is also mercy. But mercy requires repentance and penance; it cannot be accepting and condoning the wrong. Otherwise, the wrong is itself eternal; there is wrong in Heaven.

Therefore, there must be a Hell. There must be some permanent punishment for those who do not repent and will not willingly make full recompense for their sins.

Preaching that we all get to Heaven anyway is ushering souls into Hell, and denying them the hope of mercy.

What Rough Beast?

 

It seems clear to me that our contemporary fear of “judgementalism” comes from the secular culture, and owes nothing to Church teaching, or the Bible, or traditional Judeo-Christian morality. It traces back to the “do your own thing” popular culture of the 1960s; before that to such figures as Marcuse, Freud, and before them Nietzsche, Darwin, and Marx. 

Jesus himself had no problems with judging the moneychangers, 

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

or the scribes and Pharisees, 

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

or those who mislead or miseducate children. 

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

He judges the living and the dead, and divides humanity into sheep and goats.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’”

Is this peculiar to him? Is it only he who is competent to judge, being God incarnate? No; John the Baptist, “the greatest born of women,” also has no trouble condemning the Sadducees and Pharisees, 

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?’”

or judging the acts of Herod Antipas. 

“For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been telling him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her.’”

And in this, he is doing the same divine work as all the prophets of the Old Testament: issuing a warning to those who are on the wrong path.

“Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai, saying, ‘Go at once to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it, for their wickedness has come up before me.’”

If we lose this, we lose the ethical essence of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I see our contemporary refusal to make moral judgments leading to the destruction of a growing number of souls; and in the end the destruction of society at large. As W.B. Yeats put it, we are living in a time in which, increasingly,

"The best lack all conviction,

While the worst are full of passionate intensity."

This is what happens when we refuse the call to "put on the full armour of God." This is what comes whne we refuse Jonah's commission.

Unconditional Love

 

Xerxes proposes that there are two competing images of God: for some, God is “unconditional love.” For others, he is a “ruthless judge.”

This is a neat example of the fallacy of the false alterative: it implies that, if you do not believe God is unconditional love, you believe he is ruthless. You are therefore driven to accept that he is unconditional love.

Yet he clearly is not, if by “unconditional love” you mean that he sets no conditions. He does from the very beginning, with not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God’s love is expressed as a series of covenants: he has obligations, man has obligations, and if man does not meet his obligations, punishment can be swift and severe.

Caritas or agape, divine love, does not mean overlooking faults and flaws; any more than married love does. It means keeping contracts, and at all times wanting the best for the other. It also implies respecting the other’s moral agency. A “love” that demands nothing of the other does not. That would be seeing the other as an object. It is the sort of love one might have for a good steak. It is a form of hate.

This is why the Bible says “One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him.”

So is God a “ruthless judge”? The flaw here is in seeing justice as in opposition to love or mercy. Perfect justice is the ultimate mercy.

Be Reasonable

Xerxes, with enthusiastic agreement from much of his readership, has determined the original sin to have been reason: "I wonder if humanity’s original sin might be our obsession with labelling and categorizing our experiences.” One respondent characterizes this as a flaw of Western civilization. Another chimes in, “Judgement dams up the works! No sooner do I make a judgement, i.e., apply a label, then I stop considering alternatives and limit all the possibilities that might be realized by continuing consideration. Acceptance, on the other hand, permits flow, movement, discovery!”

This is a non-starter for Christians. One might point to Biblical verses like “judge not, lest ye be judged,” or the woman taken in adultery. But, importantly, these are about judging other people, not making judgments as such. And they themselves call for judgement—it is not that we must not judge others, but that we must judge ourselves first: ‘first, take the beam out of your own eye.’ ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’”

John 9:39: And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”

As for naming things, God himself brings the universe into being, in Genesis, by his words—by calling it into being. Then, as if in echo of this divine act, he has Adam give names to all the animals. The implication seems to be that it is precisely in naming and clearly defining things that we are acting in the image of God, and in accord with the divine will.

Jesus is the Logos. He is judgement incarnate.

In sum, nothing could be less Christian—or more diabolical—than this postmodern doctrine of unreason.

Acceptance of everything requires acceptance of the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, and Charles Manson. This was precisely the philosophy Mason preached to his followers.

The Woman Taken in Adultery

 

Two claims about Christianity that really disgust me are, first, the “happy happy joy joy” notion that Christians are supposed to find life always happy; an absurd and offensive thought to hold in the very shadow of Jesus pinioned on the cross. Second, the notion that Christians are not to judge―endlessly used as a get out of jail free card by non-Christians wanting to get away with bad actions.

I think I have dealt with both here before. 

For the second heresy, one passage often cited is the “judge not, lest ye be judged” verse in Matthew.

Matthew 7:1-5—in context.

“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 actually ends with judgement; with you judging your brother. You are indeed to judge; but not judge by any standard you are not ready to apply to yourself. It is a warning against hypocrisy, not judgement.

A second Biblical passage often cited is that in John of the woman taken in adultery. 

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 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.”

--John 7:53-8:11

Biblical scholars argue that this is a late insertion, not found in the earliest Greek texts. As a Catholic, I do not care. The Church obviously did find it significant, to insert it.

But Jesus does judge the woman—he says she has sinned. Nor does he say she should not be stoned.

When the Pharisees there to stone her fade away, she remains standing. She could have taken to her heels. Jesus is not looking, giving her this opportunity.  He is deliberately looking down at the ground. She has, by this, expressed repentance for her sin, and has acknowledged that she deserves punishment.

Under these conditions, we can and should forgive. And if we do, we can expect the same forgiveness from God.

If, on the other hand, we take to our heels, deny that we have done wrong, deny the justice of our condemnation, we are damned. 

And it is the fraternal duty of the Christian to point out to us our wrong. Unless, that is, he wants to see us in hell.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.

On Discrimination

White doves help Cinderella discriminate among various grains and seeds.

A seemingly trivial example of our current moral confusion, or depravity: the ESL text I used this morning has a vocabulary exercise. One word tested is “discriminate,” and the possible answers are “a negative action” or “a positive action.” The student is expected to know or learn that discrimination is a negative action.

Discrimination is not an action, but never mind that.

First problem is avoiding the terms “good” and “bad” or “right” and “wrong.” The reference to morality is obscured. Instead, the author resorts to the pseudo-scientific terms “negative” and “positive.” We are not discussing mathematics or electricity. This seems calculated to confuse rather than clarify.

But, worse, it also gets the morality backwards. To discriminate is a good thing; yet the desired and expected answer is “negative.”

“Discriminate”; Merriam-Webster: “to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of.” “To distinguish by discerning or exposing differences: to recognize or identify as separate and distinct.”

Thought itself is the process of discriminating one thing from another. Morality itself is a question of discriminating right from wrong. This is not just obscured, but perverted here.

This might be a lazy error; a question of confusing “discriminate” with “discriminating in employment on the basis of race or skin colour.” Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by ordinary human incompetence. But this does look sinister. As though someone, either a constituency on earth or some Cartesian Evil Genius, or both, wants us to stop thinking in terms of right and wrong.

On Making Moral Judgments

Salome and the head of John the Baptist.

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

The quote from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, has given us the common saying, “even the Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.” It is profoundly true—the Pharisees quote scripture against Jesus in the Bible itself. Every bad person has a few handy Biblical quotes they can use to bludgeon good people.

Chief among them are “turn the other cheek,” and “judge not, lest ye be judged.” They are useful for telling good people to shut up and let bad people go about their business.

But they only work their diabolical magic if taken out of context.

“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” If this is a commandment not to judge others, Jesus himself clearly and regularly breaks it. He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of sinfulness repeatedly. At the end of time, he will come again and judge everyone, the living and the dead.

Ah, you might say, but that is for God alone. God knows; we ought not to so presume.

Very well; consider then John the Baptist. He similarly loudly condemns the sinfulness of the Sadducees and Pharisees, and does so in Jesus’s presence.

“But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?’” (Matthew 3)

He is beheaded for persistently accusing Herod and Herodias of sin.

Rather than condemn him for this behaviour, Jesus declares him the greatest of men.

“Most certainly I tell you, among those who are born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11).

In this, the Baptist was simply fulfilling the standard role of the prophets: calling out the people and the government for sins. Deny the legitimacy of doing so, and you deny the legitimacy of half the Bible.

On assuming the throne, Solomon prayed:

“Give your servant … an understanding heart to judge your people, that I may discern between good and evil.”

And God responded:

“Because you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, nor have you asked for riches for yourself, nor have you asked for the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice; behold, I have done according to your word. Behold, I have given you a wise and understanding heart; so that there has been no one like you before you, and after you none will arise like you. I have also given you that which you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be any among the kings like you for all your days. If you will walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”

It very much sounds as though God approved of his choice. He wants us to exercise judgement, and to judge right and wrong. It is what we are here for; it is why we are given free will.

Now let’s look again at the original quote, in its full context:

“Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you tell your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7; WEB)

It ends with Jesus recommending that you judge. And that to do so is a kindness, like removing a speck from your brother’s eye.

Sin is a spiritual illness, that if untreated leads to spiritual death. In plain terms, you go to hell. You morally owe it to another to point out their sin. It would be callous or insane not to.

The warning is specifically against hypocrisy, against judging others by a harsher standard than yourself.

This is indeed a common failing. Bad people think they can absolve themselves of sins by accusing others of them.

For example, look no further than the present Democratic convention. Bill Clinton a couple of nights ago accused Donald Trump specifically of not behaving with the proper decorum in the Oval Office. Clinton had sex with interns in that office. Last night, Obama launched an attack on Trump with “I did expect Donald Trump to show some interest in taking the job seriously … for close to four years now, he has shown no interest in putting in the work."

This is probably the most common accusation against Obama: that he did not seem to take the job seriously, seemed disengaged.

"Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job," Obama continued.

This sounds ironic from a younger man of an older man.

Finally, making the pitch for Biden and Harris over Trump and Pence, he opines “They understand that political opponents aren't unAmerican just because they disagree with you.” He actually blames the right for identity politics and “cancel culture.”

Of course, it is also always the sort who tells others to “judge not” who are first to hurl such accusations, as likely as not unfounded.

Judging Thy Neighbour

From Clarifying Catholicism:

Authentic love does not involve letting people do whatever they want. In fact, it takes an enormous amount of love to courageously confront someone about a bad habit, addiction, or harmful behavior.

Christians are called to judge actions every day. In a literal sense, “Don’t judge me!” is a fine demand, since we have no authority to judge the state of a person’s soul. However, when this phrase is warped to signify “Don’t judge my actions!” the requester risks surrounding themselves with walls of pride that isolate them from the relationships that reveal the goodness of God. A criminal justice system could not function without judging actions, though it is apparent that the so-called “freedom-fighting” anarchists do not care for law, order, or morality at all. Once we relinquish judgment of actions, we too fall into a state of inner-anarchy.

If you love a drug addict, you have an obligation to respectfully confront them about their substance abuse. …. No matter how “politically incorrect” it might seem, it is your God-given task to help your friend carry their cross. … The greatest commandment is “Love Your Neighbor.” If you truly love your neighbor, you will judge their actions.

The Devil and Bishop Barron

I think Bishop Barron goes off the rails a bit in this consideration of the Devil. Unsurprisingly—as he explains, the Devil was not even considered real in his seminary formation. The modern church has lost touch with its own teachings here. As a result, he is more or less forced to wing it, and draw his own conclusions. The gap can too easily be filled by pop culture beliefs floating in through the Overton window.

The Bishop notes that the old Hebrew term “satanas,” Satan, means “the accuser.” He concludes that we are doing the Devil’s work when we accuse anyone of sin.

The Holy Spirit, he explains, is always affirming. Negative feelings about ourselves or others must come from the Devil.

 If so, Jesus himself regularly did the Devil’s work, as he regularly accused the scribes, Pharisees and others of sin. John the Baptist was an agent of the Devil, when he accused Herod Antipas of adultery and incest. And, of course, the Catholic Church is an agent of the Devil for making an unholy fuss over abortion.

It is obviously wrong as an interpretation; but it conforms to our “non-judgmental” postmodern ethos.

My own formal religious education understood this title, “the accuser,” or “the adversary,” as a survival of an older Jewish conception of Satan as a kind of prosecuting attorney, declaring our sins before the throne of God. His conduct in the Book of Job is supposedly an example.

Satan in the Book of Job: Blake.

But this too is not quite right. God would have no need of such a functionary being; He is omniscient. This usual mythological explanation thus requires us to believe that the original conception of the Hebrew God was either polytheistic, gnostic, or badly thought out—“primitive.”

And it does not actually fit the Book of Job. In Job, Satan is not pointing out Job’s sins; Job has not sinned. Satan claims Job reveres God only because he has been rewarded, and, if he faces suffering, will turn away from Him. This is an accusation, but it is a false accusation—for it is accusing Job of a sin he has not committed.

This is an important distinction. That is a different matter from merely judging others. That is, in a word, “prejudice”—pre-judging others. Significantly, judging others is not condemned in the Ten Commandments; “bearing false witness against your neighbour” is.

This is what Satan apparently does.

Bishop Barron misses it, remarkably, even though he immediately then notes that the Devil is called “the Father of Lies.” And this is just how lying is defined in the Ten Commandments.

Another part of Bishop Barron’s treatment also does not quite ring true.

John’s Gospel calls the Devil “a murderer since the beginning.” The Bishop takes this as meaning only that the Devil is behind a broad “culture of death.” He cites as confirming evidence the mass murders of the Twentieth Century, suggesting they can only be explained by the existence of an independent spirit that seeks murder.

But this doesn’t really work. In principle, the difference between one murder and a million is only one of scale, not of kind. So the difference in itself does not seem to require us to postulate the action of an independent spiritual being. And this reading does not explain why murder is singled out as coming from the Devil, and not the other sins--other than lying, which is also repeatedly singled out.

And there remains that phrase “since the beginning.” Why is it there?

The mass killings of the Twentieth Century are in no sense primordial, at the beginning of something. There seems to be something else here, that Bishop Barron is not addressing.

Let’s look at the phrase in context:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, 'You will be made free?'" 

Jesus answered them, "Most certainly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. A bondservant doesn't live in the house forever. A son remains forever. If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's seed, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father." 

They answered him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn't do this. You do the works of your father." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, God.” 

"Therefore Jesus said to them, "If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven't come of myself, but he sent me. Why don't you understand my speech? Because you can't hear my word. You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn't stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father. But because I tell the truth, you don't believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God. For this cause you don't hear, because you are not of God."

Jesus is making a distinction here between one’s physical parent and one’s spiritual parent. His listeners are Abraham’s “seed,” but Abraham is not their true father. Everyone is the child of only two fathers: God or the Devil.

And he is making a distinction between those who sin—who are thereby bondservants to the Devil—and those who consciously throw in their spiritual lot with the Devil, becoming his children.

The Devil shown in a 15th century manuscript.

And when he comes to calling the Devil a murderer, again we see the issue of false accusation: “When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father. But because I tell the truth, you don't believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin?”

This is apparently how, according to John’s passage, the Devil murders: he murders with false accusations.

False accusations “from the beginning.”

Which most naturally implies, from the victim’s earliest childhood. Hence too perhaps the reference to parentage, fatherhood. This seems to conform with his role in Job: a young child, below the age of reason, is incapable of sin. So any such accusations in early childhood must be false.

This seems to mesh in turn with something else Jesus says in the Gospels, about the gravity of misleading children:

“but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) 

“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)

The word translated “stumble” here is open to interpretation; it suggests either sin or error, being misled.

Technically, however, once again, it cannot refer to sin, because a young child is incapable of stumbling in this sense.

It would seem to fit the case of a child wrongly told they had sinned when they had not; misled about their sinfulness.

And this might be said to murder their soul.

At least, to complete the Christian message, were it not for Jesus, who sets such bondservants of the Devil free, even raising them from the dead.