Catholic
December 21, 2020

December 21, 2020 By

Geralt: Social Media / pixabay

“So,” Peter tell us, we are to “put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander” (2Ptr. 2:1 RSV). For many of us, this can be rather difficult, not because we believe such things to be good, but because our passions often get the best of us and turn us away from the charity which we know we should follow. From time to time, anger rises up in us. Without thinking about what we are doing, we react against those whom we believe have done us some wrong, speaking out and fighting them in ways which are not helpful anyone. Malice, guile, insincerity, envy, and slander are all possible results of that anger. Through such anger, through the harm which we felt we have received, we end up excusing ourselves and our passions; though we have been wronged, we let anger and other similar passions take control of us so we respond in a disproportionate manner to the harm which we have suffered, making the situation worse as those who are at the receiving end of our spite push back against us with similar disproportionate responses, using the same kinds of justifications as we give for ourselves. Thus, we see that the response to our response increases the anger, the hurt, the suffering, which, if not stopped in some fashion, well  end up becoming a never-ending, continuously intensifying cycle of pain and sorrow for all involved.

We must always try to speak, not only with the facts as we understand them, but in charity, for the truth transcends mere facts. If we want to have the truth, we must engage the fact which we know with such charity that we let the truth shine through them. Facts without charity leads us towards gossip, and gossip leads us away from the as it slowly devolves from facts to assumptions and lies, allowing emotion and opinion to establish what is said and done instead of the truth itself.

What is good is true, and what is not good, is not true. What is evil presents to the world some distorted representation of the truth; evil clouds and obscures the truth in order to justify itself. Lying is intrinsically evil, and intentionally lying to create discord, to harm others and their reputation, or in order to gain an unjust advantage over others, certainly can be classified as being a grave matter and potentially mortally sinful. Richard Rolle, a fourteenth century hermit, rightfully warns us against such talk:

Now gossipers and slanderers who injure other people’s lives by malevolent talk, and those who esteem their own condition above all others, or who despite any condition which a man would find salvation in, have no more vision of the love of God in their soul than the eye of a bat has of the sun, because flippant talk and nasty remarks are the sign of an idle and malevolent nature which is emptied of God’s grace, while someone whose words are always kind, and who consider every person better than himself, revels clearly that he is constant in virtue in his principles, and full of charitable feelings toward God and his neighbor. [1]

We should always try to be graceful in our speech, using it to make things better, even for those whom we dislike. This is not to say we must ignore injustice, never speaking about it or those who commit it. Rather, when we are called to speak, charity must remain at the forefront of our speech. It is not easy. It never has been easy, but social media makes it worse, as social media allows us, indeed, encourages us, to respond, not with forethought, not with charity or compassion, but in ways to lift ourselves up at the expense of those we criticize. It encourages snark instead of truth. Through social media, we often are moved by passion, not reason, and through such passion, we reveal the worst thoughts and attitudes we have to the public. When we become embraced by others for doing so, we find ourselves encouraged to continue on, to act out of contempt towards others, to act out of malice and so ignore the dictates of truth which require all such words to be said in and with charity. Though not all such talk is composed of direct lies, lying becomes easy and encouraged in such a forum, and once we give in and justify such lies, we have truly lost the love of God in our soul.

We must try to do better. “But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth” (Col. 3:8 RSV). We must fight against the deadly sin of wrath, and all the malice which comes from it. Again, this is not to say we must avoid speaking against injustice, for when we encounter injustice, we must do what we can to fix it; but we must do so with justice ourselves, lest we become unjust in our attacks against injustice and only end up making things worse. We must not hate – we are to love our enemies, though such love does not mean we should ignore or forget what others have done; if they have done evil, exposing it is a way to help them as much as it is to help their victims. But such exposure must be done properly. It must be done in charity. It must be done in truth. When we speak out against what others have done, we must speak only what we know, and not exaggerate or lie about it. Lying is always the quick and easy way out, but once those lies are exposed for being lies, then everything else we have said becomes suspect, so that even whatever truth we have said will be doubted, allowing for injustice to continue without obstruction.

We must not cause unjust injury to others. We must consider the words we say. Idle words spoken in haste lead us astray. If we find ourselves speaking without charity, if we find ourselves letting anger take us over, even if we have good cause for our anger, we must try to put a stop to such speech. Anger can motivate us and direct us to fight against injustice, but we must put it under our control instead of being controlled by it. If we find ourselves overcome by social media, we might need to take a break from it, and begin to look into ourselves, to see where all the anger and spite is coming from, and do what we can to get rid of it before it becomes a cancer in our soul. Social media can be good, once we have gained control over ourselves; we can meet and engage many people, which is a good thing. But we do so with full charity, lest we find ourselves becoming that which we dislike, succumbing to one of the great temptations of our current age.

[1] Richard Rolle, “The Commandment” in Richard Rolle: The English Writings. Trans. and ed. Rosamund S. Allen (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 144.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

 

November 18, 2020

November 18, 2020 By

12019: Contemplation of Justice / pixabay

Often, those who write on or discuss the need for government to work for the common good, that is, those who write on social justice, are told that charity should be not regulated by the government. That is, they are told that we should be free to choose for ourselves whether or not we will be charitable. Of course, the problem is that such a response confuses charity with justice. It suggests that many defects of justice can only be and should only be met by charity.[1] But if we followed this suggestion, justice would be denied, because where such charity is not given, people will continue to suffer from injustice. Charity is important, and invaluable, and it should not be discounted. It should be done out of love. But we should not use charity as the sole means to replace what is lost with injustice, for then we would end up undermining justice; charity should, instead, supplement and go beyond the expectations of justice.

It is interesting to note that many of those who say we cannot dictate charity, confusing charity for justice, have no problem telling others what to do with their private lives, indeed, have no problem having the government involved with such actions; what they dislike is having government work for the common good, to fix social imbalances which cause some people to be oppressed and others to have undue privileges. They are like the Pharisees Jesus criticized when he said, “But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Lk. 11:42 RSV).

Jesus was clear: justice should not be neglected. Although he not provide a systematic discussion on government and how it could and should work for justice, he often spoke on the principles by which we can and should determine what is or is not just. His silence on government was not because he denied government and its role in defending justice, but rather, he expected his followers would understand the basic principles concerning government and how it should work for the common good if they studied the Law (the Torah) and the Prophets. This is because the Law and Prophets spoke of and embraced the common good, telling government that they must enforce justice and not treat it merely as optional charity. They warned authorities that if they did not embrace the common good, they would and suffer the consequences of their actions. Charity should not be used as the only way to deal with the problems of injustice. The enforcement of justice is not optional.

No greater example of this can be found in the Torah than the establishment of the Jubilee:

A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be to you; in it you shall neither sow, nor reap what grows of itself, nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you; you shall eat what it yields out of the field. In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property. And if you sell to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the jubilee, you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number of years for crops he shall sell to you. If the years are many you shall increase the price, and if the years are few you shall diminish the price, for it is the number of the crops that he is selling to you.  (Lev. 25:11-16 RSV)

The Jubilee was not demanding charity from those who were told they were to forgive the debts of others, but rather, it was working for and enacting a principle of economic justice, to make sure that the just distribution of goods was not hindered due to economic hardships. The Jubilee made sure that there were regulations in place to help those in need, to make sure the hardships associated with debt did not go on infinitely. These regulations were expected to be enforced by those in power. What many now would treat as an issue of charity (forgiveness of debts) was expressly demanded by God, and government was expected to make sure the rules were followed.

The Torah, the Law, did not stop with the Jubilee. There were many regulations put in place which were expected to be followed and enforced by authorities, rules which many today would suggest fall under the category of charity, because they no longer have any proper understanding of justice. And yet, it was such justice which was expected by God, such justice which was demanded by the Torah and such justice which the rulers over the people of Israel were expected to enforce:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God gives you. (Deut. 16:18-20 RSV).

Foreigners should not be oppressed (cf. Lev. 19:34; Lev. 24:22; Deut. 24:14). This is because justice promotes the rights of all those who are in need (and not just those who are citizens of the land in which they are in). Thus, the Torah demanded that Israel, and its authorities, to look after the needs of orphans, widows, and foreigners, just as they were to look after the needs of the Levitical priesthood:

At the end of every three years you shall bring forth all the tithe of your produce in the same year, and lay it up within your towns; and the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled; that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do (Lev. 14:28-29 RSV)

In this way, we find Scripture dictating what many consider is to be done only out of charity, showing that what many consider to be a choice, is not, but a duty commanded by God: “For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land” (Deut. 16:11 RSV). Again and again, if we look through the Torah, we find justice required the people of Israel, and its authorities, to take care of others, such as when it said that some of the food grown in farms must be put aside and given to the sojourner and the poor:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest.  And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. (Lev. 19:9-9 RSV).

The Torah was not giving us suggestions, showing various ways in which we can be charitable to others; rather, the dictates given by the Law were expected to be followed by the people of Israel, and enforced by their rulers. When those in authority failed to meet these expectations, when they denied justice and hurt those who were poor or needy themselves, the prophets rose up, spoke against them, and warned them they would face the consequences of their injustices if they did not change their ways and once again promote justice:

Thus says the LORD: “Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and speak there this word, and say, `Hear the word of the LORD, O King of Judah, who sit on the throne of David, you, and your servants, and your people who enter these gates. Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place (Jer. 22:1-3 RSV).

Ezekiel, of course, tells us it is not just the rulers, but the people of Israel who failed to do what was right. “The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without redress”(Ezek. 22:29 RSV). That is, the people of Israel had followed the example of Sodom, undermining justice by their selfishness: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw”  (Ezek. 16:49-50 RSV). Just as Sodom was destroyed because its people refused to follow justice, God warned the people of Israel that they, too, shall suffer loss if they did not repent. Thus, through Isaiah, God declared:

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the storm which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth? Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away and his hand is stretched out still (Isa 10:1-4 RSV).

Throughout the prophets, we find a common theme: when the people of Israel, and her rulers, turn away from justice, they have turned away from the covenant of God and will not receive its blessings. Justice was not optional. Helping the poor and needy was not merely a thing of charity, but expected and demanded of the people of Israel. Those who undermined justice faced God’s wrath, though of course, they could repent, and so receive his mercy. “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:16-17 RSV).

Oppression must be overcome, not as an act of optional charity, but as an act of justice. This principle, established in the Law and Prophets, was not repudiated by Jesus. Rather, it was a basic principle which he expected his audience to know and already understand. Those Christians who would suggest that the principles of justice must not be enforced, for that would undermine charity, are the ones who undermine charity, for they undermine the foundation upon which charity is to be given: charity goes beyond justice, and so it should not limit or impede justice. To support charity requires us to accept justice, otherwise, there is no charity, for charity wants what is best for all, while justice seeks to grant all a basic level of dignity for all. Scripture does not tell us we can ignore the role of government and its work for justice; rather, it shows the demands of the common good must be met by government, or else, the injustice will build up and harm all who find themselves in a place which such justice is denied.

[1]  This is because those who make this argument, still want to punish people for various crimes, and so use the government to enforce some forms of justice.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

October 11, 2020

October 11, 2020 By

Dennis Jarvis: Ruins of the St.Sophia Cathedral where the Seventh Ecumenical Council was held in 787 AD. Iznik, Turkey /flickr

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, convened in 787, and officially declared the use and veneration of images to be acceptable to the Christian faith. The fathers of the council followed the lead of St. John of Damascus and others who had defended the use of images against those iconoclasts who not only rejected their veneration, but said they should not be made. Iconoclasts had destroyed many ancient images so as to enforce their ideology unto the church. The council established the official dogmatic response to the iconoclasts, declaring them not only to be mistaken, but heretics. Nicea II contributed much to the history of Christian theology, helping to promote a greater understanding of the consequences of the incarnation, for as God became man, so the invisible creator became personally visible in the form of Jesus Christ. In doing so. God affirmed the use of images by making an image himself, for by becoming visible, he has an image, and that image can then be duplicated and used in order to help us reach out to and seek after him.

While, dogmatically, the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council gave the church the answer which it needed, iconoclasts continued to hold positions of power. A new iconoclastic period soon emerged and many of the fathers from Nicea II became confessors and martyrs of the faith. This shows us that the council, while authoritative, was not immediately successful, for it did not put a stop to iconoclasm but only reinforced the battle lines between those who supported and used icons and those who did not. Indeed, in Byzantium, it soon seemed that the council was repudiated and not to be believed. This is common with many ecumenical councils: they foster resistance, and that resistance often seems to hold on and be stronger than the supporters of the councils themselves; if we are to look at the immediate aftermath of a council, it would be easy for their critics to say such councils were failures and did not hold dogmatic authority. The first Council, at Nicea,  led to a major Arian resistance which took centuries to overcome. Chaos came after Nicea as theological battle lines divided Christians from each other. And yet, dogmatically, its teachings were necessary, just as much as other councils, which often spoke to and dealt with problems of their time, problems which did not immediately go away just because the councils provided theological answers to them.

History shows us we must look at more than the way councils answered dogmatic questions; we must also look at how those answers slowly made their way to the faithful and became truly lived out and believed. When we see that, we should not be surprised if and when an ecumenical council is called, it might not be immediately heeded, and it will take time to work out the spirit of the council to determine how those answers work and why they were needed. To reject a council because of  the “chaos” and dissention afterward will only lead us to dismiss all councils, because all councils are surrounded by such chaos and resisters.

Councils, then, have “thorns” which they have to deal with. Dissent causes people to reflect deeper on the message of a council, to make sure the spirit of the council is heeded instead of ignored, to keep the fathers of the council humble, just as St. Paul himself experienced a thorn at his side which kept him humble:

And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me;  but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me (2 Cor. 12:7-9 RSV).

While the fathers of the seventh ecumenical council were elated with the temporary support icons received within Byzantium, they soon learned that they could not and should not be triumphalist about it. They could, of course, glorify God in icons and give glory to God for his triumph, but they had to deal with the ramifications of the iconoclastic controversy and deal with those who would reject their council and once again seek to destroy images. They could boast in Christ, in the accomplishments of Christ, and point to the incarnation as the guarantee that what they declared was true: but, to expect that meant that getting everyone to accept the council would be easy would be delusional.

Dealing with contention is not easy. Christ tells us, while speaking about truth, and promoting justice, we must keep mercy in mind, and so deal with our enemies with mercy:

And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful (Lk. 6:31-36 RSV).

Love for others, including our enemies, must always be done with justice; when we see people doing wrong, we want them to change their ways and do penance for the harm they have done. We must not overburden them with penance and make them despair so that they do not change their ways, but we must not think being merciful means we cannot speak out against them, fight against the evil they promote, and not expect them to make reparations for the harm they have done. Instead, it means we must not act out of a desire for vengeance; we must seek justice, with a desire for their reform and salvation, while of course, we must always be concerned with those they have harmed and show mercy to them as well, a mercy which includes trying to fix the wrongs they have suffered.

Forgiveness and mercy are not cheap; they come with a price, the price of reform, and to be merciful to those who have done wrong is to seek their reform, not to ignore the harm they have done. The fathers of the seventh ecumenical council sought the conversion of iconoclasts. They desired such iconoclasts would turn away from their error and join in with them in the restoration and veneration of image. Likewise, when the second iconoclastic period was over, the church once again sought those who struggled against images and find a way to have them join with the rest of the faithful, to recognize the way icons connect us with God and the saints already joined with God. So we, too, should seek to make converts from our enemies, showing them love, a love which can sometimes be tough as it expects much from such converts, and yet, however tough it is, the love contained within makes it just and not cruel.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

October 8, 2020

October 8, 2020 By

The White House: Trump at Walter Reed Sick With COVID19 / flickr

When it was declared that Trump was sick with COVID19, because they have grown not to trust him and what he said, many people doubted it, and many continue to doubt it. But, every indication seems to suggest it is true. He can be seen to have difficulty breathing. Those around him are catching COVID19. It is spreading, and spreading hard and fast, with those in his immediate circle.

It is easy to say, “they deserve it, this is justice.” There is, to be sure, some poetic justice, seeing those who showed little to no concern about COVID19, who showed little to no attempt to protect themselves and others from it, become infected by it. But, we must remember, they are not the only ones who will be hurt from it. Many innocent people who have come in contact with them have been and continue to be put in danger. Is that justice?

No. Justice is not the right word. It is, however, indicative of the problem with COVID19 and why it should be taken seriously. It is also one reason why we should care, and actually be concerned about, those who have been infected by it, including Trump: not only for their own sake, but also for the sake of those they would otherwise put in danger. We should hope and pray for their fast recovery. We should pray for far more than that. We pray they have a change of heart, metanoia. We should pray that their contact with COVID19 gives them a sense of their own mortality, will now take COVID19, and other plights seriously. We should pray that if they come out of the crisis which they now face, they will seek to undo the damage they have done to the United States and the world so as to actually work to make the world a better place.

Obviously, not everyone, when faced with death, will change their ways; many see their temporary victory over death as making them super-human, and so, double-down with what they were doing before they came close to death. They see it as a sign that they are special, instead of taking it as a warning that they, like everyone else, will have to face the consequences of their actions.

Knowing the potential for Trump to take a victory over COVID19 as a sign that he should continue to do as he was doing before he was sick, we still need to hope for his recovery,  not because we like him or what he will do if he recovers, but because he is human, made in the image and likeness of God The life he has, like any life, is good. We must not wish death on anyone. We pray for mercy. “For our civil authorities and all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord.” Lord, have mercy. Kyrie eleison. Hospodi pomiluy.

This call for mercy is a call for the Lord’s mercy. Where the Lord is, there is mercy, but where he is, there is also justice. We hope his mercy realizing that with that mercy, justice will be found. The two go together. Asking for mercy from God indicates we want his help for justice. We put our hope in God that with that mercy, God will find a way to work out justice. We do not have to be pleased with those we pray for; we do not have to accept what they have done or what they stand for. Praying for them, praying for mercy for them, includes praying that they shall experience the pull of justice in their lives. It means we hope that, where necessary, they will change their ways. It is also hope that if they will not, that with that mercy, God will find a way to work out justice through them despite their resistance to it.

Is this not one of the lessons we find in the Lord of the Rings? When Frodo told Gandalf that he wished Bilbo had killed Gollum, Gandalf replied that no one should wish for anyone’s death. Frodo learned what that meant when he met Gollum; like Bilbo, he took pity on Gollum. Frodo even came close to having Gollum change, to redeem him; despite that failure, the mercy of Bilbo and Frodo allowed Gollum to have a major role in destroying the Ring. Gollum did not change his ways; in the end, he betrayed Frodo, but even in that betrayal, the mercy which was shown unto him became a vessel for justice.

When we show pity, when we preserve life, we must trust that some good will come out of it, even if we know the person to whom we show mercy might turn on us and leave us for dead.  Praying for mercy, praying that someone should live when they face death, means we put our trust in God, and that he will find a way to work out his justice.

We must pray for all, seeking the salvation of all, including those in high positions:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4 RSV).

We are called to pray for the salvation of all, we are called to pray for God’s mercy upon all, because even the greatest sinner is made in the image and likeness of God. Everyone has good in them. When we pray for mercy, we pray especially that such good, no matter how hidden it has become due to sin, can be released. So long as there is life, there is hope. We must remain people of hope, and with that hope, have faith and hope for the salvation of all, for we know Jesus worked for the salvation of all:

Faith has untold power to inspire and sustain our respect for others, for believers come to know that God loves every man and woman with infinite love and “thereby confers infinite dignity” upon all humanity. We likewise believe that Christ shed his blood for each of us and that no one is beyond the scope of his universal love. If we go to the ultimate source of that love which is the very life of the triune God, we encounter in the community of the three divine Persons the origin and perfect model of all life in society. Theology continues to be enriched by its reflection on this great truth.[1]

No one is outside of the scope of God’s love. No one should be outside of the scope of our love. This is not to say we cannot and must not resist the evil that people do. We must. Praying for mercy, praying for the restoration of life for those who are sick and close to death does not mean we should ignore the evil they have done, or the evil which they continue to do. We must resist evil, but that resistance must always be done with mercy and love. We resist evil. We seek to put an end to it. We must do so, but we must do so correctly. We must embrace justice ourselves, and follow the dictates of justice. We must not embrace evil to fight evil. We must not become monsters to fight monsters, rather, we must fight monsters with truth and goodness. We must resist them when they are in power, and that includes, finding ways to legitimately take that power away from them. Praying for mercy for those who are in positions of authority includes praying that they will be stopped from doing evil, for being stopped from doing evil will do them good. Thus, Pope Francis says:

Nor does this mean calling for forgiveness when it involves renouncing our own rights, confronting corrupt officials, criminals or those who would debase our dignity. We are called to love everyone, without exception; at the same time, loving an oppressor does not mean allowing him to keep oppressing us, or letting him think that what he does is acceptable. On the contrary, true love for an oppressor means seeking ways to make him cease his oppression; it means stripping him of a power that he does not know how to use, and that diminishes his own humanity and that of others. Forgiveness does not entail allowing oppressors to keep trampling on their own dignity and that of others, or letting criminals continue their wrongdoing. Those who suffer injustice have to defend strenuously their own rights and those of their family, precisely because they must preserve the dignity they have received as a loving gift from God. If a criminal has harmed me or a loved one, no one can forbid me from demanding justice and ensuring that this person – or anyone else – will not harm me, or others, again. This is entirely just; forgiveness does not forbid it but actually demands it. [2]

Praying for Trump, praying for people in authority, does not mean we look for the preservation of their place in authority. It means we hope for the preservation of their life so that they can change their ways. If they will not, our prayer for mercy includes the hope that justice will be had, that oppressors will lose power. It is also a hope of mercy for us. When we pray for those in authority, we pray for mercy, praying, that is, such authority will be used for the common good, or that those who have authority will lose it if they plan to continue to promote injustice with their power.

“Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (1 Ptr. 2:16-17 RSV). Donald Trump is sick. He faces death, if not now, then soon. We must pray for mercy, for him, for us, for everyone. We pray for mercy. We pray for justice. We pray, indeed, for life, for all  life, including his. If he survives, let us continue to pray for mercy, a mercy which is just and swift; and if he succumbs to death, let us pray for mercy, for him, for his loved ones, and also for the United States and the world so that, once again, justice can reign supreme. We must not ignore mercy. But we must not neglect justice. The two go together. Seeking mercy must not be used as a pretext for evil, even as praying for those in power must not be seen as excusing us from resisting them when they promote evil.

[1] Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti. Vatican translation. ¶ 85.

[2] Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti, ¶ 241.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020 By

ksh2000: I Can’t Breathe / pexels

“I can’t breathe.”

George Floyd, in saying these words, spoke for all of us.

“I can’t breathe.”

This is the experience of so many minorities in the United States.

“I can’t breathe.” That is, “I am oppressed. I am suffering. I am being cast aside. I am suffocating in oppression. I am dying.”

We must recognize that these words speak of the fate of all of us if things do not change soon. We all will find out “I can’t breathe,” if the systematic evil and oppression which underlies racism continues to have power and control over all the earth.

“I can’t breathe,” will be what we all feel as the earth is corrupted and destroyed, with its natural resources and animal life is deplete. “I can’t breathe” is what we will all feel when climate change and environmental destruction reaches its peak impact.

“I can’t breathe.” Therese are prophetic words, which is why the cry of George Floyd resounded with so many of us who care for and seek justice in the world. It is the cry which was heard all around the world because it is the cry of the world, of the people of the world, which so many of us already feel, and which many of us know will be felt even more in the days and months and years to come unless the systematic evil and oppression which dominates the world is overturned.

“I can’t breathe.” We must note these words are first and foremost the words of the African American community. While they speak for all of us, and warn us all of what is to come, unless the system itself is changed, we must not ignore the reason why they come out of the African American community. “I cannot breathe” is their experience. So many of us have, in our privilege, experienced far less of the domination and suppression than they have experienced. We must recognize that they are the first among us to experience it, and so, they must also be given preference when restitution is made if and when we transform the system.

“I cannot breathe.” The cries of the oppressed grow in strength and more and more people realize those words are their words, those words are the warning of what is to come because it is expresses what so many of us already experience today. More and more people will feel that they cannot breathe as those in power continue to take what they can from those who have less power, and this is why many who previously were not interested in social justice and transforming the system are now interested in systematic injustice. It has become personal. But as late comers to the problem, they must listen to those who have experienced it all their lives, or worse, those peoples who have experienced it for generations, and follow their lead, instead of trying to take the lead themselves, because, otherwise, they risk changing the system of oppression with new people in power instead of dismantling the system once and for all.

Racial justice and environmental justice go hand in hand. Racial abuse destroys lives, just as environmental abuse destroys lives. And, those who suffer at the hands of racial exploitation and abuse are also those most likely to be the most adversely affected by environmental exploitation and abuse. “I cannot breathe” not only connects the two together, but shows how the horrors of racial injustice is only being exponentially made worse as a result of environmental injustice.  Thus, as racial injustice often causes those abused and exploited to be poor, the words of Pope Francis in Laudato si’ must be recognized as having implications in relation to racial justice:

Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. For example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children. [1]

We can see the truth of us, not only in the destruction wrought in Flint, Michigan, where the populace cannot even drink, but also in the way the environmental impact of oil pipelines affects Native American reservations. The rights and dignity of minority groups are ignored for the sake of the plans and desires of the rich and powerful. Despite growing interest in racial and environmental justice, those in power, like President Trump, are doing all they can to ignore the plight of the oppressed and continue to destroy their environment, and with it, their lives, so they won’t breathe or drink or eat in the future. And, sadly, the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated its support for Trump, as can be seen in its recent decision allowing for an oil pipeline underneath the Appalachian Trail:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a pipeline company in a dispute about whether a new 600-mile natural gas pipeline could cross underneath the Appalachian Trail on federal land.

The 7-2 decision overturned one part of a lower court decision that had blocked construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which is being jointly developed by Duke Energy and Dominion Energy.

The proposed pipeline would run from West Virginia to population centers in Virginia and North Carolina. In central Virginia, the pipeline would cross hundreds of feet underground beneath the Appalachian Trail where the trail runs through the George Washington National Forest. [2]

Here, we see the spread of environmental destruction, moving further into new lands, new places of the powerless and the poor; previously, many of these same people would not have been concerned when oil pipelines were being built under Native American lands, but now, because they helped reinforce the power of the oppressors, they find they will suffer the consequence of their own injustice. This is not to say they should, because no one should. But this shows how and why many people understand the need for environmental and racial justice only have they experience such injustice themselves. They must be shown, however, that the work for justice must be for more than themselves; they need to be shown how the system itself has been set in place, and how systematic racism and its support helped create and establish further systems of oppression. Then, they will be able to be shown that to fix the problem, systematic racism and all such systems of oppression must be dismantled together. The poor and vulnerable of society must work together, for together, they experience the suffocation of oppression. This means those who had not seen others as their brothers and sisters must finally do so, for it is only coming together, and recognizing the dignity of each other, can the system of abuse be dismantled. If not, then the system will create worse and  worse oppression, worse and worse destruction of the earth, until at last, the destruction will lead to mass extinction throughout all the earth.

The Trump Administration’s actions are the actions of those who like to dominate and control others. This is why it is not surprising that, as many are not paying attention because they are dealing with the COVID19 pandemic, it continues to dismantle protections which are needed for the protection and safety of us all, as Rebecca Leber reported:

Under the cover of the pandemic, the Trump administration has been hard at work dismantling the rules that protect public health. He has reversed standards for clean cars and mercury emissions from coal plants. He’s suspended rigorous environmental reviews required by the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act to expedite approval of highways and pipelines in 30 days. And just last week, the Environmental Protection Agency altered how it calculates the lives saved from cleaner air—a devastating change that will be used to undermine future clean air regulation.

These rollbacks do not affect everyone equally—they’re particularly devastating for people of color. And the pandemic has intensified the burden that vulnerable neighborhoods already carry. On Tuesday, in a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce committee, environmentalists and racial justice advocates detailed the compounding effects Trump’s rollbacks and pollution has on communities that have been hardest hit by COVID-19. [3]

“I can’t breathe,” now joins in with the “I can’t drink,” of Flint Michigan. Soon, we will hear “I can’t eat.” Destruction is all around us. The system of oppression, as all such systems, has greater, more direct impact on the most vulnerable among us. But it does not end with them. Soon, we will all experience, “I cannot breathe,” as the system which accepted the execution of George Floyd will accept the execution of all of us; it is willing to sacrifice us all if we do not put a stop to it. We must recognize what we have let come in place. Now is the time to dismantle it. The earth and all its creatures need us to finally be good stewards of the earth. There is still time. There is still hope. But we must recognize that as the situation is dire, so is the call to change urgent. If we don’t do what we can and should do now, soon it might be too late and the destructive forces which we have let loose will take all of us with it.

[1] Pope Francis, Laudato si’. Vatican translation. ¶25.

[2] Becky Sullivan, “Supreme Court Says Pipeline May Cross Underneath Appalachian Trail,”  NPR (6-15-2020).

[3] Rebecca Leber, “Trump Is Using the Pandemic to Undo Environmental Rules. It’s Hurting Black Americans,” Mother Jones (6-10-2020).

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

May 15, 2020

May 15, 2020 By

Jess Hawsor: NYC, anti-xenophobia poster amid coronavirus pandemic, Canal St, 6 Line / Wikimedia Commons

Pope St. Paul VI, in Octogesima Adveniens, spoke against racial injustice:

Among the victims of situations of injustice – unfortunately no new phenomenon – must be placed those who are discriminated against, in law or in fact, on account of their race, origin, color, culture, sex or religion. [1]

When bigotry leads to discrimination and abuse of various people, whether by law or by the way society treats them, it must be denounced.  The dignity of the human person is undermined when such injustice is allowed to continue and those who benefit from it prosper.

We must recognize that bigotry can find itself in systematic forms, such as in the structures of society which promote and enforce racism. While those with power and privilege gain from such abuse, systematic racism undermines justice, and with it, the bond which we share with each other because of our common human nature:

Racial discrimination possesses at the moment a character of very great relevance by reason of the tension which it stirs up both within countries and on the international level. Men rightly consider unjustifiable and reject as inadmissible the tendency to maintain or introduce legislation or behavior systematically inspired by racialist prejudice. The members of mankind share the same basic rights and duties, as well as the same supernatural destiny. Within a country which belongs to each one, all should be equal before the law, find equal admittance to economic, cultural, civic and social life and benefit from a fair sharing of the nation’s riches.[2]

Everyone should have a fair share of the resources of the world; this is exactly what Catholic teaching indicates with its talk of the universal destination of goods. This is true, of course, not only of money, but also of all the needs of the human person, including and especially, healthcare. If particular communities suffer more from the lack of healthcare resources and protections which help keep people healthy, the system which allows for that injustice must be changed. At its root is a sin which ignores the plight of those in need. If we find that those who have the healthcare resources they need, and feel secure because of it, pressure those who do not have them to act in a way as if their lives do not matter, then we see a breakdown of justice in society which indicates the need to change the structures of society which allow for such an abuse.  And when it is clear that this breakdown can be seen along racial lines, then it is clear, racism is involved with this injustice.

Gaudium et spes is very clear: we have a duty to deal with the fundamental injustices which are perpetuated in society, especially when such injustice is founded upon ignorance and malice:

It is now possible to free most of humanity from the misery of ignorance. Therefore the duty most consonant with our times, especially for Christians, is that of working diligently for fundamental decisions to be taken in economic and political affairs, both on the national and international level which will everywhere recognize and satisfy the right of all to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition. Therefore it is necessary to provide all with a sufficient quantity of cultural benefits, especially of those which constitute the so-called fundamental culture lest very many be prevented from cooperating in the promotion of the common good in a truly human manner because of illiteracy and a lack of responsible activity.[3]

Society, with all its rules and laws, exists for the common good, which means that the rules and laws put into place must likewise serve the common good. When particular rights are rejected, when human dignity is ignored for some, society itself suffers. Even if it means some must sacrifice various privileges, various comforts which we have been accustomed to enjoy, society must do what it can to change the system to make sure everyone receives the basic benefits which any given society should give to all its members.

All of this this relates to the COVID-19 pandemic. We see before us many people who feel they are not at risk from the virus (despite the fact they are). These people have demonstrated to us that they do not care about others. They ignore social distancing, wearing of masks, and other necessary changes in behavior because they do not want to give up their own personal luxuries.[4] As long as they think only others will suffer the consequences of their actions, they do not want to be told what to do (though they have a history of telling others what they can and should do, and indeed, with the way many of them are arming themselves and going into protests which shut down governments, they are already trying to dictate to others what they think others should do).

We must accept that, for the time being, we might have to give up some of our luxuries if we want to survive as a nation. For, the point is not just about saving our own lives, but that of others, of those who are the most vulnerable. We must take care of each other and work for the common good. We must not sacrifice our morality.

When looking to those who are most affected by COVID-19, either by the disease itself, or in the way society deals with and treats the disease, we find several minority groups are those who are most adversely affected by the pandemic. Instead of ignoring them, thinking they are “someone else,” those who are not a part of those groups must remember that people within those groups are their neighbors. If they claim to be Christian, they should listen to Christ who told them to care for their neighbors as themselves. But even if they are not Christian, it is a generally accepted principle that we should all treat others as we would like to be treated. This is how we keep society just. We must look out for each other, otherwise, we will all suffer the consequences when the rule of law and justice is overturned.

Beyond the elderly and those with various pre-existing conditions, such a diabetes and asthma, we find several groups experiencing the blunt of the effects of the virus, including:

We have become more aware of the racism and xenophobia found in our society as a result of the pandemic. Sadly, because we do not see a proper response to such bigotry and the injustice it causes being offered by those in charge (indeed, we see many leaders promoting it), we see a rise of a violent white nationalism which uses an ignorance of the risks associated with the pandemic as the grounds it can use to promote its agenda. White nationalism has historically used various conspiracy theories to promote its agenda, and so, it is not surprising, we see the same type of conspiracy theories employed by those who want to reject those policies needed to deal with the pandemic. Thus, white supremacists are actively involved with the various protests against the lockdowns in the nation,  and they are using the fears of those who do not appreciate and understand the ramifications of COVID-19 to promote the ideologies which keep systematic structures of abuse in effect. For who will be those who will have to risk their lives, if they are forced to go to work, but those who are already suffering the most from the virus, and already have little to no resources given to them to deal with it?  We can see this already happening when we look to the way Native Americans, who find themselves more at risk from the virus, are being told they cannot protect themselves and their reservations from those who would bring the virus into their land.

Racism is revealing itself in the way COVID-19 is being treated, but also in the way people refuse to accept the reality of the threat itself. So many see it as an issue for “others,” not for themselves. If they are not a member of one of the groups which are most affected by the pandemic, at this time, they feel they do not have to worry about it and even dictate to those who suffer from it how they should just sacrifice themselves because of how little value they hold to the dignity of human life of such “minorities.” The Christian response must be one which rejects such racism. It must be one which recognizes the need to care for our neighbor, to look after the vulnerable, and not put any extra burden on those who have already received the blunt of social burdens. The underling systematic racism found in the United States, far from being repudiated in the past, has shown itself to be as destructive as it is thriving today. Christians must not, cannot accept this. They must recognize everyone deserves protection. Everyone should be helped. Everyone should be cared for. We must not ignore the needs of others just because it requires more from us than we are used to giving. Social justice demands we reform the system, and that means those who have in excess must be willing to give up that excess to those who are in need

 

[1] Pope St. Paul VI, Octogesima Adveniens. Vatican translation. ¶16.

[2] Pope St. Paul VI, Octogesima Adveniens, ¶16.

[3] Gaudium et spes. Vatican translation. ¶60.

[4] It is amusing to see those who demand others “go to work,” are the ones who do not want to do the real work which needs to be done. That is, one of the many aspects involved with an irresponsible response to the pandemic is sloth, with people trying to find all kinds of excuses to excuse themselves from their own responsibilities.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

September 19, 2019

September 19, 2019 By

Leonhard Lenz: Greta Thunberg am Fronttransparent der FridaysForFuture Demonstration am 29. März 2019 in Berlin /WikimediaCommons

The young Swedish environmentalist, Greta Thunberg, has not only made a name for herself for encouraging environmental activism in the world, she has also made a great number of enemies who like to belittle her in the cruelest of ways possible. They degrade her, not only for her age, but for her gender. It’s not only Greta, other women, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, working hard to help protect the planet from our abuse, not only because of immediate concerns that pollution causes, but because of the wanton destruction of the environment could bring the cataclysmic demise of humanity, who face extreme misogynistic abuse from climate change denialists.

There is, on record, a connection between misogyny and climate change denial. The language used by its critics to demean environmentalists is the language of dominance and control.  The same mentality which justifies abuse of the earth is the same mentality which thinks others (women, foreigners, even animals) must be put under control in order to remain in power. As Alice Cherry pointed out, perhaps there is no better current demonstration of this then the actions of Donald Trump:

The correlation between misogyny and anti-environmentalism is perhaps most dramatically illustrated by the current occupant of the White House, who, for all of his supposedly maverick tendencies, displays contempt for both women and the environment in near-perfect patriarchal fashion.[1]

Those who possess money and power claim they possess them by right, but because those rights are challenged, all those who would change their authority must be forced to accept their dominion. The way others are treated, the way they are demeaned, is all a part of the process of self-justification for unjustifiable wrongdoings. It is the same kind of reflection which is used to justify environmental destruction. All kinds of force, all kinds of abuse, is acceptable as a means of holding power. What is at issue is the notion of supremacy and the kind of control mechanism needed to retain it.

Women, children, animals, foreigners, and land, all have been historically seen as existing in some subordinate position to the men in power. For those who want to retain that control, or rather, re-establish it, the desire is to return things to the way they were in the past, using romantic notions of the past as a means to get even those who would otherwise be harmed by such changes to accept what such supremacists promote. This is why “the rule of law” is often the means by which such supremacy is enforced, because, as history shows, this is exactly the way subordination was enforced:

Women, children, and animals have long suffered abuse in the face of the law. Historically, these three groups shared a legal status of significant subordinacy or, worse, of property. The law for centuries reflected common societal perceptions of hierarchy, depriving these groups of rights or significant legal protection, and thus served only to perpetuate and entrench their vulnerability to abuse and maltreatment. [2]

While wanton abuse of subordinates might have been frowned upon by the most benevolent of those in positions of authority and power, the system itself gave less consideration and protection to such subordinates, making abuse not only common, but protected by the law. They were put together, and continue, in the minds of many, to be together, so that when a challenge arises due to gender, race, or environmental concerns, such challenges are ridiculed as being insignificant. The law, so long as it justified such supremacists, was itself claimed to be supreme.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that many in the “alt-right”  want to employ the worst examples of history as the way things should be in the future. Abuse of others is normative for them because it is through such abuse they demonstrate their supposed superiority. Anyone who is concerned about human rights and the obligations which come from them are seen as an extreme challenge to the system which they believe is God-given. Indeed, religion is a tool for them, as they use it to justify a hierarchy in which they come out on top. Bad arguments and ideas from the past are brought back and used once again. When a particular religious figure, who might otherwise be holy, made some bad argument, that argument is promoted, turning what might have been a poor opinion from the past into a terrible ideology in the present. They can find ways to undermine all those who are considered “other” than themselves and those who they think represent the “best of humanity” (which is often white males). As Stephen Webb explained, the way “human nature” was described in the past can be and is often useful for such supremacists as they find ways to subordinate and dominate others:

Indeed, theories of human nature, propounded by men, are anxious to distinguish and separate the human from the animal. These very qualities also have been used by men to separate men from women. Like animals, women have been deprived of basic rights because of supposed biological differences from the ideal animal, the male human being. The connection between women and animals are more than symbolic. Women are thought to be closer to animals, in part because they maintain animal functions (reproduction and child rearing). Female skills are assigned to the instinctual and thus do not deserve proportionate rewards. Women are frequently allocated jobs that are dehumanizing in their routine and status. For example, most of the approximately 54,000 nonunionized North American meatpacker workers are Hispanic or African American women with a high school education or less. This job is considered one of the most dangerous in the United States. The most opposed segment of the population is chosen to carry out the destruction that consumers do not want to face. Our domination of animals is mediated so that we can obtain immediate gratification without any hesitation or guilt.[3]

Any attempt to return to a so-called Golden Age in the past is merely a reconstruction of the past which misses ignores much of the past itself, including and especially, the checks and balances which led social revolution and changed things for the better.  In this way, the reconstruction of the past as an ideology in the present makes for things to be worse than they were in the past. Such ideology often sheds itself of the benevolence needed to overcome the shortcomings of any particular system.

Christians, when witnessing any malevolent force trying to overturn the advances promoted by social justice, must resist it following the teachings of the Christians faith. They must love others, just as they must recognize that in Christ Jesus there is no “other” gender or race, so that when they see the old social order has been transcended, they recognize such transcendence as being in accord with the teachings of Christ. Likewise, Christians must recognize, contrary to all notions of supremacy, we must act in self-giving love which seeks to raise others up instead of stomping on them and pushing them down. While it is often said patriarchy is the source of these problems (because patriarchy is the way in which such notions of human nature were introduced), we must be careful and not replace it with another faulty system of subordination and domination which allows for and will bring back the same terrible ways (just under a new ideological perspective): patriarchy is not the only issue, but only a representation of the greater issue, of the natural tendency to form destructive systems of abuse and structures of sin to reinforce such abuse. This is not to deny the faults of patriarchy must not be acknowledged, because they must be; it is an important representation of where we have come from, the most immediate context in which supremacy has arisen, and what we see many continue to desire (as can be seen in the way  “toxic masculinity” not only exists, but is causing wanton destruction around us today).[4]

This, then, is what confronts us today. We are living in a time in which the environment risks being destroyed, and with it, humanity as a whole. We risk destroying our own home, the planet Earth. Those who understand this, even if they are imperfect, often receive the blunt end of toxic masculinity with its attempt to deride others in the way it knows how to do so:  this is why they often “feminize” the opposition and then treat all such “feminine” as objects to be controlled and dominated (for they think such feminization represents inferiority). The Earth, itself, is feminized as a part of their fetish, allowing them to justify their “rape” of the Earth.

Paul, who sometimes is used by those possessed by the spirit of toxic masculinity and its common associates in the right, nonetheless fundamentally undermines their position in the way he reorganized all people under Christ (cf. Gal. 3:28). Women, like St. Thecla, could be co-workers (and not subordinates) with him in the spread of the Gospel. They were to be treated with respect and helped, as he wrote to the Philippians:

I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord.  And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life  (Phil. 4:2-3 RSV).

And, of course, it is not just women, Paul understood all things were being elevated by Christ, so that it was once subjugated and dominated and abused, but with the coming of the children of God, it is to be elevated and its subjugation overturned:

 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;  for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;  because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God  (Rom.  8:18-21 RSV).

The Christian message from the beginning has always been against the claims of subjugation and abuse. This is why God is always shown throughout Scripture as a God promoting the rights and needs of the oppressed. Jesus said that the rich are to fear the consequences of their avarice while the poor will see themselves raised up to the kingdom of God. Any attempt to return to a system of pure domination and control, especially once which seeks to undermine the dignity of the earth, or any creature of the Earth, is a return to the system of sin which Christ came to override. It is not Christian (even if so-called Christians promote it).  And, following the prophetic way God called for his followers to help all those who are unjustly mistreated and abused, especially when they are following, like Greta Thunberg, the justice which God expects Christians to act in support of all the abused in the world today. When someone is seen to be undermined for their support of justice, the Christian response must be to lift them up and work with them, hoping beyond hope, to help mediate God’s saving grace to the world at large.

 

[1] Alice Cherry, “Invisible Climate Wars, Part I: Climate Destruction as Gender Violence” in Climate Defense Project (May 2, 2017).

[2] Vivek Upadhya, “The Abuse of Animals as a Method of Domestic Violence: The Need for Criminalization,” in Emory Law Journal vol. 63. No. 5 (2014): 1165.

[3] Stephen W. Webb, On God and Dogs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 55.

[4] “But this scramble for dominance and denial of emotion comes at great cost. It blunts men’s awareness of other people’s needs and emotions, drives domestic and sexual violence, makes aggression look like a reasonable way to solve conflict, forbids seeking health care (and even thinking about seeking mental health care), and pours fuel on the fire of drug and alcohol abuse,” Ellen Hendricksen, “How To Fight Toxic Masculinity” in Scientific American ( Jul. 26, 2019).

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

August 9, 2019

August 9, 2019 By

Fibonacci Blue: Free Our Future. Families Belong Together. Abolish ICE. March and Day of Action / Flickr

Many of Trump’s policies, and the actions undertaken to enforce his policies, are cruel. There is no way getting around it. And cruelty seems to be the point. From all appearances, he does not care about the people he hurts so long as it gives him more power (or money). The crueler he is, the more power he seems to possess, the happier he is. Certainly, inspired by his base, and his own background, the cruelty is directed towards those he thinks are powerless to resist him, such as foreigners and the poor. Mexicans, African Americans, and Arabs are all potential victims of his actions.  Through executive orders and the Department of Justice, Trump is creating a hostile situation for many Americans and would-be-Americans alike. For those who would say that Trump is President, and so what he says is law and should be accepted, they would be like those false prophets who proclaimed peace to the kings of Israel instead of the prophets who warned the kings that they shall face the consequences of their actions:

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!  (Isa. 10:1-2 RSV).

Those who are kind and generous will be rewarded, while those who are cruel, will have their cruelty rebound upon them and cause them harm, if not during their temporal life, then in the afterlife. This is why, even if it seems that evil prospers, Scripture reminds us that “A man who is kind benefits himself, but a cruel man hurts himself” (Prov. 11:27 RSV). Those who are cruel hurt themselves because they establish the means by which they will be judged.

The poor, the needy, the foreigner all are among those who God has specifically established as deserving our kindness and aid:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother,  do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart  (Zech. 7:9-10 RSV).

Christians, seeing the harm done to those who are in need, if not the outright cruelty done to those Trump seems to despise, should follow with the Psalmist and say, “May he [God-HK] defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor!” (Ps. 72:4 RSV).

Many migrants are dying as a result of Trump’s policies. A Chaldean Catholic man, who came to the United States in his youth, was deported, sent back to Iraq. He was a diabetic who could not speak with other Iraqis: as a result, he died, in part because he could not get the insulin he needed to treat his diabetes. Instead of protecting him and helping to make sure he could survive, the Trump administration failed him, leading him to his unjustified death.

May God defend the cause of the migrants.

May God defend the cause of the children who suffer as a result of ICE raids. We must not look away: we must look to the poor innocent children suffering at the hands of Trump’s policies.

May God defend the cause of the poor who have lost health insurance, or those who foolishly take on junk insurance policies that Trump has approved, not realizing such insurance will do little if nothing for them when in need.

May God defend the cause of those whom Trump encourages disrespect and abuse.

Trump’s day of reckoning is coming, and with it, the reckoning of the United States. His cruelty has already created a trade war with China, and though the people of the United States might not realize it, the consequences of his tariffs are going to be severe.  Farmers, certainly, are going to pay dearly for Trump’s actions. But what affects farmers will affect the rest of the United States, and so it will not be long until the rest of the United States feels the dire, if not deadly, effects of Trump’s poorly executed economic fight with China.

Even though it is prophetic to speak out against Trump’s actions and warn his followers of what is to come, it really does not take a prophet to foresee what will happen to the United States, and the rest of the world, if the madness of Trump is not stopped. Sadly, his supporters are unwilling to listen. They do not care, even if they are the ones who are hurt from his policies.

Things are not getting better. Since Trump is doubling down on his cruelty, those who seek goodness and justice must triple their efforts to resist him, not only to stop him from further harming the future of humanity, but to repair the damage which has already been done. If Trump escalates his cruelty, his resisters must escalate their response, lest the damage which has been done ends up be little in comparison to the damage which he does in the future. His instability, his lack of empathy, threaten the welfare of the world. It has long been time for the people of the United States to see the danger which is Donald Trump. It has long been past time for the people of the United States to come together and finally deal with the existential threat which lies before them and the rest of the world. We will be remembered and judged for what we do. Will we stand with Trump and his belligerence, ignoring the dictates of justice and mercy, or will we stand with goodness and truth, seeking to overcome the harm which Trump has brought to the world?

“He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Mic. 6:8 RSV). Justice is not had in the following of unjust decrees and cruel actions. It is found in the promotion of the common good. If Trump will not support the common good, we must not, indeed, we cannot support him. If we do, we will find ourselves joining with him in the judgment which is to come.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

August 8, 2019

August 8, 2019 By

Anonymous: Roundel With Justice / WikimediaCommons via Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Defenders of the death penalty usually employ one or two distinct strategies in their apologetics, sometimes separately, sometimes together. The first is to promote capital punishment as “retributive justice,” and the second is to suggest the death penalty should be used as it acts as a kind of “self-defense” for society.

For Christians who embrace the dignity of life, both arguments are invalid. Jesus overturned the notion of retributive justice when he rejected the notion of “an eye for an eye.” Likewise, St. Paul, following Jesus, gave his own rejection to the principles of retributive justice:

Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”  No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom. 12: 17-21 RSV).

Interestingly enough, Paul referenced Deuteronomy 32:35 in his rejection of retributive justice; this shows us that the Christian ethic is not other than the one intended in, and so comes out of, the Torah itself.  Jesus, Paul, and subsequent Christian commentaries developed what was implicit in the Torah. It is true, the Mosaic laws might have allowed for capital punishment, but like animal sacrifices, this was never the intent or desire of God. “For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord GOD; so turn, and live” (Ezek. 18:32 RSV). Rather, God condescended to meet the people of Israel where they were at in their knowledge and understanding, and directed them away from the path of death and destruction by having them slowly embrace the path of true justice found in his mercy and grace.[1]

While some apologists for capital punishment might concede Christians cannot accept it on retributive grounds (though many will continue to push for it, despite the long Christian moral reflection against such a notion), they think their strongest answer lies in the notion that it serves as a kind of self-defense for the community, both because they say it stops criminals from continuing in their criminal activities, but also because they think it acts as a deterrent.

Considering the notion of deterrence, reality, shows it does not truly act as a deterrent. Study after study says the same thing. This should not be surprising to readers of Vladimir Solovyov, who, in the 19th century, examined the evidence and said the same thing: executing people does not stop or lessen crime. Indeed, Solovyov thought that it could even encourage violent crime, as the state justifies the act of violence in its executions.

But what about self-defense? Does not the church itself teach us self-defense is acceptable, and so we can kill in self-defense? Does this not lead to the church accepting other forms of killing, such as those which are done in just wars? Why, then, if the criminal is dangerous, can’t the church approve their execution?

This comes from a poor reading of the church’s stand on self-defense and on just war theory.  In both instances, not only must the cause be just (and retributive justice is not just), killing or war must always be the last resort, it must be done as a secondary effect of some other primary purpose (in other words, it is an issue of double-effect).[2] When war is declared, and it appears that the war is just, that does not instantly make any killing by those on the side of justice justified: they still have to follow basic moral principles (Jus in Bello), seeking not to kill if the opportunity arises to stop the enemy without such violence. This is why those who are held as prisoners of war, as well as civilians, cannot be executed. For prisoners of war, although they are soldiers, since they have been taken out of the combat, their threat has been neutralized. Likewise, with self-defense (and it must be noted, Augustine and others did not approve of non-authorities using violence in self-defense), the point must be defensive, the reaction proportional, and if the threat is contained, the violence must be stopped (killing someone after they are no longer a threat cannot be justified as an act of self-defense).

Just war theory (and with it, any theories of justified self-defense) does not accept preemptive strikes as being just. We don’t attack someone because we think we might be attacked if we do not. We have to have a clear and present danger, one which cannot be stopped by any other means; if other means have not been exhausted, or the danger is not immediate, then any act of war is an act of aggression, and so is unjustified (which is why Bishop Botean condemned the Iraq War). Similarly, it is not self-defense when we attack someone for what they might do in the future. Just war, and self-defense, must always be the last resort; this means we must have a real, immediate threat (and not some virtual threat). When those who propose to use the death penalty as a kind of “self-defense,” they are falling for the same kind of error which promotes preemptive strikes: it justifies aggression based upon virtual possibilities instead of reality. Once this argument is accepted, then all aggression, all killing quickly becomes “just” as all killing would just be seen as “preemptive” forms of self-defense.

Christians must follow the hard path of love, and with it, accept that moral responsibility might leave them vulnerable. But such vulnerability is what is capable of transforming the situation and creating true peace and safety: the more society rejects all premises which support of aggression, the more people will move away from aggression and seek other remedies for their needs. Christian history shows this with the martyrs: Christians changed the hearts of Rome, not because they became a powerful military force that overwhelmed Rome, but because they embraced their vulnerability. If they had fought back, if they had embraced the path of violence, and started taking out Roman soldiers in guerrilla wars, Christians would have gained no sympathy from the Roman people but only their hatred, and world history would have been much different.

Self-defense arguments for capital punishment are unacceptable. Once a criminal is contained, just as a prisoner of war is contained, just as a threat has been neutralized, the dignity of human life must take precedence. Fearing what a prisoner could do in the future and using that to justify an execution only demonstrates a fundamental rejection of what the dignity of life entails. If there is some fear that a threat will not be properly contained, the solution is to work on the containment.  If a criminal finds a way to circumvent their containment, then deal with the situation in as just a manner as possible Until then, the solution will be to improve the containment, make it as strong as possible. There will never be the need for state-sponsored executions of criminals because there will always be ways to deal with them other than giving in to the path of death.  If there comes a time in which an act of self-defense becomes necessary, and through such actions, the death of a criminal in custody becomes an unwilled consequence of actions used to contain them (using the best, most proportional means to do so) that is not the same thing as the death penalty because it is an unintentional side-effect of the actions necessary to contain the situation: but when direct, intentional killing is done, and done by the state, the end result is a rejection of the dignity of life and an acceptance of the premises which all murderers hold. If that is the case, how can one say murderers are unjust?

[1] God’s reaction to the murder of Abel, where God forbade the execution of Cain, represents in full God’s desire to save the wicked instead of to have them destroyed.

[2] And, even if the killing ends up being “justified,” this does not make it good. It remains an evil. Historically, the church required soldiers who killed in war to undergo penance for what they have done, whether or not the war was justified, because it understood all killing to be evil.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019 By

Tom Fortunato: Homeless People Eating Lasagna / Flickr

In Scripture. God speaks to the leaders of the peoples, telling them that they must rule justly. That means, they must treat the poor, the needy, the afflicted, the stranger, the widow or orphan, with respect. If, on the other hand, they contemptuously mistreat the lowly of the world, they risk divine judgment. The prophet Isaiah made it clear that social injustices caused divine retribution:

The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: “It is you who have devoured the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses.  What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?” says the Lord GOD of hosts (Isa.  3:14-15 RSV).

St. Isidore of Seville, speaking to Christians, warns us similarly:

The oppressors of the poor should know that they are deserving of a more serious sentence when they have prevailed over those whom they desired to injure. For they are to be condemned to a more atrocious future punishment to the extent that the have behaved more forcefully in this world against the life of the wretched ones.[1]

Righteousness is linked with the way we treat the poor. While we might think fasting is good, by itself it does nothing; it has to come with the right intention. It must be used to combat our own internal demons, our temptations to injustice; which is why Isaiah indicated that the proper form of fasting is one which does service and renders aid to the needy:

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?  Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?  (Isa. 58:6-7 RSV).

It’s all about love. How can we love God if we ignore our neighbor and their needs? “But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?”  (1Jn. 3:17 RSV). Justice seeks to restore what is unjustly withheld, and social justice seeks to establish and give what is needy due to social imbalances and evils. Social justice is not some sort of extra to the Christian faith: it is central to the proclamation of the Gospel. It does not replace charity, but sets the stage by which proper charity can be given. When that norm, when basic human rights and dignity are neglected, such injustice must be overcome. If it is personal injustice, then it must be met with personal justice. But when it is social injustice, when it is society as a whole which has set an unjust standard and creates structures which abuse the poor and needy, then social injustice must be met with social justice. Charity, which goes beyond justice, will include justice, and will seek social justice to be established: if someone looks to impede social justice so they can then be charitable, they demonstrate not just a lack of justice but a lack of charity itself. For what they offer is not charity, not love, but vain works for their own glory.

Basic justice, as explained in Scripture, and can be deduced by reason, says that people should be shown dignity and respect, and they should be able to have their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, and health care met (according to what prudence suggests is possible in each given circumstance). Their needs should not be used to exploit them, nor should the system which is used to make sure those needs are met be exploited. That would be devouring the poor, taking from them what rightfully should be theirs. Yet, both the poor, and the system in which the poor is being helped, are both under attack by President Trump.  Not only are the poor facing extraordinary burdens in order to get food through SNAP, retailers have been told that Trump wants to charge them fees for accepting food stamps. Not only does this indicate Trump is trying to find more ways to take money out of the poor (though he has no problem helping the rich get richer), money and resources which the poor do not have, he is going to inflict undue burden on  those who would otherwise help the poor. This does not seem to be an accident, but a feature, as the Trump Administration is interested in being cruel, punishing those who would otherwise follow their duty to help those in need.  And, in case some might want to defend Trump’s cruelty by saying that food stamps hurt society by promoting laziness, the reality is far from different: food stamps, and other such aid, is what is necessary for someone to be able to rise beyond their poverty. It was through such social programs we see that  the United States got out of past recessions; indeed, it is because such programs help put money into the economy that many jobs become available, which is why the removal of such aid is likely to cause a decline in available work. And with a decline in available work, then those in need will increase. But if there are requirements which will have to be met before the impoverished gain governmental aid, they will likely not get their needs satisfied as those requirements become impossible to be met, making the poor either perish in their poverty or turn to other means to getting what they need.

“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate” (Prov. 22:22 RSV). Just because someone is poor does not mean they can be mistreated. The little which they have should be preserved. Taking away food stamps, placing undue burdens on the poor, burdens which many will not be able to fulfill, and using that as an excuse to rob them of what little they have, is evil. “A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge” (Prov. 29:7 RSV). Unjust laws are no laws, and they can and must be subverted when they harm those in need. Civil disobedience is not a luxury for the privileged. If the Trump Administration promotes abuse to the poor and needy, to the outcast, then it must be resisted: those who are jailed for doing what is right must not only be defended, but praised and raised as the example all of us need to follow. Otherwise, we will see further erosion of basic human rights until, at last, the divide between the elite and the underclass is so great, only disaster is to come.

 

[1] St. Isidore of Seville, Sententiae. Trans. Thomas L. Knoebel (New York: Newman Press, 2018),208.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you have liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
2
How Far Does the “He Gets...
The Latin Right
3
So-Called Traditional Catholics Follow The Wrong...
A Little Bit of Nothing
4
Why Does an All-Loving God Tolerate...
The Latin Right
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Am I Waging a “Just War,” or Just...
The God of Crows and Eagles
Origen (c. 185 - c. 253) vs. "Faith...
Hippolytus (d. c. 235) vs. "Faith Alone"
The Donation of Constantine and the Papacy (Pope...
What to do with these 50 Days?
view all Catholic blogs