People today say social engagement is a basic part of the Christian life. Even so, it is shot through with paradox.
Christ was not part of everyday social life. He had no property, no job, no fixed place of residence, no wife or children. “Give all you have to the poor” was not social activism: “you always have the poor with you.” The point was to abandon entanglements and gain the freedom to follow Christ more perfectly.
Many of the things Christ said—“do not be anxious about tomorrow,” “do not resist one who is evil”—contradicted ordinary prudence. And he said that if someone “does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
So the Kingdom of Heaven seemed to involve a complete break with the world.
When Francis of Assisi decided to follow Jesus, it was these injunctions that struck him. But there are other considerations. The comment about hating one’s family was hyperbole. Elsewhere, Christ reaffirmed ordinary moral principles like “honor your father and mother,” including using your property to look after them rather than assigning it to the Temple. One of his last acts on Good Friday was giving John such responsibilities regarding his Mother.
So Christ and everyday life do connect: saints like Francis, who followed the call to holiness in the most unsparing way possible, are light and leaven for all of us. Our lives are better when they reflect something of theirs.
And everyday life is also good. Bread is made of flour and salt as well as leaven, and light should have something to illuminate. “You will know them by their fruits” suggests some degree of normal prudence. And if Christ came to save the world, the connections and activities that make up its ordinary life must be part of that.
That is one reason the pastoral epistles take everyday practicalities very seriously: “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith.”
But tensions remain. Total self-giving love and a settled social order don’t sit easily together. The former puts in question the particularity and reciprocity of normal social connections: I have rights and obligations regarding my family, country, and employer that are withheld from others. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be my family, country, and employer.
And single-minded devotion does not always go with good judgment. That is one reason Saint Francis wanted approval from Innocent III. It is also a reason that when the Fraticelli or Spiritual Franciscans rejected accommodations between their spirituality and institutional practicality, their way of life fell apart.
Each has a calling, Innocent III and ordinary people no less than Saint Francis, and every calling has its own problems. Abandoning everything to follow Jesus simplifies things in some ways but complicates them in others. There is no uniquely privileged way to be Christian.
So, I’ll let followers of Saint Francis sort out their problems and worry about those that come up for Catholics who embrace everyday social connections and duties—in particular, the problems involved in engagement in public life. It seems clear, in light of Christ’s praise of unworldliness, that these problems are going to be severe.
Rulers are needed. “There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” So the Church has always wanted to support and work with them: it seems no different in fundamental principle than supporting plumbers, physicians, or housewives.
But there are problems. Rulers fall short—often far short—of complete justice. So when we cooperate with them, for example, by participating in practical politics, we get involved in endless compromise and inevitably support some bad things.
And that’s assuming we don’t become corrupted ourselves: voluntary connection to bad things, however well-intentioned, is an obvious occasion of sin. Democratic politics involves lying, for example. So if we want to participate in it effectively, is that something we have to cooperate with?
Even so, participation in politics is part of dealing with other people in an attempt to soften conflict and promote common goods. In a society that claims to be free and democratic it is said to be everyone’s responsibility. And if we don’t get involved, others will. So abstention seems imprudent and indeed wrong for those who are active in the world.
So, we mostly just muddle along and try to choose what to support and oppose. But supporting and opposing have their own complications. How do we know what our support and opposition in fact amount to and what their real effect will be?
The means available for promoting the common good—especially the specifically political ones—fall short. Man is social, and his good is attained in part socially. But the world is complicated, and society is composed of profoundly flawed people. Laws and policies attempt to guide them in better ways but they operate crudely, have unpredictable effects, don’t understand particular situations, and are designed and enforced by people who are also flawed.
So there are severe limits to what politics can accomplish. That is especially true in times like our own, in which social and political views are radically at odds with reality—in which, for example, people deny natural law to the extent of denying the distinction between man and woman.
Social programs provide many examples. We would like, for example, to relieve poverty and provide medical care. But current public programs to do the former will always involve subsidizing disordered ways of life, the latter providing contraception, abortion, and “gender-affirming health care”—i.e., sexual mutilation. Dominant social views make anything else impossible. At what point should we drop out of the common effort and simply try to do what we can directly?
The growth in the practical power of the state and rise of totalitarianism raise further and very difficult problems. The disappearance of God in public life and rise of the technological outlook has made people want to treat society as a sort of machine to advance abstract goals such as security, prosperity, and equal choice.
The attempt has its own ideal of purity, the rational purity of an efficient industrial process. The result, as the system perfects itself, is that other goals get wrung out. These include aspects of the Good, Beautiful, and True that don’t fit into a utilitarian industrial scheme—including religion, family life, and cultural community. These become optional consumer goods to be produced and regulated like others in accordance with the goals of the system. But to view them as such is to deny them as what they are.
Under such conditions, the issue for Catholics becomes less about participation in designing public policy than survival as Catholics. The concordat with Nazi Germany and current arrangement with Communist China have been severely criticized, perhaps justly, but the goal has been simply to allow the Church to keep functioning in a total state. It is not at all clear how to do that.
The Church’s official response to the total society now emerging under the signs of globalization and universal human rights seems in some ways worse. There, the Church often seems less interested in guarding her independence and witness to what is good, true, and right than in promoting the process, distorting what she is in the process.
What is the alternative? A new unworldliness is one possibility, but an ever more intrusive public sphere may make that impossible. What do we do, for example, when Catholic education is classified as child abuse? It seems a new, more determined and imaginative form of engagement is needed. That would be extraordinarily difficult: people have been calling for it for years, but so far as I can tell, it has not arrived. It would also involve disengagement from much of life as lived by other people: the paradoxes of Christian social participation refuse to go away.
Such questions will be fundamental to the life of the Church in the coming decades. May the faithful and their pastors deal with them well. Our own efforts will not be enough. As always, we must do what we can and trust in God.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read that: “…a new, more determined and imaginative form of engagement is needed.”
In his writings, Benedict highlights the central unwillingness in modern culture to wonder about the mystery of personal death. Not an oversight during the Bubonic Plague, and today maybe becoming more fashionable in our turbulent world. The question then becomes whether there just might be a God other than ourselves after all, and whether He gives more than a damn. A God who is love? The self-disclosing and self-donating, Triune and Christian God? What’s that? Or, rather, Who is that?
Pope John Paul II, in Faith & Reason (1998), reminds us that each of us is already a philosopher: “All men and women, as I have noted, are in some sense philosophers and have their own philosophical conceptions with which to direct their lives” (n. 30). And accept personal “death”?
The central question of philosophy…in some cases and on a good day, a remedial place to start?
A sane and reasonable approach to navigating the waters between Scylla and Charybdis.
Not sure if this aptly reasoned analysis moves us past the “Augustian or Benedictine” choice posed a few years ago for not just Catholics but Christians.
A recent example of our muddling thru without seeing implications of our participation in “total state” actions was the eager and nearly universal participation of Catholic parishes and institutions in the federal covid Payroll Protection Program in which churches got what amounted to about $1l billion in tax subsidised grants.Clearly that was not freeing the Church from dominant political and social culture but shows a stampede to join it. We were taught that Catholics were to be in the world but not of the world. This mindless grabbing of free PPP money seems to pose a Church IN, OF, BY, and FOR the world.
The “free PPP money” was not free.
.
It was paid for by the tax payers and wildly inflated money.
My dear brother you have candidly put to words my thoughts and concerns much better than I could have , thanks. So much to consider, but action seem to be called for soon as the world is changing at a rapid pace as never seen before. Technology seems to be replacing morality and we as Christians and a Church must act and address it. It seems that no solution is simple or universal and each individual may be held accountable separately while the Church struggles to catch up guiding us. Each one of us may “jump ship” at different points but we must learn to be charitable to those who stay on longer. We all progress at different rates. May God bless and protect us all as we strive to serve Him.
Good to read two Brothers whole-heartedly supporting each other, dear James Connor!
Yet both the article & your comment fail to give honour to The King, who is our one & only Teacher. Dear James Kalb presents Him as multiply confused about ‘real’ life, as you echo, too. For example: James Kalb erroneously: “And if Christ came to save the world, the connections and activities that make up its ordinary life must be part of that.”
His proposition (& his sequelae) that: “Jesus Christ came to save the world!” is based on an erroneous exegesis of John 3:16. The verse actually says that: “This is the way that God loved the world: by giving us His Son, so those who believe in Him have access to eternal Life.” Elsewhere, Jesus teaches that those who truly believe in Him are those who faithfully & lovingly obey His commands.
Jesus Christ teaches us that we must love Him more than our family & even our own life and that if we love & obey Him, those of this world will hate us. Yet, His Glorious Resurrection, Ascension, and eternal Reigning show the point of complete Catholic Christian devotion. Christ is ever logical where Kalb is sadly discombobulated.
Of course, for any who liberalize sin, the eisegesis: ‘being saved with the world’ (contrary to: John 17:14; 1 Corinthians 11:32; etc.) excuses them from our obligation to obey Christ & His Holy Spirit-anointed Apostolic witness in The New Testament.
For example: “Do not swear oaths . . . they come from the devil!” Matthew 5:34-37
The profession of Catholics syncretized with freemason ‘philosophy’ is really deadly, yet, like our Master Jesus Christ, let’s never give up witnessing the uniquely harmonious and soul-saving Gospel of Truth, Light without darkness, to them & persevering in our prayers for their repentance and salvation.
Always seeking to follow The Lamb; love & blessings from marty
Thanks for the comments!
Certainly didn’t mean to imply that Christ was confused, only that it can be puzzling for any of us to determine how best to follow him. And as to saving the world, there are passages like John 3:17 and 12:47 and 1 John 4:14 that certainly seem to speak that way.
Thanks for your subtly couched response, dear James Kalb!
The *context* of all 3 verses you cited as “seeming to speak” of Jesus saving the world make plain that the nature of that salvation (the only salvation the world will ever experience) is of a salvage of those who love and obey Jesus Christ. Through the entire New Testament those being salvaged are contrasted with the lost who love the world, disobey Christ, and are thus God’s enemies (see 1 John 2:15-17). To help here it is:
“You must not love this passing world or anything that is in the world. The love of The Father cannot be in any person who loves the world, because nothing the world has to offer – the sensual body, the lustful eye, pride in possessions – could ever come from The Father but only from the world; and the world with all it craves for, is coming to an end; but anyone who does the will of God remains for ever.”
Christ Jesus is both an idealist (with a heart big enough to save the many billions of humans who have ever existed) and a pragmatist (warning us to hear and obey and follow, so as not to perish with the world). Could any Catholic forget Jesus’ teachings read out at Holy Mass, concerning SEPARATIONS: of useful from useless fish; of sheep from goats; of wheat from weeds; of grain from chaff; of faithful servants from wicked servants; of the children of God from the children of this world.
Am VERY glad, dear James, to read your assurance that u did not intend to depict Christ’s instructions as contradictory & confusing, your article reads that way. As Bob points out in his comment, obedience to The First Commandment opens the door for our understanding of every word that The One we love has given us.
No love or compromised love = no understanding or compromised understanding!
Beloved Apostle John makes it really clear at John 12:37-50. Saint Paul does likewise at 2 Corinthians 4:1-6. Well worth meditating on.
You are very talented James Kalb & I hope you will become a man of God’s Word, skilled in wielding The Sword of The Holy Spirit.
Take care; ever in the love of our King, Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
But the prayer “thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is part of the mix. Also the injunction to love thy neighbor.
These seem rather open-ended, so contempt for the world can’t be the whole story, even though the apocalyptic passages among others suggest there will inevitably be major gaps in achievement.
Social worker mentality has damaged the Faith from very top to bottom, as often missed is the entire point of the religion, that all which matters is loving God with all our heart, mind and strength, so that God is able to share with us enternity.
ONCE we have lost our selves in love of God, only THEN can we love our neighbor selflessly….any “love” shy of that selflessness is tainted by our own egos and quite phony, leading to a world of hurt.
Our first duty is to follow the first and greatest commandment, only then can we follow the others.
Saints like Francis, who followed the call to holiness in the most unsparing way possible, are light and leaven for all of us (Kalb).
He left an aura in Assisi that British PM McMillan as have others surprisingly felt. Similar to my experience at Battery Park Lower Manhattan where Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton taught and lived. Both lives differ in polar terms, Francis extreme Seton practical. Leave the world or embrace it, searches the depths of the anomaly. Kalb gives much attention to the triumphs and failures of Francis’ heroic asceticism, its identity with Christ’s radical message of virtual hate and division the fire of total love demands. What then for us? His attention seems to hesitantly suggest the answer.
Searching for truthful coexistence in a ‘total society’ Kalb says, ‘There, the Church often seems less interested in guarding her independence and witness to what is good, true, and right than in promoting the process, distorting what she is in the process’. Francis changed the world however clumsily regarding practical exigencies.
Mr. Kalb writes: “Democratic politics involves lying.” [I assume here Mr. Kalb, by “Democratic,” is referring to our system of competitive elections and party politics.]
Is that necessarily true that ALL successful politicians engage in or participate in lies and lying?
Is there proof that any of these American politicians ever lied:
*Abraham Lincoln, as state legislature, U.S. Congressman, or President
*Senator Patrick Moynihan
*George Washington
*Thomas Jefferson
*Senator Bernie Sanders
*President Harry Trumam
*President Dwight Eisenhower
*JFK
*Senator Henry Clay
So, if some elected officials have avoided lying or going along with lies, surely others can, too. Right? Why then just assume that virtue, holiness, and public service in elected office are incompatible?
Why be so pessimistic, so cynical?
Withholding or obscuring the truth can have the same incentives as creating untruths.
Honesty in public servants is generally a good thing but I don’t think holiness is something I look for in politicians. We don’t need to idolize them. If they simply keep their campaign promises, I’m good.
If you do a search on “[president X] lied” you’ll find lots of material. Here’s a collection from the BBC that includes several of the names you mention:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56246507
As someone once said, nolite confidere in principibus.
In general: democratic politics involves competitively assembling coalitions among people – and dealing with other people – who are often irrational, narrowly self-interested, and united largely by mutual suspicion. It’s hard to combine success in such a situation with frank disclosure of everything you’re doing and intend to do.
A SIMPLE MATTER OF HISTORY
Had the great renewal program and the great doctrinal “developments” (doctrinal changes) of the Vatican II Council not happened, Mr. Kalb wouldn’t even be writing this article.
Prior to what its supporters refer to as “the Council” (as if it the only authority that Church has or has ever had), the Church strove mightily to retain its inner integrity and to convert more and more people, even whole societies, to Catholic doctrine, morals, and way of life.
Since “the Council,” the Church hierarchy has mostly be rushing to conform to the secular world, as seen poignantly in the bizarre, sinful, unprecedented Vatican declarations (approveed by the current pope) that priests and bishops can not conduct public blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples, and that priests and bishops can baptize so-called “transgender” persons without then repenting of or ceasing their sexually immoral sexual life.
For a hundred years or more, from the 1800s to the 1930s at least, in Europe, there were influential political parties that openly followed Catholic Social Teaching. One such party, the Centre Party in Germany, was very influential until the Nazi dictatorship forced it to shut down in 1933.
Now, since “the Council,” Catholic Social Teaching has become incoherent and mostly ignored. Jorge Bergoglio has rehabilitated the once condemned Liberation Theology that combines Catholic Social Teaching with Marxism and Leninism.
I respectfully submit that we should see the matter of this article from the longer historical point of view. This mess we are in is unique, and is self-caused by Church leaders.
It doesn’t have to be this way, as seen in the fact that for a long time it wasn’t this way.
The problem was the fact that many of the bishops and the so-called theological and biblical experts were modernists. These were skilled in the public relations and media. Biblical scholars like Father Raymond Brown and theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx and Karl Rahner among many others were the ones who “interpreted” the Council in the secular media. The Land O Lakes meeting of university and college president, c.1967 severed the connection of Catholic higher education from the authority of the Church. Father Brown and other Catholic scholars did what Pope Saint Paul VI prevented at the council with Dei Verbum, the preserving the intrinsic connection of Scripture and Tradition, but that did not matter. After Council Biblical scholars ignored the connection and spread their false teachings throughout the Church, undermining the historicity of the Gospels. One result has been the abandonment of the biblical understanding of reality and the false belief in universal salvation.
Truth well spoken, dear Russell E. Snow: “One result has been the abandonment of the biblical understanding of reality and the false belief in universal salvation.”
Couldn’t have anything to do with so many of our Catholic leaders finding The Broad Way is much easier that The Narrow Way . . ?
Rather than men of prayer always immersed in The Daily Office (Breviary) and battling the devil on every front, too many clergy now find their spirituality in watching porn and have become enamored of the sweetmeats of the prince of this world.
New Testament? Catechism of the Catholic Church? Passé my child, passé . . !
Let’s always keep praying for them, blessed brother.
Just prior to Vatican II THE Church DID have problems and was no longer converting more and more people and whole societies. Please give us the statistics to back up you statement to the contrary .
ERRATA et APOLOGIA
1. Above my fingers typed “that priests and bishops can not conduct” when my feeble mind meant “can NOW conduct.”
2. I should have not been so certain in my interpretation of history. I apologize. During the papacies of JPII and B16 there was a sincere effort by those men to integrate and harmonize the new doctrines of the Vatican II Council with the traditional doctrines that preceded Vatican II.
3. Whether that sincere effort can be viewed as successful or not is a matter of judgment. I know that many Catholic theologians, writers, and priests felt and feel strongly that things were on track and going well, especially during JPII’s papacy.
4. What seems clear to me is that most bishops were never really on board with JPII’s vision, since they have so quickly joined Jorge Bergoglio’s vision and program of collapse and conformity to the standards of the secular progressive culture. In the decade of the Bergoglio papacy, the legacies of JPII and B16 papacies have been, it seems to me, effectively and completely erased as regards the prevailing zeigeist (spirit) among the bishops. It’s like JPII and B16 were never popes at all, and we went straight from John23 to Paul6 to Bergoglio. At least, so it seems to me.
Worldliness and relations to the secular power have always been an issue. Ditto detachment from everyday concerns. It’s been a mixture.
It does seem that right now the highest levels of the Church are tending too much toward subservience to secular powers. But in the past you can find plenty of instances at lower levels. And there have been periods in which she has overemphasized her role as a secular power herself – think of Julius II.
And the problem of subservience is particularly evident in (guess where, yes) Germany. Ratzinger devoted nearly 30 pages to the poor reception given to an instruction of the vocation of theologians (CDC, “Instruction concerning the Ecclesial Vocation of the ‘Theologian,” May 24, 1990), and then on priestly formation in Germany.
About Germany and the state, these salient remarks (1993):
“I would like to draw attention to the remarkable phenomenon that to date it has seemingly not occurred to any German theologian that the oath of loyalty to the constitution [state] which is required of those entering upon state professorships might represent an unreasonable restriction of scholarly freedom and that it might be incompatible with a conscience formed by the Sermon on the Mount [….] In general, German theologians are conspicuously friendly toward the state; they obviously see in it a refuge for freedom, whereas they feel themselves menaced by the Church—when, for example, it is said that in Germany the Church’s loyalty oath may be administered to the professors employed by the state only with the latter’s consent” (the 1991 citation is accompanied by this remark: “…In the long run, such a course would necessarily cause Christianity in Germany to sink to the level of a pure ‘religio civilis’ [Rousseau’s civil religion], a situation which would also endanger the freedom of belief”)” (Ratzinger, “The Nature and Mission of Theology,” 1993/Ignatius 1995, Part III, pp. 101-128).
More generally the concerns about Germany and elsewhere are the ascendancy of theology over the faith, then the alliance between the university and the mass media, plus the false dichotomy between the lines of tradition and of prophecy, and the overspecialization and fragmentation of theology such that priority then is assumed by so-called “practical theology.”
Ergo, der Synodal Weg, and much more, or less.
Might be of general relevance to this article & the wonderful synodal discussion.
All of us who constitute, at any particular time, Christ’s Catholic Church on this planet, have been charged with the preeminent duty of salvaging souls out of the kingdom of this world and into The Kingdom of God.
When we daily pray The LORD’s Prayer, we are asking for the resources to enable us to fulfil our duty: “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come on earth as in heaven . . .”
We’re not praying for ourselves for, since we are faithful Christian Catholics, God’s Kingdom is already residing within our hearts (see II Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:9; etc.).
As St John reports: Jesus clearly stated that His Kingdom is NOT of this world (John 18:36). The way God’s Kingdom comes on earth is NOT by capturing or converting the world’s physical, biological, & societal parts, so as to incorporate them into God’s holy heaven.
The block is that all is corrupted by ‘the ruler of this world’, the devil, & his ubiquitous, fallen-angel demons. The New Testament makes plain that the ‘Stoicheia’ or elements of the world so violently hate God, they cannot be returned to The Kingdom of God’s love from where they were expelled.
The natural state of everything in our world, including everything human, is colored by the sinful spirits inherent of this world. It needed a very special action by God, in Jesus Christ, to rescue us out of our fatal condition. Jesus, the one and only Son of God & Son of Man, fully resisted the demonic world spirits and was able to pay the price for the rest of us to be cleansed of our sins.
This what is meant by: “Your Kingdom come on earth as in heaven” – that is, by freely-made choice, each human is invited to accept Baptism into the death & resurrection of Christ, so as to gain His sinlessness & their personal incorporation into God’s Kingdom.
God in Jesus Christ rescues all who volunteer, out of this world (never WITH the world that is lost). Science confirms that materiality is indeed eternally lost.
Does that mean Catholics should have nothing to do with the world? Of course not! We could not fulfill God’s calling on our lives – to rescue souls out of this world & into His Kingdom – if we isolate ourselves from the harvest field where God has placed us.
It is The Holy Spirit’s wisdom that helps each of us find our personal way of combining our primary calling to save souls with the challenges of life in this world. How we choose to respond is of the highest personal significance!
We also need to bear in mind that unrepented sin or evil can nullify our holy vocation. We must keep clean what Jesus won for us. We need The Church’s holy ministry so as to keep clean & stay continually growing in Christ.
Hoping this is of use to those who value truth above all.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
God made and loves the world. The Gospel often speaks about everyday human relations – the works of mercy and so on. And the Kingdom of Heaven is said to be a leaven, which transforms what it’s present in. Also, if people act badly here and now then “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is a prayer that should change.
So why isn’t concern with life here and now something the Faith takes seriously?
Dear James Kalb, this is seriously divorced from reality: “why isn’t concern with life here and now something the Faith takes seriously?”
For almost 2,000 years, inspired by the eternal Kingdom of God within us, Catholics & other Christians have set the benchmark for caring for hungry, homeless, suffering, persecuted, imprisoned, & uneducated people everywhere. This set a yeasty historical example that many non-Christian groups & secular governments have been leavened by (with different motives).
Crucially: we Christians do these things not ‘to MAKE the world a better place’, per se; but ‘to witness to the world that there IS a better place.’
“How useless: to gain the whole world and yet lose your eternal soul!”
As regards God ‘loving the world’ – we’d have to wonder WHAT it is that is loved. The Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago? Catastrophically violent supernovae? Galaxies destroying each other, together with their solar systems & planets? Black Holes consuming galaxies? Asteroids & planets violently colliding? Tectonic geomorphology? Volcanoes, earthquakes & tsunamis? Dog-eat-dog biological evolutionary processes? The plethora of predators, parasites & pathogens? Ice-ages? Deforestation & desertification? Indescribable pain, destruction & slaughter imposed by warring humans upon fellow human beings? Omnipresent lying, cheating, robbery & exploitation? Hydrogen bombs? Biological & chemical warfare? Genocide of plant & animal species? Chemical pollution of land, waters, & atmosphere? Global warming & climate disruption? Mindless mass shootings? Burgeoning slavery, people trafficking & child sexual abuse? Global addictive drug pandemics? Shocking increases in youth suicides? Ever growing slaughter & maiming in traffic accidents? Rocketing incidences of internet fraud? Dear James, am sure you could add much more to this list of horrors . . .
Immersion in The New Testament revelation of what it is in this world that God loves is the Sovereign healer of the hurts suffered when our minds & hearts honestly contemplate the harsh realities of this world. One example:
“As the Father has loved Me (Jesus) so I have loved you. Remain in My love. If you keep My commandments you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love.” John 15:10
Lovingly obeying God’s commandments is the one way for us to escape the terrible fate of all who are obedient to the prince of this world.
Thank you for provoking these insights, dear James.
Always in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
I went over to Angelico Press website and looked at the webpages for 2 of Mr. Kalb’s books. Both books seems like books that any serious Catholic would benefit from reading.
Also, several other books at that website by other authors looked promising.
“It seems a new, more determined and imaginative form of engagement is needed. That would be extraordinarily difficult: people have been calling for it for years, but so far as I can tell, it has not arrived. It would also involve disengagement from much of life as lived by other people: the paradoxes of Christian social participation refuse to go away.” Brother! Talk about weaponized ambiguity! For the record–set me straight here if I am misled by trying to read between the lines. Are you hinting at armed revolution? Or perhaps are you suggesting a popular movement to break up the United States into several independent countries–perhaps by a constitutional convention, referenda, etc? If so, don’t kid yourself. That’s just as likely to lead to actual civil war as the former. Set me straight, please. Let’s not start weaponizing ambiguity ourselves.
Actually, I was thinking of Romano Guardini’s End of the Modern World. Wouldn’t have thought the piece could suggest armed revolution etc. when it emphasizes the limitations of politics as a way to make a better world.
“Actually, I was thinking of Romano Guardini’s End of the Modern World. Wouldn’t have thought the piece could suggest armed revolution etc.” Well, now, since I couldn’t have known what you were thinking of when you said the above, I couldn’t very well have known whether what you were thinking of “could suggest armed revolution, etc,” now could I? Can you elaborate a bit on Guardini’s vision, since I (and I suspect more than a few readers) have not read the book? A little clarity goes a long way. So does a little ambiguity. Thanks for the reply.
Seems to me you could have noticed what I said about the limitations of specifically political action. As to Guardini, I touch on him here:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/05/02/what-to-do-views-from-the-past/
In lieu of this technototalitarianism, as well-described by Mr. Kalb, the earthly world can only devolve into a sort of popular “heat death”. Grim. However, the divine supernatural should remain? Somewhere? And prevail?
Those seem the two alternatives in the absence of some sort of transcendent presence. Don’t think other proposals (vitalism, aestheticism) actually work.
But the gates of hell will not prevail.
“Some sort of transcendent presence”? Indeed…
If only “some sort of transcendent” God would actually talk clearly to us, you know, maybe even as if He—concretely, definitively, personally, and as more than a mere idea—were to enter human history at a precise moment and place, such that “the Word was made flesh…”
And, as if He were so self-disclosing and self-donating as to then suffer the humiliation of our broken condition and even human death. And, yet, not before making Himself present permanently in “body, blood, soul and divinity” (CCC 1374)—at each moment and place when/where the singular (!) sacrifice of Calvary is renewed and extended (not merely replicated) across time and history, in each and every Mass celebrated by bishops/priests sacramentally ordained to actually do just this, through the words of Christ Himself and with the indwelling Holy Spirit. As if personally commissioned and sent (apostello) by the very same Jesus Christ, as is witnessed in the Gospels and now the living Tradition of the Church—the Mystical Body of Christ.
“Some sort of transcendent presence”? If only the Real Presence! Wait, what?
Too bad Brother Larry Northon’s “engagement” and evangelization are out, while ambiguity and religious pluralism are in. Amnesiacs and termites eventually forget everything.
But, yes and with Kalb, “the gates of hell will not prevail.”
Beautifully written, dear Peter D. Beaulieu.
Indeed, the gates of hell will not prevail – not even slightly, by elaborate Kalbian false dichotomies!
The great advantage of sophisticated errors is they rouse us sleepy Catholics to pray & think & present a rich feast of rational & godly refutations. That could also be a sort of Christly compassion, I think . . .
Love & blessings to the author & to all the fertile, synodal commentators; from marty