Media appears unaware that Pope Francis' statement on judging "gays" is nothing new

Today, headlines abounded throughout the news media that Pope Francis said he would not "judge" gay priests. From this article at CatholicNews.com, the Pope's expanded quote in question reads:

A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will -- well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation -- we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby. (see bottom of post for links to full English translation of interview)

A BBC article, among others, expressed surprise at such a notion, stating: "The Pope's remarks are being seen as much more conciliatory than his predecessor's position on the issue."

Briefly, I'll point out the problem with the headlines that do not mention the person in question's pursuit of God and good will, which is different than the insinuation that the Pope doesn't judge the behavior of any "gay" person. Most headlines focus only on the first sentence, and only some articles expand on other parts of his statement.

But why would such a statement even be a headline? Even in the context of the Pope's comments, he refers to his comment being a reflection of the Catechism, which reads:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The media's reaction to Pope Francis' statement reveals a serious ignorance about Catholic teaching. Some stories insisted Pope Francis exhibited a new "tone," toward those with homosexual inclinations, attempting to contrast him with Pope Benedict XVI. Yet, in 2003, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) provided almost the identical sentiment while citing the Catechism:

[A]ccording to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003)

Years earlier, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to bishops regarding the pastoral care of homosexual persons, in which he wrote:

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth. ... The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986)

As Pope Benedict, he said the same, again reflecting the basic Catechism teaching:

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter. (Pope Benedict XVI, Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies, 2005)

Both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict reflected the exact same sentiment as can be read in the Catechism. And Pope Benedict's words were even placed in official Church documents as compared to Pope Francis' comments off the cuff. Other statements by other bishops or Popes in history can be found to express a similar sentiment. Yet when Pope Francis articulated it recently, the media acted surprised. Where was the media in 1986 or 2005 to isolate a quote by Pope Benedict about gays stating, "Pope says gays worthy of love and dignity" or "Pope criticizes those who discriminate against gays." Why does the BBC, quoted above, think Pope Benedict's attitude was any different that Pope Francis'?

If the media had then desired to paint that particular caricature of Pope Benedict XVI, they could have done so, as they have with Pope Francis. But they were either negligent in recognizing Pope Benedict's words, or perhaps they consider the current social climate opportune to accent any comment that could be construed as favorable to a particular ideology, such as the current movement to certify "gay marriage" as a real institution. That could be why they did not isolate his sentence a moment later and come up with what would have been an accurate headline such as "Pope Francis condemns those who 'lobby' for homosexual behavior." Instead, Pope Francis may be seen as the media's utilitarian Rorschach blot from whom they have decided to draw whatever appearance they choose.

MEANING OF "JUDGE"
It is apparent in reading headlines such as the embarrassingly inaccurate one at the Huffington Post on this issue reading "Breakthrough: Pope OK with Gays," that some people interpret not "judging" in this context as "approval" of gay behavior.

It does not take much effort to read the next sentence in the Pope's statement that the Church's position is clarified in the Catechism. Quoted above is CCC#2358 on treating all persons with love, including those with homosexual tendencies. The preceding paragraph, CCC#2357 states: "[H]omosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. ... Under no circumstances can they be approved." So we have two teachings: homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered sins and we are still called to love those with homosexual tendencies. Also critical here is the following:

CCC#1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

That's what the Catechism states. The Catechism is where Pope Francis referred those to understand the meaning of him not passing judgment on persons, even if one has judged those persons to have committed objectively mortal sins. It seems difficult for some in the media to understand that it is possible to love someone without approving of their every behavior. In fact, sometimes the loving response to another is to disapprove of their behavior. But perhaps this concept is alien to some persons, causing them to automatically misinterpret the Pope's meaning of not judging.

THIS INCIDENT SHOWS THE RELEVANCE OF THE CHURCH
Just a final observation––I think the matter of this media frenzy today demonstrates the relevance of the Church. Even though comboxes or members of the media scoff at the Church, claiming her to be irrelevant, their ear remains turned even as they look the other way. It demonstrates the moral authority the Church still bears, even as there exists irrational cries to silence her. Many members of the media appear almost giddy that the Pope may have approved homosexual behavior (which he did not). Could there be a psychology, that though some people with their lips say they don't care what the Pope says, they subconsciously desire the support of the Pope because they recognize the moral authority the Church still bears? Even if the media is trying to "use" the Pope as utilitarian to advance a particular cause, in their abuse of the Pope's words, they show that they recognize the power in having the Church's voice on their side. Perhaps it is telling that this is at least the third time the media has misrepresented Pope Francis' words: on atheism, Purgatory, and now homosexual behavior.

See also:
What Pope Francis really said about gays - and no, it's not new by Fr. Jonathan Morris
7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays by Jimmy Akin
Added 8/5/13: Here is Zenit's English translation of the entire Pope Francis interview on the Brazil flight (part 1 and part 2)

.

Media falsely represents Pope on atheism

What was said
It is reactions such as those in response to the Pope's recent homily that lead me to believe the Catholic Church is the most consistently misrepresented institution in the world. What did Pope Francis I say to result in headlines from secular media like:

Pope Francis: 'Even the atheists' can go to heaven (New York Daily News)
Pope Francis: Being an atheist is alright as long as you do good (The Independent)
Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics (Huffington Post)
Pope lets atheists off the hook, saying Lord redeems us all (msn.com)

Here is what the Pope said during the March 22 homily in question (Recap at Vatican Radio; emphasis mine):

[T]he Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil...The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there. ... Today is [the feast of] Santa Rita, Patron Saint of impossible things – but this seems impossible: let us ask of her this grace, this grace that all, all, all people would do good and that we would encounter one another in this work, which is a work of creation, like the creation of the Father.

If you are asking yourself where the Pope said atheists are "off the hook" or that atheism is "alright," you are not alone. Part of the problem may begin with the term "redeemed."

Source of confusion?
It seems some believe the term "redeemed" means one will necessarily go to heaven. In fact, that confusion is articulated in the msn headline, which equates being redeemed with being "off the hook." The Huffington Post article states:

Of course, not all Christians believe that those who don't believe will be redeemed, and the Pope's words may spark memories of the deep divisions from the Protestant reformation over the belief in redemption through grace versus redemption through works.

The article confuses "redemption" with assuredness of going to heaven (not to mention that the issue was grace "versus" works, but that's another post). Let's look quickly at the Church's understanding of the term "redemption":

CCC#432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

In Catholic teaching, there is no novelty in pointing out that Christ's redemptive Passion includes all souls, whether atheist or otherwise. Having come incarnate as a human, he is united with the human race.

Hebrews 2:9-17 9But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one. 10For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12saying, "I will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee." 13And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Here am I, and the children God has given me." 14Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. 16For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 

Prior to Christ's work, mankind remained in a futile position separated from God, exiled from the "Garden of Eden," in which God dwells. If I might propose this concept in simple terms, Christ's "redemption" reverses the futile position of mankind in Adam, and makes open for mankind the way to heaven. It is as if a door had been locked and was finally opened by Christ. He welcomes all to enter the door, even though not all will do so. The door is open to all, even through all don't enter. The media has confused an open door with everyone having passed through it.

To reiterate, universal "redemption" does not mean everyone will go to heaven. When Pope Francis says Christ "redeemed" atheists, it is incorrect to interpret that as him saying atheists are "off the hook." The media behaved as if the Church did not previously believe Christ's redemption was universal. To hold the position that Christ's work effects only a select group of persons and that all others are "passed over" is the concept of "limited atonement," native only to a few Christian traditions, such as Calvinism.

The MSN post went so far as to claim Pope Francis has parted ways with Pope Benedict on the matter, which is likewise nonsensical, but may represent a lingering resentment toward Pope Benedict whom the media often misrepresented or derided.

Doing good is a place for believers and non-believers to "meet"
If one simply reads what the Pope actually said, the place believers and atheists can "meet" by "doing good," is simply a place where good is done together, which can lead to a "path toward peace." Again, it would be to add to the Pope's words to say this statement lets atheists "off the hook." Rather, the Pope is merely identifying a common ground where believers and non-believers can "meet" because doing good is written on everyone's heart. It's a starting point. From there, the Church's hope, as we will see further below, is that all souls unite with the Church.

So can an atheist go to heaven?
In Catholic theology, anyone who goes to heaven goes there because they belong to Christ's Church. That is a consistently taught dogma of the faith. Three paragraphs in the Catechism shed light on the matter (emphasis mine):

846 How are we to understand ["Outside the church there is no salvation"] often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

So the answer to can an atheist go to heaven "may" only be affirmative if such atheists "through no fault of their own" are ignorant of the Gospel, but "seek God with a sincere heart," trying to do God's will to the best of their ability. This means their heart is so disposed that if they properly received the Gospel, they would embrace Christ. Remember, this particular teaching is presuming a person is innocently ignorant of the Gospel. Only to such souls would this apply. The Church says that such persons "may" attain salvation if they are of the disposition to receive Christ and thus "may" be in an extenuating way united to that body of Christ apart from which there is no salvation. Ultimately, the Church does not know, concluding "in ways known to [God]" might such salvation through Christ occur.

Not in doubt is that the Church teaches no salvation apart from Christ. If the media cited intentionally misrepresented the Pope's words in order to make it appear as if he teaches that salvation exists apart from Christ, their action is condemnable and even disgraceful.

Getting back to the question at hand, one may ask how an "atheist" can "seek God with a sincere heart" since atheism by definition declares there is no God. I suppose the declaration of atheism would itself have to be a product of that soul's innocent ignorance of the Gospel or even of the existence of God. It may be impossible for there to be such a person who genuinely denies the existence of God yet seeks Him with a sincere heart. I say this because it would seem merely the act of "seeking" would disqualify the person as a genuine atheist. Rather, such a person is probably more fittingly called "agnostic," or uncertain of whether there is a God, yet still seeks.

Ultimately, as paragraph 848 concludes, Catholics must present the truth of the Gospel to all souls and not depend on some unknown, extenuating way God "may" unite them to the Church.

What did the Church teach about marriage, men and women in 1880?

ON MARRIAGE
Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci became Pope Leo XIII and served from 1878-1903. His encyclical, Arcanum, was delivered to the Church on February 10, 1880. The content of the encyclical reveals certain difficulties confronting the Church at that time with regard to the institution of marriage. Many of his comments remain remarkably pertinent in 2013 as the institution of marriage faces consistent opposition from the secular culture. Following is an examination of several paragraphs in the encyclical. (bold subheads are mine, bold emphasis is mine; paragraph numbers follow each)

ON THE CORRUPTION OF MARRIAGE
We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion... [Christ] bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. ... This form of marriage, however, so excellent and so pre-eminent, began to be corrupted by degrees, and to disappear among the heathen; and became even among the Jewish race clouded in a measure and obscured. For in their midst a common custom was gradually introduced, by which it was accounted as lawful for a man to have more than one wife; and eventually when "by reason of the hardness of their heart," Moses indulgently permitted them to put away their wives, the way was open to divorce. (#5-6)

Early in the encyclical, the Pope points out how the original pedigree of marriage occurred between "one man and one woman." The phrase echoes unto today. Anyone who would claim that the Church  attempted to impose this definition only in light of current challenges to marriage would be mistaken.

Where history attempted to justify multiple wives, for example, the Church was there to point out the proper order for the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman.

It seems the natural law, to which biology itself speaks, is signal to the proper quality of a single male-single female relationship. All persons are the fruit of one man and one woman, which points to the natural order of a child raised by his or her parents, a family unit, a natural foundation for humanity. Properly functioning biology admits to no exceptions to this reality. In fact, once the female egg is fertilized by a sperm, a "cortical reaction" occurs which ensures only one sperm fertilizes the egg. Biology itself is a signpost to the order of one man and one woman, to its potency, that it is only this arrangement which "bears fruit." Nothing other than one man and woman in a marital act is capable of such potency.

This is not to exclude the religious aspect to the Church's teaching on marriage. The natural order merely fortifies that which the Church teaches, and serves as a signpost that this sort of union is unique. The evidence we can observe empirically supports the Church's teaching. The Catechism reflects continuity with Pope Leo in the following:

"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life." (CCC#1603)

Elsewhere in the encyclical Arcanum, Pope Leo speaks of the divine pedigree of marriage itself. He writes: "marriage was not instituted by the will of man, but, from the very beginning, by the authority and command of God." (#39) As throughout the centuries, unto today, the divine origins of marriage are denied, and the religious background of marriage, particularly in western culture, is rejected. Thus marriage is considered a malleable institution, changeable at the whim of man, a law to be rewritten if so voted, no more or less special, not more or less permanent than any other vote of a senate. One could expound a lengthy treatise on the religious foundation of marriage, and its strength in the Church. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this analysis, and as we will see further below, the Church's teaching on marriage remains the empirically superior foundation for society.

One of the arguments set forth by proponents of same-gendered unions to be called "marriages" goes something like this: marriage is already in such shambles, with over 50% divorce rate, etc.,  thus, why not give same-gendered couples a chance. The argument, of course, fails to confront what a marriage actually is. The reason the Church cannot call any non-one man-one woman union a marriage is because it cannot. The example above from Pope Leo regarding concubines exemplifies that. The matter, despite the many derogatory names thrown at the Church, is not one related to any sort bigotry, but one of reality. Defending reality, defending the truth, done with due respect and humility, is an act of love toward another, especially when emotions run high.

The "divorce" argument set forth also highlights the prophetic accuracy of the Church, such as Pope Leo XIII when he spoke out against divorce. Yes, marriage in society is poisoned, but it is because various powers have fought to deviate its characteristics from that which the Church and natural law and reason have taught. In other words, marriage did not become a sick institution because modern society listened to the Church. Marriage became a sick institution because society didn't listen to the Church. Even unto today, modern society seeks to deviate from that which the Church exhorts. One wonders how many times the Church has to be right before the masses listen to her.

Let us examine another paragraph from Pope Leo's Arcanum:

ON HARMS OF DIVORCE
Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families. (#29)

Here the Pope reflects on some of the harms of divorce, including the seemingly often forgotten victims of divorce: the children. Again, the empirical consequences of divorce demonstrate its inferiority, and thus support the Gospels' teaching that divorce severs something holy. And I would exhort pause to any reader hurt by divorce either directly or indirectly, as if hope is beyond their reach, or as if the Church does not grieve for such suffering in this fallen, temporal world. The general purpose of this blog post relates to moral doctrines. Assistance for those hurt by divorce or other harms relating to imperfect marriage or sinful relationships is a pastoral matter. There are many resources online and at local parishes for such souls (here are several resources from Catholic.com)

On a related note, the Pope also criticized cohabitation as immoral (44). Not only is this considered immoral because it invariably interjects the marital act outside the commitment in which it is belongs, but the the empirical evidence against cohabitation indicates it may be even more harmful to families, children, and society than divorce. There is also science lending evidence to support the idea that sexual activity belongs to a committed relationship. For instance, a University of California-San Francisco study concluded that during such activity, the body releases chemicals like oxytocin, vasopressin, and endorphines that tend toward fortifying monogamous relationships. A non-committed, sexual relationship may be prone to a variety of problems, perhaps due in part from the confusion of a committed activity in a non-committed environment.

ON MARRIAGE CONCERNING MEN & WOMEN
Continuing the preceding paragraph on divorce, the Pope next wrote that with divorce

the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. (29)

The Pope seeks to protect the "dignity of womanhood." He also implies the problem of men uniting with women for purposes of physical pleasure, and departing from them once gratified. Whether such an act occurs in the context of divorce or in an extra-marital action, either is a violation of her dignity, to sin against her and the divine. In 1880, a culture that frowned upon extra-marital relations far more than 2013's culture, if a man sought to use a woman for sexual gratification, he may have been more prone to delude himself into marriage and then rid himself of her once the fleeting auspices under which he entered the sacrament disintegrated. Since today's culture condones and even promotes extra-marital sexual activity, the Pope's warning about the objectification of women runs all the greater risk.

What makes such a statement in the encyclical the more profound is how much it contradicts modern stereotypes of misogyny in the Church today and yesterday. Vocal, modern feminists have been known even in recent days to belittlingly brand the Church as "octogenarian men" or use the media buzz-phrase that the Church wages "war on women." The tragedy of the matter is that the Church seeks to protect and provide that which is best for all genders, and yet a number of souls, including women, do not recognize the protection fought for them by the Church. Nor do they acknowledge those occasions when the Church was a leading voice for the cause of women.

Against a modern culture which does not hesitate to make the claim that the Church's views on women are "outdated," the 19th century Pope, a little shy of 70 years at the time of Arcanum, here was the Pope of the Catholic Church, condemning not only divorce, but affronts to women, including mistreatment by men, and objectification by men. How can this "'old man,' this 'Church' man, be concerned with women? How does he not condone whatever men want to the detriment of women?" the modern skeptic might cry. Yet the cry belies the reality.

The Church's voice today remains one of a few striving for women's best interests. The current U.S. government openly admits to requiring health care plans, including those of religious entities, provide for chemical drugs that increase the risk of several cancers in women. Although the Church's ultimate caution against such drugs relates to spiritual health, it has been the Church, and members of the Church that have been the most vocal about informing the public of the physical risks involved with these chemicals. Proponents of such drugs have been consistently silent on the drugs' harmful side effects. Additionally, it is sometimes pointed out that approximately half of aborted children are female. And yet it is the Church striving to protect these females as well. Other examples could be given. Fortunately, there are a number of current female researchers and authors striving to communicate the message that the Church's teaching is for the best interests of women and men alike. (see links at bottom)

Earlier in the encyclical, Pope Leo states:

All nations seem, more or less, to have forgotten the true notion and origin of marriage; and thus everywhere laws were enacted with reference to marriage, prompted to all appearance by State reasons, but not such as nature required. Solemn rites, invented at will of the law-givers, brought about that women should, as might be, bear either the honorable name of wife or the disgraceful name of concubine; and things came to such a pitch that permission to marry, or the refusal of the permission, depended on the will of the heads of the State, whose laws were greatly against equity or even to the highest degree unjust. Moreover, plurality of wives and husbands, as well as divorce, caused the nuptial bond to be relaxed exceedingly. Hence, too, sprang up the greatest confusion as to the mutual rights and duties of husbands and wives, inasmuch as a man assumed right of dominion over his wife, ordering her to go about her business, often without any just cause; while he was himself at liberty "to run headlong with impunity into lust, unbridled and unrestrained, in houses of ill-fame and amongst his female slaves, as if the dignity of the persons sinned with, and not the will of the sinner, made the guilt." When the licentiousness of a husband thus showed itself, nothing could be more piteous than the wife, sunk so low as to be all but reckoned as a means for the gratification of passion, or for the production of offspring. (7)

For someone who is familiar with various blogs or media voices claiming the Church is against women or just wants women to manufacture babies (it is not hard to find exactly that claim), the above quote, from the 19th century, should steer them into shock. Here is the Pope from 1880, warning against women being used for gratification or merely "for the production of offspring."

The Pope here also warns against husbands who abuse what are "mutual rights and duties of husbands and wives." The Church is sometimes negatively deemed "patriarchal" because the ordained clergy, who by necessity as participants in a sacrament representing the male Christ, are exclusively male. The critique is to suggest males will not treat women fairly (e.g. see "war on women" link above). Often, those who hear the Scripture on wives called to be submissive to their husbands (Eph. 5:22, 1 Pet. 3:1) have difficulty with the passage because they understand the passages to suggest men are to give orders to be carried out by women who are merely servants. One can find lengthy discussions of the topic among friends or even on forums such those at Catholic.com. However, here the Pope criticizes men who "order her to go about her business"  in violation of their "mutual rights." The Pope develops more on this concept a few paragraphs later:

[T]he mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. (11)

You see here the Pope addressing the concept of a wife being "subject to her husband." And he explicitly rejects the idea that this arrangement means a wife is a "servant." Rather, she is subject in the order of "companion." Modern ears may have trouble with this, for it may be automatic to presume the Pope's use of "obedience" just means taking orders. Yet the comparison is to Christ and the Church. The Church is subject to Christ, yet Christ's leadership entails the sign of dying for his bride and even suggests serving her as Christ served his Church. There is a mutual exchange of, as the Pope says, "unfailing and unselfish help."

The man's part of loving his wife as Christ loved the Church is vital to the functionality of the equation. Pope Leo explicitly affirms this call of husbands when he says

[M]arriage [is the] example of the mystical union between Himself and His Church, He not only perfected that love which is according to nature, but also made the naturally indivisible union of one man with one woman far more perfect through the bond of heavenly love. Paul says to the Ephesians: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it. (9)

The entire dimension of wives being "subject to" their husbands as a "companion" must be understood in concert with the idea that the husband must, as head, grant her "unselfish help," and love her as Christ loved the Church. When one meditates on the bloodiness of the crucifixion, which was the ultimate expression of Christ's love as head of his bride, the context of the role of husband becomes profound. Although both spouses are called to an unselfish giving to the other, it is Christ the bridegroom who leads the way, who initiates the pattern. The husband can do this in a variety of ways, whether it be protecting the household from various evils, or even sacrificing some leisure activity when his wife needs him to take out the trash, or watch the children, or listen to her, or whatever may entail his "dying to self" for the sanctification of his bride.

Undoubtedly, husbands who have not represented Christ in this regard have repelled many women from the very thought of subjecting themselves to such headship of a man. But if a man loved his wife like Christ loved the Church, what reasonable woman would not clamor for such love. If she should give herself as a companion to such a husband, to submit to such love as the Church is called to receive Christ's love, what strength such a marriage would possess.

Pope Leo goes on to quote the 4th/5th century's St. Jerome:

[A] law of marriage just to all, and the same for all, was enacted by the abolition of the old distinction between slaves and free-born men and women; 'and thus the rights of husbands and wives were made equal: for, as St. Jerome says, "with us that which is unlawful for women is unlawful for men also, and the same restraint is imposed on equal conditions." The self-same rights also were firmly established for reciprocal affection and for the interchange of duties. (14)

This is, of course, not to belittle the parts of Scripture exhorting the husband to a theological headship of the family. Pope Leo does speak of the husband as "chief of the family and the head of the wife."  The pendulum should not swing too far and reach a point of some modern feminists who believe gender equality means some dilution of gifts between men and women. As Catholic blogger and author Melinda Selmys wrote in a 3-part essay: "Perhaps the greatest mistake of mainstream feminism is the assumption that difference equals inequality. ... while God has created us as equals, we reflect his image in different ways."

The purview of Pope Leo's encyclical, as we have seen, emphasizes the contributions of husband and wife as analogous to Christ and the Church. Such theology has been since developed, keeping with Pope Leo all the way back to St. Paul. For example, Pope Pius XI spoke of the husband as "head" and wife as "heart," and if the husband should fail in his leadership duties, the wife must assume responsibility of "directing the family" (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 27-28, December 31, 1930). In Bl. Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, he emphasized a certain responsibility of husbands relative to Christ and the Church: "The love of Christ for the Church has essentially her sanctification as its scope." (Theology of the Body, St Paul's Analogy of Union of Head and Body Does Not Destroy Individuality of the Person, 6, August 25, 1982) The following week, he spoke of the husband's emphasis to love. When he speaks of the bride's "submission," he refers to the bride submitting to this love, to "experience" this love. (Theology of the Body, Sacredness of Human Body and Marriage, 6, September 1, 1982).

EPILOGUE
What I think Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Arcanum demonstrates is at least two-fold. First, the evidence proves that modern society's stereotype of a misogynistic Church is off the mark. Second, 143 years removed from this encyclical, we can see the consequences of not heeding the warnings of the Church with regard to marriage and its inherent qualities. Such evidence speaks of the divine assistance promised to the Church. If modernists continue dismissing the Church's wisdom, the disordered consequences in society will persist.


Additional resources:
How Abortion Hurts Women, CNA
Physicians for Life stats on harms of abortion on women
Women Speak for Themselves.
EWTN's The Catholic View for Women
Catholic Womanhood section at catholicnewsagency.com.
Important background information about the CDF-LCWR situation
Life Site News
Radio show A Closer Look with Sheila Liaugminas
Radio show Catholic Connection with Teresa Tomeo
Bloggers Jill Stanek, Jennifer Fulwiler, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Melinda Selmyz
Dr. Jennifer Robak Morse
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand
There are so many other great resources out there on Catholic women's issues and issues on marriage. If you have a favorite not mentioned here, please share in the comment section.

Book Review: "Daughter Zion" by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict (Emeritus) XVI

Daughter Zion by then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) is a work from 1983 in which the great theologian examines the Marian typology of the Old Testament, with analysis of all four Marian Dogmas: Mother of God (Theotokos), Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption. I give the book 9 out of 10 stars. (Book locations references below pertain to the ebook)

I would have given the book a full 10 out of 10, but there are times when the writing is over my head, and when Cardinal Ratzinger makes reference to other theologians' views with which I'm not always familiar. These characteristics sometimes make a few brief portions of the book a little esoteric. But a more versed theologian than myself may well find this book 10 out of 10. I ended up highlighting in this book what is probably a greater percentage of its totality than any other book I've read.

Part of the richness of this once future pope's book Daughter Zion is the emphasis on typology. I would venture to say typology is one of the most critical branches of theological studies required to grasp sound Catholic theology. The Catechism describes typology thusly:

The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son. (CCC#128) (cf. CCC#129-130, et al)

There are many examples even in the New Testament of this method of understanding divine revelation. For instance:

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom. 5:14)

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.  But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Gal. 4:22-26)

There a multitudes of examples connecting the Old and New Testament. The book of Hebrews speaks often of the OT "shadows" of what was to come. In each case of a Biblical type,  New Testament "antitypes" are always superior to their Old Testament types (cf. 2 Cor. 3:11, Hag. 2:9, et al).

Cardinal Ratzinger unlocks a treasury of excellent Biblical theology often utilizing the principle of typology. The very title speaks of this in Daughter Zion, as he, in the tradition of Paul to Galatians above, recognizes a non-personal reality in an individual person as he associates Mary to the "people of God" encompassed in the term "Zion." He begins with the following description at the beginning: "[T]he image of Mary in the New Testament is woven entirely of Old Testament threads." (Loc 52)

And he points out a key factor in understanding God's covenantal plan altogether:

Contrary to a widespread prejudice, the figure of woman occupies an irreplaceable place in the overall texture in the Old Testament faith and piety. ... Consequently, a one-sided reading of the Old Testament can open no door for an understanding of the Marian element in the Church of the New Testament. (Loc 65)

In Mary, Cardinal Ratzinger not only recognizes the figure of "daughter," emblematic of "children" of God, but also Mary's role as "spouse" or "bride," in that the Spirit overshadowed her, bringing forth the life of Jesus Christ, and in this sense, Mary is spouse of the Spirit. Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to describe various feminine attributes of the Old Testament people including the femininity of "wisdom," prophetesses, and "judge-saviors."

So important is the concept of Biblical typology in understanding Marian dogmas, the Cardinal stated that Marian dogmas

cannot be deduced from individual texts of the New Testament; instead they express the broad perspective embracing the unity of both Testaments. They can become visible only to a mode of perception that accepts this unity, i.e. within a perspective which comprehends and makes its own the "typological" interpretation, the corresponding echoes of God's single history in the diversity of various external histories. ... Wherever the unity of Old and New Testaments disintegrates, the place of a healthy Mariology is lost.

Emblematic of God's people, both of the Old and New Testaments, whom bear fruit because of the grace of God, Cardinal Ratzinger notes: "She is the 'people of God' bearing fruit through God's gracious power." (Loc 303) Ratzinger goes on to discuss grace and its power in working with the will of the individual soul.

Later, he delves into the four Marian dogmas, utilizing Old Testament types in order to draw a fuller understanding of Marian theology, which, as noted earlier, is essential to understand Catholic dogmas on Mary. For example, after establishing Mary as "Mother of God," based on the reality that Jesus Christ the son of Mary cannot be amputated from his divine nature, and thus, Mary, as Mother of the second person of the Trinity, is Mother of God, Cardinal Ratzinger considers the Assumption. One theological derivation he makes involves Mary's title "Mother of God" with other Old Testament monickers associated with God's name. For example, Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

[Mark] proes the resurrection not from individual texts of later prophetic or apocalyptic literature, ...but from the notion of God: God, who allows himself to be called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not a God of the dead, but of the living. The resurrection itself proves that these names belong to the name of God: "As for the dead, that they will rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the section on the thorn bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' Yet God is not a God of the dead but of the living––you have erred" (12:26 f.)  The right to veneration includes the certitude of the conquest of death, the certitude of the resurrection. (Loc 601)

And he continues:

We said that whoever may be glorified and priased together with God's name is alive. We added that in the case of Mary and in her case alone (as far as we know) it applies in a definitive, unconditional way, because she stands for the Church itself, for its definitive state of salvation. (Loc 629, emphasis mine)

There is much more detail to the theological sequence of Cardinal Ratzingers exegesis. Suffice it to say, once one grasps Mary's role as the superior antitype of the people of God of the Old Testament, one recognizes her as the avatar of the saved Church, the ones whom by grace say, "Let it be done according to thy word," (cf. Luke 1:38) and submit to God's will as a child, as a daughter of God. From there it is clearer to see death's grip lose hold on Mary as that type of the living Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger explains similar typological lessons with regard to all four Marian dogmas, ending with one of the more famous Marian types in the Ark of the Covenant.

In an age of skepticism and even other Christian traditions that do not accept Marian dogmas, this text is of great value to at least see how the Catholic theologian can soundly recognize the Biblical basis for Marian dogmas. Even if they are not, as some would say, "explicit" in the text in a formal way, the richness of Cardinal Ratzinger's interpretations show the sobriety of seeing Scripture in a deeper, and ultimately true, sense, just as did Paul above in Romans and Galatians, recognizing God's revelation to a people as it was fulfilled in a new covenant.

This book is well worth the read for anyone still looking to squeeze in something extra for Lent or any time of year. The paperback is only 82 pages long, but chock full of hundreds of pages "worth" of theology!

Pope Francis and the Media, Jesuits, Eastern Orthodox, Eucharist, Mary, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

After Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (pictured) of Argentina was elected Pope Francis I, I found it difficult to locate much first-hand information on this first "American" Pope. Since his Wednesday election, here are some thoughts and references.

THE MEDIA'S POOR REPORTING
In the context of this papal election, the secular media, as is unfortunately often the case when reporting on the Church at all, demonstrated an inability or refusal to view the Church or office of the papacy as a theological rather than political. Even prior to Pope Francis' election, a variety of opiners expressed hope for a Pope whom would reverse Church teaching on contraception, abortion, the male priesthood, or marriage requiring a man and woman.

For example, an NBC staff writer expressed, "Pope Francis will likely keep to Catholic teachings that reject abortion and same-sex marriage, experts said Wednesday." CNN news anchor Suzanne Malveaux said, "Because we know that Benedict was very conservative when it comes to gay rights, when it comes to women being ordained in the church, when it comes to birth control. Many of those things that people are looking to and wondering if the church will, in fact, alter or adjust to the times." Similar statements are not hard to find. Any "expert" whom says the Church is not "likely" to change these teachings is, by the very assertion, not an expert on the Church.

In the minutes following Pope Francis' election, Wikipedia quickly updated the Pope Francis and Cardinal Bergoglio entries with the assertion: "Like most people, he supports the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease." The footnote link for this claim was inaccessible. The claim itself has since been removed and remains unfounded. This misrepresentation itself was done to Pope Benedict XVI, as covered previously at The Catholic Voyager in What the Pope really said about condoms. On the Kresta in the Afternoon radio show Thursday (MP3), Dr. Janet Smith called such false rumors "wishful thinking."

To state the obvious, it is impossible for a dogmatic teaching on a matter of faith or morals to be "rejected." Sentiments such as these demonstrate a view of the papacy as a political office. Candidates go in and out, bringing to the table or legislatures whichever "laws" are determined. Such rules can be affected by a "vote." But the Church does not operate in this fashion, teaching that such truths are transcendent to manufacturing and are rather identified from reality. Such members of the media do not afford the Church the very views it professes to assert in expressing its teaching on such matters. In other words, in order to understand the Church's teachings, one at a minimum must confront the Church's own basis for those teachings.

Here is an analogy to understand the Catholic teachings on such moral dogmas as are above mentioned. To ask the Church to "reject" one of these views is tantamount to demanding that the Church "adjust to the times" and recognize that three-sided objects should be called "squares." It is, in reality, an impossibility for a square to have three sides. The Church is powerless to change that reality. If you can understand the ignorance required to demand a three-sided object be called a square, then you can understand the ignorance involved in those demanding the Church reject immutable dogma.

At a minimum, even if someone disagrees with the Church's teaching, it would be basic, prudential reporting to notify one's audience that the Church teaches that it is impossible for these teachings to be "rejected." As an apparent strategy, the media sometimes showcases a "Catholic," or perhaps even a priest or religious, whom rejects these teachings to give the impression that the issue remains unsettled in the Church. However, this belies the Church's teaching that dogma is formulated and recognized by the body of the Magisterium, that is, the Pope and bishops in union with him. Dissenters do not effect dogma. The sensibilities of unbelievers do not effect dogma.

ATTRIBUTES OF POPE FRANCIS
Pope Francis brings at least couple "new" attributes to the papacy.

• First Jesuit
• First American

Jesuit
Some Catholics are concerned by Pope Francis' status as a Jesuit. This is apparently due to a Jesuit reputation to, perhaps similar to the media, challenge Church dogma. This is not a matter I have studied extensively, but if it is true that some Jesuits have a heterodox bent, this needn't be forced onto Pope Francis as his personal characteristic. After all, Father Mitch Pacwa from EWTN, for example, is a Jesuit and has been an excellent teacher of the faith.

Regarding Pope Francis' Jesuit background are a couple quotes I've come across from respectable Catholic commentators:

An incisive thinker and intensely holy man living a devout life, it is held against him that he is a Jesuit, although he has suffered the slings and arrows of Jesuits of a more "progressive" bent. (The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things on Cardinal Bergoglio, 2007)

He was known in Argentina as the Jesuit who lived like a Franciscan. ... He's a very different kind of Jesuit. He's an old school Jesuit. Think of Father James Schall from Argentina and you begin to get the idea. Bergoglio was persecuted by his leftist Jesuit brethren in Argentina.  There were not champagne corks popping around the corner from where I'm sitting right now at the Jesuit Generalate last night, I'm quite sure. (George Weigel, on Kresta in the Afternoon radio show, March 14, 2013 (MP3))

First American and the Eastern connection
Sometimes you might hear that Pope Francis is the first non-European pope, however, there have been three popes from Africa. One of the things that strikes me most about then-Cardinal Bergoglio's position in Argentina is in the first sentence of his Vatican bio: "Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Ordinary for Eastern-rite faithful in Argentina who lack an Ordinary of their own rite..."

For those of us hoping to reunite with the Eastern Orthodox Church, this attribute may help. It has apparently been some centuries, perhaps over 1000 years since there was an Eastern Rite pope. I have a particular affinity for a number of early saints mutually recognized by both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, especially St. John Chrysostom from the fourth and fifth centuries, whom I have cited a number of times on this blog and in forums. There remains a mutual foundation upon which reunion can transpire.

For those whom do not know, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Churches went into schism, commonly acknowledged to have taken place in the year 1054. Now, there is a difference between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches, one of which is that the former are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the pope. Though Eastern Rite Catholics are in union with the Pope, they practice different forms of the Liturgy and have non-doctrinal differences in discipline or sometimes different spiritual emphases native to different cultures, many of which are viewed as similar to the Eastern Orthodox.

Although the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in schism, there exists between them a certain familial kinship to the point that many in each Church recognize the validity of each other's priesthood and the ultimate sacrament in each other's churches––the Eucharist.

On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church--profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacrament, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops--cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. (Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, 1993, #13)

To fortify optimism for the reunion of these two great Churches some day, the following news appeared in today's Catholic World Report:

In a historic development, it was announced today that Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, will attend Pope Francis’ installation Mass in Rome March 19, the first time such an event as taken place since the Great Schism in 1054. (Catherine Harmon, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to attend Pope Francis’ installation Mass, Catholic World Report, March 15, 2013)

When something happens for the first time in almost 1000 years, something for which countless generations have prayed, there is cause for attention and hope.


THEN-CARDINAL BERGOGLIO ON THE EUCHARIST
One piece from Cardinal Bergoglio I have read over is a catechesis he preached on the Eucharist in 2008. In that catechesis, Bergoglio emphasized a critical attribute in understanding the Eucharist, and by comparison the Church, and really much of Catholic theology. That attribute is the nuptial nature of Christ's sacrifice. (See a little about this nuptial character in a prior post Christ, the bridegroom.)

The Cardinal states:

In receiving the Eucharist, we are the ones assimilated to Christ. In this manner, through giving Himself over to be eaten as Bread of life, the Lord starts making the Church. He begins transforming within His Body – in a process of mysterious and hidden assimilation as it is completely given over to the process of nourishment – at the same time, whenever this process can count with the free “yes” of the Church, that assents in faith to the Covenant offered by her Spouse, it transforms into His bride.

There is so much theology loaded into that paragraph. All members of the Church are, in a theological sense, the bride. Utilizing what Pope John Paul II called the Theology of the Body, we can recognize in the union of man and woman a figure of Christ and the Church. The Church "receives" life from Christ, so to speak. And the Eucharist is itself an image of assimilation, which we consume, which by the very form of eating communicates the merger of two entities into one. Yet, as Cardinal Bergoglio points out, unlike normal eating where food is broken down into us, with the Eucharist, we are broken down into Christ. In the sacrament, in the union with the divine Son, we, though fallen, are loved by God, and are raised up through His Son, whom condescended to us, and nuptially joined his Church by his ultimate "giving of himself" on the Cross.

The Cardinal continues, relating the matter to Mary, herself a figure of the Church:

Mary, therefore, is a model of the Covenant, between the Lord and His bride the Church, between God and each man. Model of a Covenant that is company of Love, confident and fruitful abandonment and fullness of hope that irradiates joy.

Here, the Cardinal eludes to Mary assenting to the angel Gabriel's prompt to bear the incarnate Christ, when she said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38) One of the reasons Mary figures so importantly in Catholic theology is because of her role in divine revelation as figure of the Church. She sets a pattern by which the bride, the Church, is to follow. When she submits to the divine bridegroom, what is begotten? Life. We, as Church, are called to the same response, the same "yes," as Cardinal Bergoglio wrote above, and by that graced assent, life eternal is begotten.

The complementarity of bridegroom and bride itself relates to the dogmas discussed earlier. A marriage only exists if the "ingredients" of man and woman are joined. This is visible in the natural world, that only a male and female union "bears fruit" in the form of life. The Church has recognized also the spiritual reality of these complementary genders, which effect a true marriage. The matter of contraception is pertinent here as well. In the marriage, the marital act is seen as the giving of the self to the other. Jesus demonstrated the bridegroom's part when he extended his arms and literally gave all of himself to his bride. When a contraceptive is introduced, part of the self is withheld, especially one's fertility, and perhaps other factors such as a willingness to sacrifice with the other to raise a child, which itself fosters the objectification of the other (as predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humana Vitae in 1968). In a way, the denial of the necessary ingredients of man and woman in a marriage is an attack on the Eucharist.

In another letter from 2010, Cardinal Bergoglio wrote emphatically to protect the complementary genders necessary for the institution of marriage.

A THOUGHT ON POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI
The future of the Church promises to be, at the very least, fascinating. It has literally been centuries since a retired Pope lived in concert with a current Pope. It must have been an intriguing experience for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to experience the election of his own successor, especially in a world of technology where he could, if he did choose to, watch the dramatic events of the past week unfold. Pope Francis has already spoken on the phone with his great predecessor, and still plans to meet with him in the future. Pope Benedict himself welcomed a large community of Anglicans, themselves a "liturgical" Church, even if the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of their priesthood or Eucharist. Such acts at that by Pope Benedict might that serve as the needed springboard for ecumenism and reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. If we do not see reunion in this generation, future generations may look back to Pope Benedict XVI as a catalyst.

3 great quotes about Pope Benedict XVI

Earlier this month, TCV shared 7 great quotes from Pope Benedict XVI. Now that Benedict is Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI, I thought I'd share a few excellent quotes about the Pope's legacy and character. There is no commentary this time, just some bold added by me that stood out. These are in no particular order.

1. The Catholic Church is going to lose the greatest papal preacher since Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century. That's a judgment I am prepared to seriously defend. Benedict XVI is the greatest papal homilist, the greatest preacher, since Gregory the Great. And I wouldn't doubt that 200 years from now, in the Office of Readings and Liturgy of the Hours, there will be selections from the homilies of Benedict XVI as there are selections from the homilies of Gregory the Great or Leo the Great or John Chrysostom...  (George Weigel, February 22, 2013, on the radio show A Closer Look with Sheila Liaugminas (MP3))
   
   
2. One of the great legacies of Benedict XVI which I've not heard people speak about except myself, of course maybe I'm wrong, is the appointment of bishops. ... Under Benedict XVI, we've had quite consistently, across this country anyway, outstanding bishops. ... We've got young bishops and archbishops here. And I think the great legacy of Benedict XVI has been incredibly good appointments of bishops. And why is that important? Because the Pope can't run everything, but bishops run their diocese and especially the seminaries. And so we're seeing, and we'll see in the future, better, stronger seminaries, better stronger young priests. (Fr. Joseph Fessio on Kresta in the Afternoon, Feb. 11, 2013, hour 1 (MP3))


3. [V]arious encounters left me with very strong impressions about the personality of this remarkable man. One thing is certain: he is definitely not the sort of Prelate who enjoys the limelight. ... Benedict XVI was not a politician. I am personally convinced that he did not want to be elected, and that like Pius X he accepted this glorious burden under the Cross. ... No doubt his name will go down in history as one of the very many great minds that God with which God has blessed his Church from the very beginning. From the moment the future Pope left his beloved Regensburg until Feb. 28, 2013, he accepted a mission which was not of his own choosing. Let me repeat emphatically: He did not like the limelight. He was never tempted by ambition. He did it in obedience, but an act of obedience which was to him, a subtle form of crucifixion. (Dr. Alice von Hildebrand; Thank you, Benedict XVI; appearing at Catholic News Agency; February 26, 2013)

7 great quotes from Pope Benedict XVI

Today marks a historic time in the history of the Church and the world. A Pope has announced his upcoming resignation, the first time since 1415. Pope Benedict XVI cited health reasons for his stepping down. In light of this, I thought I would share some of the great quotes from him as Pope or during his years prior. In no particular order (and certainly not an exhaustive list!):

1.  [T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. (Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" issued Motu Proprio, July 7, 2007)

This quote is a summary of Pope Benedict's encouragement of the Latin liturgy. As Catholics, we believe in a solidarity and unification with Christian heritage, not amputated from our predecessors, but united to them. The very language and form of the Latin liturgy brings a special unity with that tradition, as well as a piety and alert to divine grandeur in such signs as the priest, together with the people, facing and worshipping God. The recent language translation of the vernacular liturgy seems an echo of that reality when the priest says, "Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God..."

Many believe the Moto Proprio contributed to the lifting of excommunications of several members of the St. Pius X Society, hopefully bringing them into union with the Church.

2. It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free. (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Bishops of England and Wales, February 1, 2010)

This quote catches my attention for a number of reasons. In our modern society, all too often does commercial media and the like attempt to cite someone who claims to be Catholic, as a legitimate voice for the Church, particularly when it comes to matters of truth in faith or morals. There exists an ignorance in the media and those who accept their suggestions. They proceed ignorantly that the Magisterium has an apostolic teaching pedigree linking it to Christ that does not exist among dissidents, or at the very least, they do not make the effort to let the reader know this is what the Church teaches. The secularist could get a vague grasp on this if they compare it to if the media continually paraded scientists who denied any form of evolution as representative of science in general. The media sometimes seems to characterize the Magisterium as versus the people, while ignoring the faithful Catholics who recognize Church teaching. It is of great value that the visible leader of the Church articulated this matter.

Another side-reason I like this quote is because the Pope here points out the source of truth revealed through the twin channels of Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium only serves to communicate those truths under the guidance of the Spirit. Sometimes, well-meaning Catholics refer to a "3-legged stool" with regard to Church teaching which includes Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. The 3-legged stool refers to the idea that if any leg of the stool is removed, the stool collapses. I tend to shy away from that analogy because it requires care to communicate that the Magisterium is not like the other two, and the analogy may be confusing for that reason. The Magisterium is not a source. It is the recipient. The Pope summarizes this tidily in the above quote.

3. The transforming 'moment' of [Purgatory] cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of 'short' or 'long' duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The 'temporal measure' of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an 'existential time,' in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the world. ... [Purgatory] is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. ... Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 230-231, 1988)

I may cite this in forums more than any other quote. First, the entire context of the section on Purgatory has profound Scriptural exegesis, with an emphasis on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Much of that discussion can be read in the prior post What is Purgatory? I appreciate his emphasis in not trying to obtusely assign some quantum measurement to a reality that is first and foremost theological. Many times have I seen forum-dwellers ask how "long" purgatory lasts, and this quote is always helpful. Additionally, the Pope here focuses on the entire purpose of purification, of purgation, in a single phrase to make a person "capable of Christ." The emphasis is on the holiness of Christ, union with whom no blemish is compatible. He then unites the entire figure of burning from 1 Corinthians to "encounter with the Lord," drawing out theology from the imagery, as if a precious, gold statue were immolated and purged of all the mire clinging to it because of the very radiance of Christ in its presence, transforming it into himself, the unblemished lamb. This exegesis and theology is Ratzinger/Benedict at his best. I can even remember speaking on a forum with an Anglican, whom embraced the idea of purgatory as Ratzinger articulated it similarly in his encyclical Spe Salvi.

4. [T]his Apostolic Constitution provides the general normative structure for regulating the institution and life of Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner. (Pope Benedict XVI, Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 1, 2009)

Some 400,000+ Anglicans converted to the Catholic Church thanks to the Pope's above Apostolic Constitution which facilitated the matter. As with the encouragement of the Latin liturgy attracting many traditional Catholics, the Pope reached out to Anglicans whom believed their church had derailed from truth.

5. Again and again it astonishes us that God makes himself a child so that we may love him, so that we may dare to love him, and as a child trustingly lets himself be taken into our arms. It is as if God were saying: I know that my glory frightens you, and that you are trying to assert yourself in the face of my grandeur. So now I am coming to you as a child, so that you can accept me and love me. (Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas Eve Homily, 2012)

This is one of those quotes that bears a certain brilliance in its simplicity, and focuses on a topic native to all of Pope Benedict's works, that is, love. The Pope here points out a sometimes forgotten attribute of God, which he draws from the revelation of the Incarnation itself. God wills to condescend himself beneath man, even though He is ultimately man's master. He willed to subject Himself to man on man's behalf, a people He does not "need," but has created them and suffered for them, that they might ever spend eternity in a never-ending banquet of joy with Him, all for love.

6. Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable. The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritatis Est, 28b, 2005)

Speaking of love, here the Pope clarifies the idea that mankind only needs material things when we minister to them. Mother Teresa was a great example of doing both, giving physical care and yet recognizing the need to care for the soul. We also see in the Pope's quote a timely caution with regard to the power of the State, especially in light of the current government attempting to impose certain of its own dogmatic beliefs onto religious entities.

7. The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. ... As the number of her adherents diminishes...she will lose many of her social privileges. ... But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret. (Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and Future, 1969)

This quote sounds, to the Christian's ears, discouraging at first, that the Church may shrink in size. Yet, over forty years ago, Ratzinger foresaw society's continuing disregard for the Church, up to and including misrepresentation of the papacy (See for example TCV articles on false pope history at Huffpost and misquoted in UK Telegraph). This has certainly come to pass in many regards in many cultural circles. However, he also sees in that trajectory a purer church, stocked with a renewed spiritual zeal in its simplicity. In a sense, it ties into his purgatory quote, that through a process of purging, a purer product emerges from the other side.

Keys Comic

Click image for magnified view.

What is Purgatory?

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Often, in forumland, I have encountered many fictional caricatures of what the Church teaches purgatory to actually be. With an emphasis on Scripture, let's review this doctrine.

PURGATORY DEFINED

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (CCC#1030)

I think anyone who chooses to defend or discredit purgatory must remain focused on this core definition.

Perhaps the most common accusation I hear against purgatory is something like: "Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross." The logic is if man has to undergo some purification even after he has been joined to Christ's perfect sacrifice, then it means we are "adding" to Christ, calling him insufficient. But as we will see, there is no such thing "adding" to Christ in the teaching of purgatory. And as we shall see, the doctrine of purgatory is most sound theology.

DOES THE IDEA OF PURGATORY DENY THE SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S WORK?

I think the following Scriptural verses express well the purpose of Christ's sacrifice:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. (1 Pet. 3:18)

Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. (Tit. 2:13b-14)

Notice that nowhere in these or any Scriptures is a statement that a true Christian will permanently be free of sinful faults or tendencies once he becomes a Christian. Nor is there a Biblical text asserting that a Christian will not suffer from consequences of sin. Verses like the former above that refer to Christ dying for "sins" are distinct from a statement saying Christ erases all consequences of sin or that the purifying power of his death is applied once to a soul, never requiring further sanctification (i.e. holiness).

You will often hear Catholic teaching refer to "temporal" consequences or punishments due to sin. A person should take a moment to reflect on the term "temporal" which is distinct from "eternal." The evangelist John makes such a distinction between what is also called a venial or mortal (sin leading to death) in his epistle: 1 John 5:16-17. Scripture contains a number of examples distinguishing various degrees of sin. Any temporal consequence of sin suffered by a repentant sinner is not forever. Thus, temporal consequences of sin neither conflict with the sufficiency of Christ's work to bring us eternal life.

DO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY GOD'S CHILDREN NEED FURTHER SANCTIFICATION?

Another passage referencing the need even for those who belong to God to incur purification is in Hebrews:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. ... he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. ... make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for...the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (Heb. 12:7-14)

In this passage are very noteworthy statements that douse the accusation that the need for purification even after becoming a Christian should be an affront to Christ's sacrifice.

1. Those who are already God's "sons" (cf. eg. Gal. 3:26) still endure discipline under God.
2. One of the purposes for this is to conform His children to "His holiness."
3. Parts of God's children remain "lame" in need of "healing."
4. And the holiness to which this leads is that which makes God's children fit to "see the Lord."

A few verses later, the text in Hebrews fortifies this teaching by telling God's children that those who come to their final inheritance have to come to a place dwelt by "the spirits of just men made perfect." (Heb. 12:23)

Purgatory in no way denies that Christ's redemptive work is the means by which all mankind must follow in order to attain heaven. Purgatory, like Tit. 2:14 above, reflects the need for the soul to be purified. And this need can remain even after one becomes a Christian but prior to full union with God in heaven.

As well, in Catholic theology purgation takes place by no other power than Christ. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his book Eschatology in the section on purgatory, in the context of 1 Cor. 3:10-15 (quoted at top):

What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy. (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 231)

This ties in well with Hebrews 12 above. The point is, if God should effect purification even after a person becomes His adopted child, it in no way affronts the power of the Crucufixion but rather illuminates its merciful scope.

An example from Romans
Another example can be seen in Paul's letter to the Romans:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh -- for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (Rom. 8:11-13)

Dr. Scott Hahn expounds thusly on the passage:

[L]ook at this, "we are debtors," we still have a debt to pay; not because Christ hasn't paid it but because Christ has paid it once and for all, and through the Holy Spirit in His mystical body, He applies that. (Hahn, Purgatory: Holy Fire from Answering Common Objections St. Joseph Communications.)

Earlier in his discourse, Hahn foreshadowed the significance of Romans 8 by saying:

...Christ has accomplished our redemption. It's over and done with. He has finished it. But then He sends the Holy Spirit to apply it, and the application of redemption is just as essential. 

St. John Chrysostom speaks similarly regarding the power of the Spirit, distinct from our power, to cleans us from sin in our suffering:

What sort of deeds then does he mean us to mortify? Those which tend toward wickedness, those which go after vice, which there is no other way of mortifying save through the Spirit. For by killing yourself you may put an end to the others. And this you have no right to do. But to these (you can put an end) by the Spirit only. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 14 on Romans, ca 390 A.D.)

In the letter to the Romans, Paul follows the idea that we in the Spirit are still "debtors" with the following:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom. 8:14-17)

So essentially, when we suffer such that we "put to death the deeds of the body" (i.e. sins), it is the Spirit effecting Christ's finished atoning work to us, purifying us from all stain of sin.

This is the essence of Peter's and James' teaching that love "covers a multitude of sins." (1 Pet. 4:8, cf. Jam. 5:20) Whether it be debt or uncleanliness, the essence of the figure is the same. All aspects of the negative must be removed in order to make that soul pure for heaven.

HOW PURE MUST ONE BE TO ENTER HEAVEN?

If one examines the text of Matthew chapter 5, one sees that Christ follows His discourse on the beatitudes by reiterating the commandments as well as other exhortations such as "love your enemy." The chapter is concluded with: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mat. 5:48)

As previously cited, the book of Hebrews (12:23) likewise refers to souls "made perfect" and "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." There is a certain "degree" of holiness, if you will, necessary to see the Lord. Those in Hebrews 12 who were already God's children, still endured His discipline so that they might achieve that holiness.

If we consider statements referring to heaven itself, we see that "nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev. 21:27). And if we consider the prayer taught by Christ himself, we know he exhorts us to pray that God's "will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (Mat. 6:10) And we have already established that perfection, purity, and holiness are prerequisites to enter heaven.

But isn't Christ's righteousness imputed to the Christian so God doesn't see any blemishes or consequences of sin anyway?

The Hebrews 12 passage is one example that belies this teaching. If God only sees the holiness of Christ in His children, He would not chastise them for the sake of their holiness, because there is nothing imperfect about Christ's holiness.

In Catholic teaching, "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man." (CCC#1989, Council of Trent 6.7a)

The Church does not consider the common "forensic-only" idea of justification a satisfactory doctrine. For example, 19th century theologian Robert Shaw, expositing on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 stated:

Justification, according to the use of the word in Scripture, must be understood forensically. ... [J]ustification does not lie in infusing righteousness into a person, but in declaring him to be righteous on legal grounds; and, like the sentence of a judge, it is completed at once. (Shaw, Exposition of the WCF, p. 147)

Without knowing if Shaw was referring to a particular form of the root word "just" in Scripture, it is still not difficult to find many forms of the term that do not refer to a forensic declaration alone. For example, Mat. 12:37 states: "by your words you will be justified." The Greek word dikaiwyhsh is the verb there in the future tense translated "will be justified." Here, justification is contingent upon action by the individual, not merely a legal declaration apart from actual righteousness (done by the person with grace, of course). As an adjective, the Greek word dikaioi appears twice in the parable of the sheep and goats (Mat. 25:37, 46) in reference to the just persons who did indeed exhibit holiness.

As well, throughout the New Testament we are shown Christ performing a healing juxtaposed with the forgiveness of sins. Take for instance the healing of the paralytic:

And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic -- "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." And he rose. (Mark 2:4-12)

Therefore, we see how a merely forensic acquittal does not satisfy the context of true healing transpiring in the text. Was the paralytic merely "declared" healed while his physical imperfection remained? No, the paralytic was truly healed. Jesus shows the audience he did this for the purpose of showing them that the man's sins had been healed though they could not sensibly perceive so. If we say Christ actually healed the man's physical affliction, but merely declared healed the man's spiritual afflictions, then we do violence to Christ's use of the miracle to show us the unseen.

ARE THERE TEMPORAL CONSEQUENCES TO SIN EVEN AFTER THE GUILT IS FORGIVEN?

One consequence to sin is due to the original sin inherent in all human beings---everyone must undergo temporal death (e.g. Rom. 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21). Even though death entered the world through Adam, a Christian is not spared this consequence of man's fallen nature simply by becoming Christian.

Another example is when Jesus tells us that sin results in a "slavery" to the sin. (John 8:34) This is another consequence of a sin even if one has repented of the sin. If a lifelong drug addict who treated drugs as a "god" above God offers true repentance, his previous sins against the first commandment will no longer prevent him from entering heaven. The eternal consequences of the sin are taken away. Yet, is such a man always immediately cured of his attachment to the drug? No, this consequence of the sin may remain with him for the rest of his life. He may even take the drugs again and again due to the "slavery" that he fostered from a life of sin. To be freed from the temporal consequences, he should pray for healing, perhaps seek help, and practice discipline.

Another example of temporal consequences after forgiveness is in the Old Testament.

David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die." (2 Sam. 12:13-14)

In this passage, David repents of his killing of Uriah and affair with Bathsheba. God puts away David's sin in the sense that David shall not die an eternal death in hell (cf. 1 King. 2:1-10, Rev. 20:14). Yet David is afflicted with temporal consequences. He must live the rest of his earthly years suffering from the death of his son.

In the New Testament, we see a related figure depicted in the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Zacchaeus expresses his faith in Jesus by including the promise: "if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold." (v.8) Jesus responds by rejoicing that "salvation has come" to Zacchaeus' house. Zacchaeus, of course, demonstrates not just an outward repentance for violating another. He seeks due restitution for the violation.

Another short parable appears in various forms regarding imprisonment without release until a debt is paid (Mat. 5:23-26, Luke 12:57-59). A few verses later we see Matthew write: "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mat. 5:48) And immediately after that is the story of when Christ teaches the "Our Father" prayer to the disciples. He says to pray: "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." (Mat. 6:12) In the Greek, the word translated for debt is ofeilhmata. This word refers to something "owed" or "due." 

SANCTIFICATION ON THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN

From the earliest times of the Old Testament, sin was often presented in a financial light. It became a debt one must pay. In order to make proper restitution for the sin, the sinner was called to atone in various ways, balancing the ledger so to speak, canceling a debt with a credit. Other figures in the OT included sin as a weight that required lifting or as a blemish that needed washing. In one of my theology classes, I did a paper on Proverbs 16:6, pertinent to this subject.

By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil. (Proverbs 16:6 (15:27a in LXX))

If we delve into the Greek of this passage, the phrase "loyalty and faithfulness" finds a variety of translations in different Bibles. Often it refers to love and faith. The Greek Septuagint renders the phrase: eleēmosunais kai pistesin. The latter term there, rooted by pistis, is recognizable as the Biblical term for faith. The root of eleēmosunais has 11 occurrences in the New Testament, usually translated as “alms.” Pope John Paul II agrees the term refers to "almsgiving."

The root of the term for "atoned" there is kippēr. Dr. Gary Anderson, in his book Sin: A History, defines this as "to wipe away sin" or in other forms of the verb, "to wash away sin." (Anderson, Sin, p. 16) In fact, the early Church, in both the west and east, interpreted the term in exactly that way. Both St. Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.) and St. John Chrysostom (ca. 390 A.D.) cross-reference Proverbs 16:6 with the "washing" episode of Luke 11:37-41.

While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. (Luke 11:37-41)

In this passage, Christ identifies almsgiving as a means by which one can “cleanse” that which is “inside.” The Pharisees were concerned about cleaning the physical body, but Christ emphasized cleaning the spiritual body. Almsgiving accomplished the washing of the spiritual body "within."

Proverbs elsewhere refers to the impurity and uncleanliness of earthly natives due to sin: "Who can say, "I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin?" (Prov. 20:9) And we already established that such impurity is incompatible with heavenly union with God.


ARE GOOD WORKS SUCH AS ALMSGIVING IN COMPETITION WITH CHRIST'S WORK?

One might ask, if the transformation in purgatory is an "encounter with the Lord," as Cardinal Ratzinger stated, then how can we purge our sins with alms while still on earth? Isn't that something "in addition" to God who alone sanctifies? How can the Biblical text refer to the cleansing power of almsgiving in both the Old and New Testaments!

First, we must remember, that's what texts like Prov. 16:6 or Luke 11:41 say. Second, we must not consider our works done by the power of grace as something alien to, nor in competition with, Christ. Catholic teaching states the following:

In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. (CCC#1821)

A Scriptural passage, among other related ones, comes to mind in light of this teaching. First, is the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28). In the parable, the three servants are given gifts by the master. Two servants are fruitful with their gifts. One buries his gift and is sent where there is grinding of teeth, the figure of hell. The two good servants were only able to accomplish anything of value because of the master's gift. Grace is also a gift of God. Cardinal Charles Journet writes:

God is bound to give grace to all, but he is not bound to give it equally. He gives his servants one, two or five talents, to each according to his capacity (Mt. xxv. 15). (Journet, The Meaning of Grace, III.10.g, 1957) 

If a soul should accomplish something of value, such as giving alms as Christ taught in Luke 11, the soul is not detached from Christ when accomplishing the alms. This is also the figure of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-10). The branches can bear fruit only if they are attached to the vine. Branches in a vine bear fruit only because they receive the nutrients from the vine. (cf. Council of Trent, 6.16) To deny the value of a Christian's work is to actually deny the power of the source himself!

Peter teaches similarly:

As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace. (1 Peter 4:10)

Just as in the above interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, grace is a gift to be utilized (no matter how "much" one receives). Here, Peter exhorts us to utilize grace for "one another." This fits well with Luke 11 when Christ tells us to give alms. This action is done under the power of grace and is nothing "in addition" to the work of Christ. In the words of St. Augustine:

"[O]nly grace works every one of our good merits in us, and God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing other than His own gifts." (Augustine, Epistles 194:5:19)

The Council of Trent uses a similar paraphrase:

God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. (Council of Trent, 6.16)

Paul teaches that we are members of one body which is Christ himself (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24). The love we exhibit in that body is an extension of Christ's love, his very Passion:

If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom. 8:17)

...that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. (Phil. 3:10)

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (1 Pet. 4:12-13)

GOLD & SILVER: HOW DOES PURGATORY FIT IN WITH SANCTIFICATION?

In the previous verse from Peter, I also bolded the phrase "fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you." Fire is frequently used in Scripture to reference purification, often in the context of precious metals. Later in that same letter, Peter writes:

In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:6-7)

Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich... (Rev. 3:18) 

This idea of being "tested (or refined/tried) by fire" is a reference to the ancient process of smelting. In smelting, a precious metal is exposed to fire. The metal is freed from various impurities that burn at different temperatures. The result is pure gold or silver without bits of valueless debris attached to it. The Old Testament references this imagery as well:

The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6)

Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. (Isaiah 48:10)

In the whole land, says the LORD, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive. And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. (Zech. 13:8-9)

Two of the passages from which St. Augustine derived an understanding of purgatory also involved fire and/or gold and silver. He writes:

From these words it more evidently appears that some shall in the last judgment suffer some kind of purgatorial punishments; for what else can be understood by the word, Who shall abide the day of His entrance, or who shall be able to look upon Him? For He enters as a moulder's fire, and as the herb of fullers: and He shall sit fusing and purifying as if over gold and silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver? (Mal. 3:2-3) Similarly Isaiah says, The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning. (Is. 4:4) (Augustine, City of God, 20.28, ca 415 A.D.) 

Numerous other texts use the same imagery. Keep this idea in mind: Frequently, Scripture communicates purification through the image of fire and gold or silver.

One of the most common passages pointing to the idea of Purgatory is the one quoted in the opening of this article:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Notice the imagery of smelting in the passage. There are six materials that fall into two categories. Gold, silver, and precious stones will survive higher temperatures. Wood, hay, and straw will burn up quickly. The result will be pure gold and silver. At the end of the passage, the figure is equated with what happens to the individual––the worthy soul is "saved" after passing through the fire applied on "the Day."

St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly associates this passage with Purgatory.

[H]e shows the means by which it will be disclosed, namely, by fire; hence he continues: because it shall be revealed with fire, namely, the day of the Lord: for the day of judgment will be revealed in the fire which will precede the face of the judge, burning the face of the world, enveloping the wicked and cleansing the just. Ps 96 (v. 3) says of this: “Fire goes before him, and burns up his adversaries round about.” But the day of the Lord which occurs at death will be revealed in the fire of purgatory, by which the elect will be cleansed, if any require cleansing: Job (23:10) can be interpreted as referring to this fire: “When he has tried me, I shall come forth as god.” (Aquinas, Commentary on Corinthians, 164)

His 13th century work follows a long list of Early Church Fathers who also reference this passage to purgatory after temporal death or speak of purifying fire in general. For example:

In his wisdom God employed contradictory means, that is, he used irrational nature as clothing. The garment of skin has all the properties belonging to an irrational nature: pleasure, anger, gluttony, greed, and similar tendencies which allow man to choose between virtue and evil. Man lives by his free will. If he concludes that his nature is irrational and opts for a better manner of life, he cleanses his present existence which is contaminated by evil and vanquishes irrationality through reason. But if man follows his irrational passions with the help of the skins belonging to irrational beasts, he will be advised in another way to choose the good after his departure from the body because he now knows how good differs from evil. He can only partake of the divinity unless he has purged his soul of filth by the cleansing fire.  (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Concerning Those Who Have Died (aka "Sermon on the Dead"), ca 382 A.D.)

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) built upon the precedent of cleansing fire and smelting:

If [Purgatory] is understood in a properly Christian way when it is grasped christologically, in terms of the Lord himself as the judging fire which transforms us and conforms us to his own glorified body, then we shall come to a very different conclusion [than theologian Gnilka who denied a purgatorial interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:10-15]. Does not the real Christianizing of the early Jewish notion of a purging fire lie precisely in the insight that the purification involved does not happen through some thing, but through the transforming power of the Lord himself, whose burning flame cuts free our closed-off heart, melting it, and pouring it into a new mold to make it fit for the living organism of his body? (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 229, 1988)

The consistent point in these interpretations related to 1 Cor. 3 are that the purpose of the cleansing fire is to make us fit for heaven.

An objection to the traditional understanding of 1 Cor 3:10-15
One may encounter non-Catholic objections to the traditional understanding of 1 Cor. 3:10-15. 19th century Protestant theologian Adam Clarke offers some objections still in use today:

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss - If he have preached the necessity of incorporating the law with the Gospel, or proclaimed as a doctrine of God any thing which did not proceed from heaven, he shall suffer loss - all his time and labor will be found to be uselessly employed and spent. (Clarke, Commentary on 1 Corinthians)

Clarke limits the application of the passage to preachers alone. Yet the greater text belies this conclusion. Paul begins the excerpt by referring to the foundation laid by his ministry, followed by the ministry of Apollos, and growth caused by God (3:5-8), which includes Paul's audience, "God's field." (v. 9) The passage is then immediately followed with "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit dwells in you?" (v. 16) This of course would apply to any Christian. Clarke's interpretation overlooks that all Christians have a responsibility to build upon the laid foundation that is Christ. But in Paul's theology, all those with the Spirit are called to "building up the church." (1 Cor. 14:12, cf. Eph 4:11-12) Clarke concludes the "loss" suffered by the preacher is likely the waste of "his time and labor." Yet this does not appear in the text, nor does it account for v. 15 which states that the person will go through fire.

Clarke continues with an explicit rejection of purgatory.

The popish writers have applied what is here spoken to the fire of purgatory ... The fire mentioned here is to try the man's work, not to purify his soul; but the dream of purgatory refers to the purging in another state what left this impure; not the work of the man, but the man himself; but here the fire is said to try the work: ergo, purgatory is not meant even if such a place as purgatory could be proved to exist; which remains yet to be demonstrated. 

Here, Clarke disembodies the work from the man. He seems to only read the first half of verse 15 but not the second: "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." In Clarke's understanding, the work and the man are separate alien things. Yet Paul states that the person will be saved "through fire." Elsewhere, Paul uses language expressing the commingling of a work with a person. For example, in his same letter to the Corinthians: "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful." (1 Cor. 13:4) A person is patient or kind. Love cannot exist without a person to exercise it. If we read 1 Cor. 13:4 with the eye Clarke uses for 1 Cor. 3, we would have to say love, and not the person exercising it, is patient or kind. Yet Paul is describing a person by the person's work. If we go back to 1 Cor. 3:15, it now makes sense. The fire will try the works, as in the person with regard to his/her works.

Pope Benedict XVI (the former Cardinal Ratzinger), recognizes this feature of the text in an encyclical:

In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast. (Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 46)

Perhaps Clarke's greatest failure in interpretation is in neglecting the figure of purification in the passage––smelting gold and silver. Refer again to the passages at the start of the section labeled "Gold & Silver." Paul echoes the Scriptural tradition of purifying precious metals. Clarke's opposition to purification in the passage also places him at odds with the many ECFs (linked above) who recognize the purifying quality of the imagery.


PURGATORY ILLUSTRATED
In order to capture the basic idea of purgatory, perhaps a visual demonstration may also help.

Certainly, additional Scripture could be cited to support the positions in the above illustration. Of interest, the famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis embraced the idea of purgatory for the very reason that he acknowledged unclean stains remnant on earth-faring humans.

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.' (C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, p. 108-109)

In basic form, the idea unfolds thusly: At Point A, the terrestrial soul retains blemishes and failures, incurs temporal consequences of sin, and remains prone to sin. At Point B, the heavenly soul has been ever purified from such imperfections. Simple reasoning recognizes the necessary transformation from Point A to Point B, simply because Point A and Point B are different. To go from unclean to clean, a cleansing must occur.

As Cardinal Ratzinger put it:

The essential Christian understanding of Purgatory has now become clear. ... It is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 230)

DOES PURGATORY TAKE "TIME"?
Historically, Christians have sometimes referred to measurements of "time" in purgatory.  For instance:

What years of Purgatory will there be for those Christians who have no difficulty at all in deferring their prayers to another time on the excuse of having to do some pressing work! If we really desired the happiness of possessing God, we should avoid the little faults as well as the big ones, since separation from God is so frightful a torment to all these poor souls! (St. John Vianney (1786-1859), Sermon on Purgatory)

However, to measure purgatory by the units of some worldly clock is not part of the essential doctrine. Notice that even in St. John Vianney's excerpt, his reference to "years" corresponds to the severity of faults that need purgation. His theology is accurate insofar as the figure he uses. To give a parallel example, think of how many Christians have referred to heaven "above" or hell "below." Yet the doctrines referenced in this language are not bound to certain geographic altitudes that can be terrestrially located. In similar fashion, the cry of the historical Christian about how "long in purgatory" a soul must spend traditionally corresponds to severity of purgation commensurate with the sinful stains that need cleansing.

Cardinal Ratzinger likewise recognized that earthly time is not part of the doctrine:

The transforming 'moment' of this encounter [Purgatory] cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of 'short' or 'long' duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The 'temporal measure' of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an 'existential time,' in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the world. (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 230)

IF PURGATORY IS AN ENCOUNTER BETWEEN A SOUL AND CHRIST, HOW CAN WE "INTERFERE" BY PRAYING FOR THE DEAD?
In both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, prayers for the dead are common (cf. Macc. 12:38-45; 2 Tim. 1:16-18). Now, reasonably speaking, those in heaven do not need our prayers, and those eternally lost cannot be helped by our prayers. The prayers are therefore offered for those temporarily in some other condition. The Catechism teaches thusly:

From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. (CCC#1032)

Certainly, a third party praying for someone's well being is grounded firmly in Scripture, as even Paul requested others pray for him (see references in prior post Praying to Saints: A Visual Aid). Think also of the above mention of how Christians are members of the same, singular body, which is Christ's body. There is nothing alien about members of the body offering prayers for one another.

Pope Benedict confronts the question directly in his encyclical:

Now a further question arises: if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. (Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 48)