There Is No Charity Without Justice

March 31, 2016 By Henry Karlson

Charity, if it is to be true to its inner essence and character of charity (caritas), must be done as an act of love. As love is generous and merciful, so charity must be generous and merciful. It seeks more than justice because it seeks to raise someone up beyond the expectations of justice, but it does so in a way which does not undermine justice either. This is why charity, as St. Augustine pointed out, is the end which serves as the foundation behind God’s commandments:

For it is from these that we hear this voice: The end of the commandment is charity, and God is love. Wherefore, all God’s commandments, one of which is, “You shall not commit adultery,” and all those precepts which are not commandments but special counsels, one of which is, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” are rightly carried out only when the motive principle of action is the love of God, and the love of our neighbor in God. And this applies both to the present and the future life.[1]

Charity, by its foundation in and of love, is always looking for what is best, and the best must always include the good which is found in and established by justice. When justice is ignored, charity is undermined, because charity in its desire for the greatest good wants such justice, wants what is right and good to be established in society.

Justice is often an elusive concept, as Plato showed in his dialogues. And yet Marsilio Ficino, in his commentaries on Plato, gives a few good insights as to what Plato thought we could say about justice. First, he explained injustice is found in whatever causes undue harm upon someone else, weakening them, making them less than what nature intended for them, harming their potential while justice seeks the fulfillment of that potential:

But justice is the excellence of man, and whoever harms a man makes him weaker in relation to justice. Yet justice never detracts from justice, just as music never destroys the work of music. This is why it is not just to harm anyone.[2]

Likewise, Ficino pointed out that justice seeks a common bond of friendship and harmony, so that within the soul, the balance is seen in acts of goodness, and in society, in acts of friendship:

But the effects of justice and injustice upon a society are the same as their effects upon the soul: the just man is at harmony with himself, and he is a friend to himself, to all men, and to the gods; for the gods are most just, and thus it is not surprising that the just man is like them and their friend. The unjust man, however, finds that his situation is the opposite in all respects.[3]

Thus, Ficino explained, when such harmony is lost in society, we have injustice. When we live in a society where a few have great wealth and resources at the expense of others, such a society must be described as unjust. Such social injustice, if not fixed, ultimately will be the foundation by which such a society is overthrown, because the imbalance will lead to strife and the people within will rise and up demand a restoration of justice:

IN THE FOURTH BOOK [of the Republic – HK] we hear of the measure that is applied to ownership and to the State to ensure that there are no excessively rich citizens and no poor citizens. For he thinks that uprisings occur and the State is destroyed from excessive abundance as well as from scarcity. He considers, too, that there is no unity, but rather division, in the State where some are poor while others are rich; and, as usually happens, the rich despise the poor, and the poor feel envy and hatred for the rich. [4]

An unjust society will have those who benefit from such injustice give all kinds of excuses as to why such injustice should not be remedied. Some, of course, will come to understand what they have been given and will not perpetuate such injustice, and like Zacchaeus the Tax Collector, will seek to give what they can back to those who have been harmed, showing that they love justice and seek after God, the Lord of Justice.[5] Others, however, will show themselves far from God as they seek not the goodness which God desires for society, but merely the continuation of their own selfish desires, proving the truth of the Proverb, “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely” (Prov. 28:5 RSV).

Visiting the Poor by Karl Girardet [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Thus, as the prophets commanded, we are to do good. We are to act on behalf of the cause of justice as the result of God’s gracious mercy to us: “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). Forgiveness of sins in us comes, not with the ignorance of justice, but its promotion. “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).

Those who try to pit charity against justice, suggesting that we should ignore a particular injustice for the sake of allowing us to perform acts of charity, undermine the very foundation of charity itself. Charity agrees with justice and seeks the restoration of lost justice, but it does so, not merely out of some sort of legal obligation but out of love. Jesus, in his harsh words against many of the Pharisees of his day, pointed out that while they might appear to be doing good by their tithes, failed in charity because they neglected justice. “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).

Once injustice is approved, charity is lost. No one who loves someone else will step back and allow some sort of injustice befall their beloved if they are able to prevent it. If they were to say they let their beloved suffer so they could later show their beloved an act of sympathetic love, what would be demonstrated is not love but selfishness trying to present itself as love – and the same must be said about charity. If someone were to say they do not seek justice in society because they want the opportunity to show charity to those harmed by the injustice they did not prevent, they only show what they offer is not charity but vainglory. What is worse is when such supposed charity gives back not the full restoration of what was lost due to injustice, but something less. Usually, when this happens, those who give say that those who receive their charity should be grateful from the crumbs they have received, showing once again the supposed act of charity was not done out of love, but for the accolades they receive by their performance art, pretending to be charitable while in their heart of hearts, being as selfish as thy can be. It would be like some father or mother, neglecting their children by partying for several days, enjoying themselves while letting their children starve, decide at the end of the week they should give their children a meal to keep them alive, demanding in return a week of hard labor from their children for the food which they have been given. Should such parents be praised as being generous to their children? Far from it, and so, it must be said, shall we see those who pretend to give in charity while taking in excess what they can from society for themselves.

Charity, therefore, most always seek justice, though it can and should also transcend it, not by ignoring it, but by making things greater. We see this in what Jesus has accomplished for us. We receive from him not only the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of the original face of human nature, we also receive a share in the divine life, becoming as St Peter explained, partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Ptr. 1:4). We are made greater by God’s love for us, who in and through such love, creates a bond between God and us which lifts us up supernaturally beyond ourselves, to receive a goodness which transcends justice and yet does not run counter to it. And so, we in our charity in the world, must seek to do what we can, not only to restore justice, but to lift others up beyond its confines if and when we can. Charity cannot sit back and ignore injustice. Any who claim to act in charity but ignore injustice is to show that what they hold to is not charity but its false simulacra, and so without love, they will end up having nothing, not even the forgiveness of their own sins.

[1] St. Augustine, “Enchiridion” in NPNF1(3): 276.

[2] Marsilio Ficino, “The Commentary of Marsilio Ficino to Plato’s Republic” in When Philosophers Rule: Ficino on Plato’s Republic, Laws & Epinomis. trans. Arthur Farndell (London: Shepherd-Walwyn, 2009), 5.

[3] Ibid., 8.

[4] Ibid., 16.

[5] Zacchaeus, in his actions, showed not just justice, but charity, as he gave back more than what was necessary for the restoration of lost justice.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

No Compromise With Tyranny

March 13, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

David Ellis: USAF Museum 07-30-2019 204 – Lets Make A Deal / flickr

As we must never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we often have to embrace compromise, not only in our personal relationships, such as within marriage, but in society in general. This is especially true with politics. Politicians must make deals with each other, sometimes allowing things to be passed into law which they would otherwise oppose so that their initiatives also get approved. It is always better to promote the best of what is possible instead of demanding the impossible, but again, for that to happen, compromise will be necessary. The key is to make sure there is significant improvement as a result of a deal being made in a way that those involved will find that their conscience can accept the conditions of that deal. We must make sure everyone is in on the deal, everyone is working together for the common good, and that means, everyone is willing to compromise; if only one side is willing to compromise, and the other is not, then it is unlikely that any deals can and will be made. When this happens, the side which is unwilling to compromise is at fault, for what they want is pure submission, sometimes confusing the situation by calling such submission a compromise.

Negotiations are, of course, required to make for such compromises. But for those negotiations to take place, for deals, to be made, those involved in them must be able to trust each other. If one side has a history of consistently breaking whatever deals they have made in the past, it is understandable why the other side will not trust them. For, in such a situation, the side which does not plan to keep to their word can and will promise the world, making themselves look good, all the while seeking to use such negotiation to force the other side to do their will, to capitulate. This is why Ukraine, and those helping defend Ukraine, feel they cannot negotiate an end to the war with Russia, because they know Putin does not keep to the deals which he makes. Likewise, they know what Putin demands is unreasonable, as he wants Ukraine to basically surrender, allowing him then to do as he wills with the people who now come into his dominion (which means, they will suffer greatly, if not die, at his hands). Thus, Konstantin Sonin in the Moscow Times said:

The difficulty lies in the fact that negotiations with Putin are currently pointless because he cannot make any meaningful commitments. He can make promises in words, but in reality, these promises are worthless. Over his 20-year rule, he has promised practically everything — his signature is on the border treaty with Ukraine, for example. And he violated all of it. Over the past two years, he has broken almost every promise he made. Again, Putin himself may not even know about this. I suspect it would be a terrible risk for his subordinates to remind him of what he said a month, a year, or even a week ago. But everyone else knows that he breaks all of his promises. No matter how pragmatic and cynical a negotiator might be, what is the point of such negotiations?[1]

And, as Peter Dickinson explained, what led up to the current invasion was not a time of peace, but a time of Russia already being involved with its efforts to take over Ukraine, violating the deals it had already made. Russia was trying to act like it was doing nothing wrong, when in fact, it was involved in destabilizing Ukraine so that it can eventually create an excuse for its invasion:

Weeks after the military takeover of Crimea, Putin made similarly implausible claims of innocence as the same so-called “little green men” sparked a war in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. For the next eight years, Moscow officials would continue to stubbornly insist Russia was not involved in eastern Ukraine, despite mountains of evidence clearly demonstrating the presence of the Russian military and the Kremlin’s direct control over the entire invasion. Russia’s policy of blanket denials made it virtually impossible to establish a viable ceasefire or move forward toward a sustainable settlement of the war in eastern Ukraine. Instead, Moscow made sure the conflict remained unresolved and continued to simmer, setting the stage for the full-scale invasion of February 2022.[2]

This is why many in Ukraine, and around the world, disagree with Pope Francis and his hope that Russia and Ukraine could come together and negotiate an end to the war. It is not because they do not want peace. They certainly want peace. They want an end to the war. But they know capitulation to Putin is not the answer—all that would establish is a false peace. While it is understandable why Pope Francis, who rightfully sees war as an evil, wants an end to the current conflict, it cannot be done so long as Putin remains in power. He will only make a deal to break it in the near future. He will use the compromises made to bolster Russia while it prepares for his next war effort. Ukraine is only the first of many countries Russia plans to invade. The end to the war with Ukraine in this fashion will only help Russia as it makes its next plan. Ukraine stands in the way of further, worse wars. This is why a deal with Russia is not a deal to end war, or even to save lives. It will not mean peace. It will only mean a change in the war, while allowing Putin to continue to have the people in Ukraine face his wrath.

Similar to the way Putin has made it impossible for the world to trust Russia will keep its deals, in the United States, many within the Republican Party, those promoting and supporting Trump, especially House Republicans, prove they are unwilling to make the deals necessary for the sake of the common good. They do not negotiate, they make demands; they act like Biden needs to make a compromise, but what they mean is Biden must compromise his ideals and submit to their wishes, without ever making deals or compromises themselves. Those Republicans who do negotiate with Democrats, like Republican Senators who worked on a deal concerning the American border and how it will be protected, either become rejected by their party, or end up rejecting the very deal they made, showing once again, why it is nearly impossible to negotiate with Republicans. Biden and the Democrats made all kinds of concessions for a deal, but now, once again, the Republican commentary is that Biden, not the Republicans, need to compromise, as represented by what Nolan Rappaport wrote for The Hill:

If Biden really wants a bipartisan border security bill, he can work with the Republicans on combining provisions from the Senate Border Act with provisions from the bill that House Republicans passed last year, the Secure the Border Act of 2023 (H.R. 2). [3]

The Senate bill was bipartisan. Republicans got much of what they wanted out of it. The suggestion that Biden is unwilling to compromise, when that is what they did to produce the Senate bill, is indicative of the dishonesty involved in the American political landscape. Biden should not have to compromise with House Republicans to have the deal he made with Senate Republicans approved, as if the deal is all that he wanted and he had made no compromise to get it made. One side is being dishonest. They do not want to make deals: they want to make demands. It should never be forgotten deals were already made, and those now claiming they want Biden to compromise mean they want him to submit to their extreme ideological bill instead of the deals he made to make things better for everyone, deals which include elements which Biden’s supporters did not like and wish did not have to be made.

It is clear, what some mean by compromise is submission. This is what Putin means, and it is what many Republicans mean. It should not be surprising that we find Republicans not only acting like Putin, but seem to be his biggest supporters, trying to do all they can to give Putin what he wants. Neither Putin, not Republicans, want to engage in deal making, and neither seem capable of keeping to their side of the bargain. Certainly, Republicans do not come in good faith, which is why deals made with them are not kept. Republicans, however, say they are doing it all for their love of the state. They call it patriotism. But, because they dismiss notions of the common good, because they dismiss working for the betterment of the American people and promoting the social safety net needed for them, we must question their notion of patriotism. It seems their love for the state, for the United States, is more in line with what St. Thomas Aquinas said is the love a tyrant has for their state than it is with a love for good of the people within it:

But to love the good of any society so that it might be had or possessed, does not constitute the political good. Thus does a tyrant love the good of the state in order to dominate it, which is to love himself more than the state; for he desires this good for himself, not for the state. But to love the good of the state so that it might be preserved and defended, this is indeed to love the state, and this constitutes the political good. So much is this so, that men would expose themselves to dangers of death or neglect their own private good, in order to preserve or increase the good of the state. [4]

We do not see such nobility with the Republicans. If we pay attention, they are constantly telling us what they want to do, and what they want to do is gain power and destroy their enemies. They want to force the American people to do their bidding instead of finding ways to help the people. It is why so many Republicans like to praise tyrants like Viktor Orbán or even Putin. Tyranny cannot be reasoned with. Tyranny cannot be politically engaged. It must be confronted and toppled. This is why compromise has become impossible, both with Putin, but with Republicans in the United States. They have proven themselves only to be concerned about themselves and their own power and ability to enforce their ideology at the expense of the common good. Justice demands resistance, not capitulation when the common good is rejected in this fashion. Once those who are tyrannical are no longer involved in the discussion, perhaps things can change, deals can be made, but until then, there can be no compromise with those who think compromise means submission.

[1] Konstantin Sonin, “Why There Will Be No Negotiating With Putin” in Moscow Times (8-5-2023).

[2] Peter Dickinson, “Why Ukraine Refuses To Negotiate With ‘Habitual liar’ Vladimir Putin” in Atlantic Council (11-14-2023).

[3] Nolan Rappaport, “If Biden Wants A Border Bill, He’ll Need To Actually Compromise With Republicans” in The Hill (3-11-2024).

[4] St. Thomas Aquinas, On Charity. Trans. Lottie H. Kendzierski (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1960; repr. 1984). 29 [ Art. II].

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!

N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.

God’s Love Is Realized By Equity, Diversity And Inclusivity

March 11, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Mirta Toledo: Pure Diversity / Wikimedia Commons

We can learn about God by examining creation, and discerning within it the way God engages creation, that is, through our apprehension of the uncreated energies of God, we know there is a divine creator at work, even as we can apprehend various qualities about God because through the energies we learn how God works in and with creation itself. Similarly, we can learn something about God through the way created being can and does imagine God. Both of these show us how and why we can apprehend something about the qualities of God. For, not just through the uncreated energies, but also by the way created being imagines God, we can discern qualities about God, so long as we realize that when we use creation in this fashion, we do so by analogy, with all the limitations involved with their use:

Paul the apostle teaches us that the invisible things of God are understood by means of things that are visible, and that the things that are not seen are beheld through their relationship and likeness to things seen. He thus shows that this visible world teaches us about that which is invisible, and that this earthly scene contains certain patterns of things heavenly. Thus it is to be possible for us to mount up from things below to things above, and to perceive and understand from the things we see on earth the things that belong to heaven. On the pattern of these the Creator gave to His creatures on earth a certain likeness to these, so that thus their great diversity might be more easily deduced and understood. [1]

When we look to creation, we find contained in it is a great diversity of subjects and objects which, despite their diversity, are united as one. “The whole world, which consists of diverse parts, He bound together by an unbroken bond of attraction into one fellowship and harmony, so that objects which are farthest apart from each other in position seem to have been made one through affinity.”[2] Diversity and unity go hand in hand in creation, and when we can see the truth of this in relation to creation, we can begin to appreciate the truth of this as it is found with the divine nature. There is, to be sure, a limit of what we can accomplish by use of our apprehensions and reason. We can discern that diversity and unity can be found in God, even as it is found in creation, but we will not know how it does so without revelation. Christianity tells us the answer lies in the revelation God gave to us in Jesus Christ, the revelation which presents to us God as Triune, that is, with the teaching of the Trinity. In the interactions between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we are shown there are a plurality of divine persons, and yet we are told they are not divided from each other, but actually one.

Sin takes the diversity found in creation and uses it to divide up creation, undermining its natural unity. Sin break creation down into parts, and then further divides those parts up, making smaller and smaller parts, while also destroying the bonds which connects those parts together, so that not only is created unity destroyed, but the parts themselves can be and will be destroyed; if it is not stopped, sin would annihilate being itself. Nonetheless, despite the harm sin has caused, despite the way sin has tried to use the natural diversity found in creation to break it up into parts, it has not been able to completely destroy the unity which connects all creation together. All created being shares with each other a natural unity by the fact all of that exists in it participate in and has created being, and through that being, a common created nature. Only if created being itself was annihilated would that nature be destroyed, and with it, the unity which underlies creation would be completely abolished. God, in the incarnation, in the assumption of humanity, assumed that created nature, so that in and through the incarnate God-man, Jesus, sin is stopped from destroying created being, and the harm it has caused, could be reversed; in this way the original integral unity of creation could be and would be restored.

Jesus, shows us the unity and plurality of God, that is, the reality of the Trinity, and through it, we can then discern that creation, created in the image and likeness of God, likewise is intended to have a similar plurality in unity, meaning, Jesus, while bringing all things together as one, does so in a way of affirming their diversity

Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me (Jn. 17: 17-23 RSV).

Sin and love therefore use the diversity found in creation in different ways. Sin uses it to be divisive, while love uses it for the sake of establishing a harmonious unity where the diversity and unity complement each other. This is because sin is an afront on love, indeed, can be said to be fundamentally unlove. The truth of love, the truth of how it works to promote diversity in unity, is revealed to us in the teaching of the Trinity. Because God is love, we find that the love shared by the persons of the Trinity is what brings the Trinity together as one, with each person loving each other in their own relatively unique way. God also loves creation, a truth revealed to us in Jesus, for in Jesus, we see God and creation are united as one without mixture or confusion. Thus, love shows us diversity must be inclusive, not exclusive, for the way of unjust exclusion lies with the way of sin and its desire to divide everything up:

The power of love is to unite what has been separated or divided. It brings into harmony and unity a diversity without destroying the differences. It, rather, exalts the diversity into a uniqueness so that the love of God is glorified in such individuated love for each of His creatures. The more you are raised by God’s Spirit to the intimate presence of God, Father, Son and Spirit, living and loving within you with an infinite love, the more you and all the saints in Christ begin to enter into communion, a union with other human beings and, also, in union with all other creatures.[3]

This is why it is important for Christians not only to recognize the fundamental unity of creation, but also the rich diversity found in it: the two are to work together and complement each other. Love is inclusive. It is affirmative in nature. But, of course, love also expects justice, and it is only on the basis of justice, not its rejection, that love is able to elevate that which was undermined by sin.

Christians must affirm both diversity and inclusivity, for denying either element will be a denial of love and justice. Diversity and inclusiveness are a part of the kingdom of God because they are first found in the Godhead itself. While in the eschaton, God will reign with equity, affirming the diversity which comes together as one in an inclusive bond of love, Christians are expected to live out their lives reflecting the eschatological kingdom, which means, they are to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their lives, seeing that by doing so, they are seeking to bring out the words of the “Our Father” which say “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This is how they are to work for and establish the common good. And if this is what they affirm, then they should be able to work with and promote the common good even with non-Christians, knowing that in doing so, they are once again affirming diversity in unity and not using unity as a way to denigrate that diversity

True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.[4]

And, certainly. Christians should act upon those ideals in their political engagement:

All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity. They must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions, and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods. Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good; it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good.[5]

Christians are not to be integralists; their actions must serve equity through inclusive plurality in a way which affirms in the state an acceptance of a plurality of religion, a plurality of beliefs and practices. That is, they should not expect all aspects of Christian morality being reflected in positive law. Indeed, they should understand why many actions which Christianity has discerned as being immoral should not be regulated by the law, because people should be given room to exercise their freedom. But, within the Christian community, within the institutional church, they can and should work even more for the promotion of equity, and with it, inclusive diversity, because the church is meant to signify the kingdom of God to the world. Thus, in relation to Christian identity, diversity is not to be used to signify division, but rather, serve as the basis by seeing how everyone will be made better when they come together as incorporated into the mystical body of Christ:

By divine institution Holy Church is ordered and governed with a wonderful diversity. “For just as in one body we have many members, yet all the members have not the same function, so we, the many, are one body in Christ, but severally members one of another”. Therefore, the chosen People of God is one: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”; sharing a common dignity as members from their regeneration in Christ, having the same filial grace and the same vocation to perfection; possessing in common one salvation, one hope and one undivided charity. There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex, because “there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all ‘one’ in Christ Jesus”.[6]

We must be careful and not misread this as meaning the plurality of persons, and their relative distinctions, will be absorbed by Christ. Rather, we must understand, as S.L. Frank explained it, total unity unites everything in such a way that every “part” affirms the whole as the whole affirms and is found in every “part” of that integral unity (which, of course, we see revealed in the teaching of the Trinity):

On the contrary, total unity as a true unity is, as we have seen, the unity of unity and diversity: a unity which not only embraces all its own parts and points but also inwardly permeates them in such a way that it is also contained as a whole in each part and point. Thus, each point of being, though it has all else outside of itself, nonetheless in its place and in its way is the whole itself, total unity itself. [7]

Thus, each person will incorporate Christ into themselves, even as Christ will incorporate them into himself. In this way, there will be no division in Christ, no male nor female, no Jew or Gentile, because every person, no matter their relative distinction which distinguishes them from each other, will fully incorporate Christ in them and have Christ incorporate them into himself. To understand this, we should look at the eucharist and how in the reception of the eucharist, we do not receive a mere part of Christ, but the fullness of Christ. Indeed, it can be said that the eucharist is what makes possible the unity of all human persons in Christ, for it is in and through the eucharist, they join together and become one in a communion of love. Communion, therefore, presents us the truth of equity and how it establishes an inclusive plurality in Christ. Those Christians, therefore, who seek to deny equity, plurality, or inclusiveness, undermine communion; this means, when they partake of the eucharist, they risk doing so with an unworthy intention, for they seek to continue to promote the division and destruction brought about by sin. On the other hand, those who promote the equity and the diversity and inclusiveness expected of it will truly be living out the Christian way of life, because they will be following the example of Christ himself, who, in his reign, reigns with equity, bringing together the world in one glorious diversity and unity.

[1] Origen, “The Song of Songs: Commentary” in Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary And Homilies. Trans. R.P. Lawson (New York: Newman Press, 1956), 218

[2] St. Basil the Great, “Hexaemeron” in Saint Basil: Exegetic Homilies. Trans. Agnes Clare Way, CDP (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1963), 24.

[3] George A. Maloney, SJ, Communion of Saints (Hauppauge, NY: Living Flame Press, 1988), 121.

[4] Guadium et spes. Vatican translation. ¶29.

[5] Guadium et spes. Vatican translation. ¶75.

[6] Lumen gentium. Vatican translation. ¶32.

[7] S. L. Frank, The Unknowable: An Ontological Introduction To The Philosophy of Religion. Trans. Boris Jakim (Brooklyn, NY: Angelico Press, 2020), 114.

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!

Pope Francis Presents God’s Solidarity With The Vulnerable

March 6, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Anagoria: Mosaic Icon Of Christ The Merciful; Museum Of Byzantine Art (inv. 6430), Bode Museum, Berlin / Wikimedia Commons

The preferential option for the poor and vulnerable must never be ignored, let alone rejected, by Christians. God takes into consideration our weakness and our needs, even if some of those needs come from things we have done to hurt ourselves, and responds to them with love, coming down to meet us on our level. God did this in a variety of ways, including in the way God has revealed the truth to us: “First of all, we must realize that God did not speak to Himself, but to us, and adapted the words of His discourse to our power of comprehension, so to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp His meaning.”[1] The greatest revelation of this is found, not in mere words, but in the Word of God become flesh, in the incarnation, when God became one of us.

God has compassion for us in our weakness, indeed, God has compassion for the weakness of everyone, and because of God’s extreme love, God always addresses us and engages us in our weakness, so that those who are weaker than others, receive more of God’s compassionate love. That is, the more need someone has of God’s grace, the more God will offer it. This, likewise, was revealed to us in the earthly ministry of Jesus, for, if we pay careful attention, we will see he was constantly demonstrating the kingdom of God through the way he helped the sick and those who were oppressed or treated as outcasts of society.

Jesus showed his love for the vulnerable by joining in with their lot, indeed, by taking on and becoming vulnerable himself (as exemplified in the way he let himself be taken by Roman authorities and executed on the cross). When we give ourselves over to Jesus to be incorporated into his body via baptism, when we incorporate him into ourselves through communion, we should embrace his vulnerability and love, making it a key part of our lives as well. We should be so filled with compassion and love that our hearts will be full of care and concern for those who are needy and vulnerable. Just as Jesus revealed his love for the vulnerable by becoming vulnerable himself, we should likewise embrace our own vulnerability. Then, like Jesus, we will join in solidarity with those who need our love and compassion, helping them bear the burden as well as by showing them that their vulnerability, their weakness, does not undermine their own personal dignity. We can see this being demonstrated by Pope Francis who has shown us and that he embraces his own personal weakness, his own sickness, using it not only to further understand the condition the vulnerable find themselves in, but to highlight the way all Christians should take up the cause of the vulnerable by first understanding and embracing their own vulnerability:

First of all: to welcome vulnerable brothers and sisters, I need to feel vulnerable and accepted as such by Christ. He always precedes us: He made Himself vulnerable, up to the Passion; He accepted our fragility so that, thanks to Him, we can do likewise. Saint Paul writes: “Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you” (cf. Rm 15:7). If we remain in Him, like branches on the vine, we will bear good fruit, also in this vast field of welcome.[2]

If we do this, we will be able to accept the vulnerable, those who are poor and needy, those who are sick, are people with a dignity of their own, a dignity which means they should be loved and not just treated as mere objects by us, even if we do so with good intentions: “In the Gospel, the poor, the vulnerable, are not objects: they are subjects, they are protagonists together with Jesus in the proclamation of the Kingdom of God.” [3] We are to be with them, to show them love, recognizing each one is a person with their own wants and needs which might differ with the wants and needs of others. This requires us not to assume one particular way or practice can and will help them all, because such initiatives tend to be impersonal:

Jesus spent the majority of His public ministry, especially in Galilee, in contact with the poor and sick of every kind. This tells us that for us, vulnerability cannot be a “politically correct” theme, or a mere organization of practices, however good they may be. I say this because the risk is there, it is always lurking, despite all good will. Especially in the largest and most structured bodies, but even in small ones, vulnerability can become a category, individual people without a face, service a “provision” and so on. So, we must remain firmly anchored in the Gospel, in Jesus, who did not teach His disciples how to plan aid to the sick and the poor. Jesus wanted to form disciples in a style of life, staying in contact with the vulnerable, in their midst.[4]

This does not mean we should not promote aid programs to help the needy, but it means we should not limit our engagement with them to such an impersonal means. We certainly should look into systemic (and systemic) causes to their pain and suffering, creating social justice programs which counter those causes, but we must not assume that is all we can and should be doing. We are called to love, and to do that, we must be willing to be with those in need of that love, to embrace them, to show them we truly care about them and their lives. Love without justice is not love, and so, we certainly should be concerned about what justice expects from us concerning their material well-being, but justice without love is insufficient. We must start with justice, but we can only end with love.

In what he said about how we are to deal with the vulnerable. Pope Francis echoed the sentiment of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who, in describing what a ruler (that is, a ruler in the church, a bishop, though with words which can apply to others) should be like, wrote:

The ruler should be a near neighbour to every one in sympathy, and exalted above all in contemplation, so that through the bowels of loving-kindness he may transfer the infirmities of others to himself, and by loftiness of speculation transcend even himself in his aspiration after the invisible; lest either in seeking high things he despise the weak things of his neighbours, or in suiting himself to the weak things of his neighbours he relinquish his aspiration after high things.[5]

Those in positions of authority should use their authority for the sake of the common good. To engage the common good, a good leader will engage those who are the most needy and do what they can to relieve them of their pain and suffering, sharing in it themselves if it is necessary – even as, for an example, a good doctor might risk contagion to save the life of a patient, or, in relation to God, how God, in the incarnation, took on our infirmities and embraced them all so that we can be relieved of them in the eschatological kingdom. We should follow this spirit in and with our lives, loving others, especially those in most need of it, realizing with St. Isaac the Syrian, we must demonstrate that love with a humble embrace of the other without being unnecessarily harsh with them and having them turn away from us because of how we rebuke them: “If you wish to heal the infirm, you know that the sick are in greater need of loving care than rebuke.” [6] That is, though people might, in some ways, be partially responsible for the condition they find themselves in, if all they experience from us is some sort of rebuke, they will ignore us and turn their back on us, even if we have the means to help them, because they feel that help comes at too a cost: their own personal agency and dignity.

We should take on the role of a doctor, of the one who is willing to embrace the sick, even if it puts ourselves at risk, doing what we can to help those in need, treating them as people worthy of respect and love. “I am medicine for the sick. May I be both the doctor and their nurse, until the sickness does not recur. “[7] This is exactly what God has done for us in and through the incarnation. He is the medicine which creation needs. He shares himself and his fullness to all creation. He gave his all to us on the cross so that the power of sin and death could be overcome. Now, through his passion and resurrection, the sickness unto death will not recur in the eschatological kingdom of God. We, upon seeing God’s mercy and love, should embrace it, not only by receiving what God gives us, but also by acting upon it, showing that same love and care we have received to others. Having joined ourselves to Christ, we should take on his mission for ourselves, becoming, therefore, medicine to the sick and poor, to those who are in need, dealing with them on a personal level, making sure everyone receives the same compassionate care as everyone else, so that then, in the end, God’s eschatological kingdom will truly be a kingdom of love, where equity reigns.

[1] St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity. Trans. Stephen McKenna, CSSR (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), 309.

[2] Pope Francis, “Message To The Participants In The Conference ‘Vulnerability And Community Between Welcome And Inclusion’” (3-1-2024). Vatican translation.

[3] Pope Francis, “Message To The Participants In The Conference ‘Vulnerability And Community Between Welcome And Inclusion’.”

[4] Pope Francis, “Message To The Participants In The Conference ‘Vulnerability And Community Between Welcome And Inclusion.”

[5] St. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule. Trans. James Barmby, DD in NPNF2(12): 12.

[6] Saint Isaac the Syrian, The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Trans. Monks of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Rev. 2^nd ed (Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2011), 378 [Homily 51].

[7] Śāntideva, The Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra. Trans. Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; repr. 1998), 20 [3.7].

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!

Responding To Abuse Coming From The Institutional Church

March 4, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Milliped: Graffiti Made About The Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandal / Wikimedia Commons

The institutional church has faced and continues to face scandal after scandal because many who had been given positions of power and authority because they appeared to be holy and just were completely unworthy of the trust given to them. They were wolves in sheep’s clothing. In one way or another they abused that trust by the way they treated people, some of course, being far worse than others in this regard. What they had done would have been scandal enough, though, it would have been the kind of scandal which is difficult to avoid because they hid their true nature and it only came to light later. But the greater scandal, and the kind which has caused many to question their relationship with the institutional church, is the kind of response the institutional church has given when some of its members, especially its leaders, have been exposed for terrible wrongdoing, such as sexually abusing someone under their care. Instead of immediately acting for the sake of the victims, and preventing further victims by removing such people from positions of power, the institutional church has had a history of defending the abusers, protecting them and their character, even when it learned that accusations against them were true. When it did this, the institutional church joined in with the abuse, and the victims, and their loved ones, and those who learned what happened to them, end up finding themselves in a situation in which they do not know what to do, as they do not know who they can trust. They think those who should have been most interested in protecting the innocent have lost sight of their duty and therefore, it might be justified to stand apart from them so long as no legitimate reform is had. Even those who feel they can and should stay within the institutional church must understand why others cannot, and support and defend the actions of those who can’t while working to change the institution from within.

When abusers are exposed, especially when their actions are clearly criminal, not only should they be removed from positions of power and authority, they should be turned over to secular authorities, with the institutional church helping the state deal with them as the law indicates. Certainly, in the secular sphere, they have some rights, as their crimes will have to be proven in a court of law, but it is also true, when someone is charged with crimes such as sexual abuse, until they are proven innocent, they will need to be kept separate from the rest of the community, making sure that those who are innocent are not unjustly abused by some vigilante, but also, to make sure those who are guilty do not have the opportunity to continue to abuse others because their crimes have been covered up and hidden.

While, in theory, there seems to be better recognition that the institutional church has had many abusive people put in positions of authority (not just as clergy, but also, those in lay positions of authority, such as teachers in a religious school), it still has not reformed itself enough, and it appears there is more work done in defending its reputation than helping the victims of abuse.[1] Pope St. Gregory the Great understood the problem; he indicated that among those who hurt the church and its mission the most are those who pretend to be holy and just so as to gain positions of power, for once they have them, they can easily use that power for great evil:

For certainly no one does more harm in the Church than one who has the name and rank of sanctity, while he acts perversely. For him, when he transgresses, no one presumes to take to task; and the offense spreads forcibly for example, when out of reverence to his rank the sinner is honoured. But all who are unworthy would fly from the burden of so great guilt, if with the attentive ear of the heart they weighed the sentence of the Truth, Whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.[2]

As the church, which is more than the institutional church, is the body of Christ, each person within it is said to represent something of the human body, such as a hand or an eye. Traditionally, some have suggested that in connection to the institutional church, bishops represent eyes, and priests, hands, so that when we read Jesus telling us to pluck out the eye or the hand which would be used for sin, it means we should remove wicked bishop and priests from positions of power and authority, once their wickedness is made known, lest the Christian community is held guilty for their sins:

Hence, if this type of eye, that is, bishop, through his depraved faith and disgraceful manner of life becomes a scandal to the church, he commands him to be plucked out, that is, cast out of the body, lest the people be held guilty for his sin. For it is written that “a little leaven corrupts the whole lump” [1 Cor 5:6]. And again, “Remove the evil man from your midst” [1 Cor 5:13]. The hand is understood to signify a priest who, if he holds to a depraved faith or does not lift uprightly, creates a scandal to God’s people. The Lord commands that he be cut off, that is, cast out, lest the church becomes defiled by his sin.[3]

To be sure, there is more to the church that its clergy. There can be and are many laity in positions of authority, so that, what is said about bishops and priests, can be and should be said about them as well.

Not everyone who becomes a great sinner started out seeking to be one. Many who end up becoming abusive in some fashion or another started out with holy desires, but they did not have the proper discipline, the proper self-control, the proper character needed to live out a holy life when given such authority. This, once again, explains why it can be and is extremely difficult to complete root out such abuse in all situations. They are deluded about themselves, and the people who give them authority, are also deluded, so that in and through such a delusion, but once they have gained a semblance of power, it corrupts them, and instead of doing what they should do and renounce their power, they begin to use it for their passions; they love it for what it brings to them, leading to the conclusion that: “The deluded ruler hastens to obtain power.”[4]

Those who hold a position of rank and authority, bear far greater responsibility for their actions than those who do not, which is why we should expect and demand far greater consequences for their actions than those who have not abused such authority. Sadly, it often appears that the opposite is true, not only in the institutional church, but in society at large: those who have power use it to defend themselves and subvert any attempt top reign in abuses, while those who have no power, have no way to defend themselves, and so receive the greatest punishments for what they have done. While we can understand why this happens in civil society, and why it might be difficult to implement proper reforms, the institutional church should know better, and so it should be held that much more responsible for what happens when it fails to meet the obligations of justice.

When people within and without the institution sees this is not the case, its mission is impeded, as many will have a legitimate reason not to want to do anything with it. Instead of blaming the victims, or those who are concerned about them, the institutional church should look within and accept, so long as it needs reform, people can justly stand apart from it without losing their relationship with the church of Christ itself (as the church of Christ subsists in the institution, but is not bound by it). It should not try to defend itself with spiritual abuse, threatening those who feel they must stand apart from it, telling them that if they do so, they will separate themselves from the body of Christ, and so lose all chance of salvation. Even St. Augustine said differently.

[1] Abuse can be of many kinds. While sexual abuse is the kind most commonly discussed, there can be and are other forms of abuse, from physical abuse (such as torture), to psychological and spiritual abuse.

[2] St. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule. Trans. James Barmby, DD in NPNF2(12): 2-3.

[3] St. Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermons and Tractates on Matthew. Trans. Thomas P. Scheck (New York: Newman Press, 2018), 201-2 [Tractate 23].

[4] Xunzi, The Complete Text. Trans. Eric L. Hutton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 117.

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!

God Reigns With Equity

March 1, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Petar Milošević: Pantocrator – Nativity Of The Theotokos Church, Bitola, North Macedonia / Wikimedia Commons

Each and every human person shares with each other the one and the same human nature; by nature, they are not only equal, they are meant to united together as one. Sin undermines that natural unity. It has humanity divide up against itself, turning persons into individuals who are no longer equal to each other, and the more they sin, the more such individuals will find themselves divided against each other, with some of them being obtaining more than their just and fair share of the goods meant to be shared by all humanity, with others obtaining far less, indeed, many not obtaining the basic necessities all humans need to survive. That is, many people suffer grievously so that those who have obtained more than their fair share of the goods of the earth can continue to possess them and enjoy them at their own leisure. Justice indicates that in such a situation, those who have more should give to those who do not have what they need so that such grave imbalances should be rectified. Justice, therefore, promotes equity, which is why, in the eschatological kingdom of God, where true justice is preserved, God reigns in and with equity: “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity” (Ps. 45:6 RSV).

We should learn from God’s reign, embracing the dictates of equity, seeing it is the fruit of divine wisdom, the wisdom which we should act upon ourselves:

For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and preserving the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path; for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul (Prov. 2:6-10 RSV).

Inequity denies justice, and when justice is denied, what transcends justice, charity, will also be denied. Christians should not be critical of the expectations of equity; indeed, they should embrace it, for if they do so, they show their love for Christ, the Bridegroom: “Therefore, because the height of perfection consists in charity, and charity allows nothing of iniquity—and where there is no iniquity, there surely is equity—it is rightly said to be Equity that loves the Bridegroom.”[1]

The Christian tradition consistently tells us to promote equity. Indeed, to resist equity is to support its opposite, inequity, which is sin, and with it, the harm which sin causes in the world (dividing up and destroying humanity instead of building it up and bringing it together as one). We should defend the rights of anyone, including ourselves, when we discern some grave injustice, some grave inequity, in the world:

It is sufficient for such a merely formal equity that each man defends his rights. But if I defend only my own it shows that I am not concerned for the rights as such but only because they are mine: that is, I am defending myself, my own interests. And if everyone stands up only for himself and what is his, common rights and social equity are nothing more than an abstract notion, justice becomes simply the theoretical balance of various, particular forces. Now in fact our idea of justice goes beyond this abstraction; we have a lively moral perception of it which radically modifies the principle and quality of our actions; it causes us to defend the person and rights of others as well as of ourself. And then it becomes clear that right and equity are in themselves worth something to us. [2]

This is why we are given the example of the Good Samaritan. By showing us what we should be like with our neighbor, Jesus tells us the practical expectations love places upon us:

This charity, however, reckons all men as neighbours. For on that account the Saviour rebuked someone, who thought that the obligation to behave neighbourly did not apply to a righteous soul in regard to one who was sunk in wickedness; and for that same reason He made up the parable that tells how a certain man fell among robbers, as he was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and blames the priest and the Levite, who passed by when they saw the man half-dead, but approves the Samaritan who showed mercy. [3]

We must find those who are poor, those who suffer hatred, those have been unjustly pushed down, and work to bring them relief. We must undermine the systemic structure of sin, and the systems which put it in place (i.e., systematic structures of sin), realizing such systems are all founded upon and seek to preserve inequity in the world. Certainly, we must realize that things will not be perfect in the world, that we cannot produce a utopia, that only in the eschaton, will equity be fully realized (and transcended). But, on the other hand, our work for equity will be taken up by God and used in the establishment of the eschaton, which is why such work, even if it is not perfected in our lifetime, is important:

The things that you refer to as works of piety and mercy are necessary in this age, as long as iniquity continues to dominate. Their practice would not be called for even here were there not an overwhelming number of poor, needy, and sick people, which is the result of the wickedness of men who have seized for their own use – but not used – those things that were bestowed upon all by the Creator of all. As long as such iniquity is rampant in this world, then, this behavior will be necessary and beneficial to the one who practices it, crowning a good disposition and a pious will with the reward of an eternal legacy. But this will cease in the world to come, where equity will rule and when there will no longer exist the inequity that made these things obligatory. Then everyone will pass over from this multiform or practical activity to the contemplation of divine things in perpetual purity of heart. [4]

We must not use the fact that only in the eschaton will God’s equitable reign be realized as an excuse to ignore our work for justice. That is, we should not embrace some sort of quietist error thinking we should abandon the world and all that is in it, engaging our own personal holiness while letting inequity thrive:

In view of this one should consider whether they act justly who, removing themselves from all occupations and devoting themselves to spiritual pursuits, do nothing for human society, and, preferring their own desires to the advantage of all, disregard the common good by choosing a welcome freedom. For, to be unwilling to help the afflicted when you can, to wish to enjoy restful quiet without regard for the common good is surely not equity. Those who respect this equity of all life for the good of all and, as though born for another, guard and love one another’s salvation. [5]

To be sure, there are many ways we can go about working for justice, promoting the welfare of the dispossessed. Some of us will do so through a more contemplative form of life, but it is important to recognize, against quietism, that even those called to contemplation must not engage it selfishly, thinking only about ourselves and our own contemplative work. Traditionally, contemplatives have been involved in all kinds of labor while embracing a life of contemplation, and in and with that labor, they have been found doing work which helps promotes justice in the world. This is why many contemplative resources remind contemplatives not to ignore the needs of those who come to them for help, but to offer them hospitality, and to speak on their behalf if the situation requires it.

Christians, therefore, must embrace equity, recognizing its role in executing justice in the world. They should understand, as Scripture points out, God reigns with equity, and so to reject equity, is to reject God’s reign, that is, to go against God and so embrace sin.

[1] Origen, “The Song of Songs: Commentary” in Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary And Homilies. Trans. R.P. Lawson (New York: Newman Press, 1956), 89.

[2] Vladimir Solovyey, God, Man & The Church. The Spiritual Foundations Of Life. Trans. Donald Attwater (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2016), 38.

[3] Origen, “The Song of Songs: Commentary,” 33-4.

[4] John Cassian, The Conferences. Trans. Boniface Ramsey, OP (New York: Newman Press, 1997), 49 [First Conference;; Abba Moses].

[5] Julianus Pomerius, The Contemplative Life. Trans. Mary Josephine Suelzer, PhD (Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1947), 155-6.

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!

Often, Christians Are The Ones Who Undermine Human Rights

February 28, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

badlyricpolice from Portland: Human Rights / Wikimedia Commons

The state should protect the common good, and with it, human rights, including the rights of those who are not citizens of the state. Human rights are universal, meaning, they transcend borders. This was, in part, one of the ideas which the founders of the United States employed to justify their independence from Great Britain; they believed that their rights had be violated, and to protect them, they had to cut ties from England. While it is good to see the notion of human rights beginning to be established at the foundation of the United States, sadly, many of those who talked about such rights ignored them when it came to others, such as slaves or Native Americans. They believed in universal rights, but they believed they were not given to everyone; that is, those who have them, have them without restriction, while those who do not, can be restricted in all kinds of ways. This continues to be an ideological position many hold today. They think they have rights which cannot be rejected, but they can and do reject the rights of others. We can see this in the way some talk about the right to own and use arms, a right which many find questionable; they think nothing can and should stop them from owning guns or their right to use it if they ever believe they need to (even if the need is not there), while they are among the first to deny the rights of people to migrate and seek a place of refuge for themselves and their families. This is why it is important, when talking about rights, it must be made clear not only what those rights are, but who has them. We cannot assume that everyone believes rights are universal, applicable to everyone, even if they say words which suggest they believe in universal human rights, because they often can and do find ways to undermine those rights for others, like the Founding Fathers of the United States did when they upheld slavery or thought many rights, like the right to vote, was related to the possession of property and not human dignity.

While the question of how those rights are made known, and even, the question of what makes something a right, is not to be ignored, we must not assume that if people agree on the source(s) for human rights, they agree on what those rights are, or even for whom they apply. White Supremacists can and often do say rights are God-given, but they will say that God has made them superior, so they alone possess all rights, and everyone else has less or no rights, depending up various qualifications (such as the purity of their racial makeup). Atheists, on the other hand, can have a logical rational which they use to explain why people should be given rights, and in all practical purposes, promote the common good, making them morally superior to White Supremacists who believe God made them superior and to be in control. This is why, in civil society, the question of the source of human rights, while important, often can get in the way of promoting human rights. Christians, dealing with the question, should not assume atheists will lead to their dissolution even as they should not assume belief in God will lead to the promotion of the dignity of all human persons and the rights that dignity should entail.

We should not get sidetracked and stuck in and with philosophical and theological questions when practical concerns are at stake. Jesus, in his parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as in his presentation of the Last Judgment, demonstrated this point: in both situations, what is important is not the religious faith of the person, but the deeds they do. The Good Samaritan represented how we should be in the world, and, to Jesus’ audience, it would have been understood that though the Samaritan was fundamentally wrong in his beliefs, he was shown to be in the right in his actions, demonstrating such beliefs are not necessary for someone to follow the basic principles God wants us to engage. With the Last Judgment, it was not one’s religious adherence, but what one does, which will be judged, and those who live a life of charity will be shown to be working with and for Jesus, even if they did not know it.

Christians need to work with all those who promote human dignity and use that to understand universal rights, and contend against those who would limit those rights and abuse them, turning them to be a thing accorded to a privileged few (like seen coming from White Supremacy), especially if those few believe among those rights are their own domination and power over everyone else (i.e., some sort of manifest destiny). Christians need to make sure everyone, including non-Christians, including people who are not citizens of the country they find themselves in, are shown basic human dignity so that their rights are not violated. Sadly, with the rise of a new Christian Nationalism, Christians often are the ones who stand in the way of the realization of those rights.

Marsilio Ficino, in talking about laws, can also be used to represent the ways in which rights are understood and preserved:

Human laws are accepted from the outset or, once accepted, are kept in being in these ways only: through arguments from common custom based on human and natural principles; through some dictatorial authority or the force of arms; or through ease and convenience of living and the allurements of pleasure. [1]

Christians should understand that non-Christians can and will often accept all kinds of natural principles (philosophical reasonings) to support human rights and their promotion. Of course, like with many Christians, many non-Christians will promote human rights for selfish reasons, seeing that their own personal welfare is protected by the acceptance of such rights, and so will give them to others so that they can have them as well. Sadly, it seems many Christians have abandoned natural principles and instead come to promote the notion that might makes right, and this can be used as one explanation for the rise of Christian Nationalism, as they are being told their might has been given to them by God, and it gives them the right to enforce their ideologies, and anyone who stands in their way, can be and should be seen as so dangerous, whatever human rights they might have had, are to be ignored.

Vatican II should have helped pave the way for Catholics to look for and take practical concerns seriously, instead of circling back to some apologetical point for Christian integralism (and therefore, Christian Nationalism). Catholics, indeed, Christians can and should recognize they have disagreements with non-Christians on various fundamentals, but they can and will agree on other fundamentals, allowing them to promote the common good together. Christians should not even be afraid of atheists who do not believe that rights are God-given because atheists can and still will follow the basic principles which Christians believe should be used to determine them and their applicability (principles which Christian can believe are instilled in each and every person, believer or non-believer alike, which is why they can and will come to have such agreements):

While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live; such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue. Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person. The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God’s temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.[2]

Vatican II gives examples of the rights which people, from different backgrounds, and religious faiths have come to accept:

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious.[3]

Many of these rights are being routinely being denied by nationalists, Christian or otherwise, in the United States to those who are not citizens of the United States. Once the rights are denied, then even helping migrants can become illegal, which is what we see happening in various states, like Texas, where Christian charities are being sued because they are giving basic necessities to migrants. Sadly, it is often those who proclaim themselves Christian, if not also a Christian Nationalists, who are undermining basic human rights, all the while proclaiming human rights are given by God, leading to the question if they actually think those they deny such rights to are actually human (and, to be clear, this is not a made-up concern, as history shows many Christians have questioned the humanity of various other humans).

Human rights are important. Human dignity is important. Human rights flow from human dignity. Secular society can and will promote human dignity, but it will not require everyone to agree as to the source and foundation of that dignity. It is more important to work with that dignity and promote it than it is to theorize on it, even as, Jesus said in the parable of the Last Judgment, it is those who did the work of love whom God knows, not those who claimed to follow God in thoughts and words by acted against the principles of love. Christian tradition has long recognized that human rights are indeed God-given, but it has also recognized non-Christians will also accept those rights, in various way, but especially in the way God has formed the conscience in every human person, so that they can and do have a good foundation they use to promote universal human rights. What is important for society is not the epistemological, ontological, or theological grounds for human rights, but results. Those who act out of love and promote human dignity, no matter their background, should work together, even as those who undermine such dignity should be resisted, no matter their religious faith. For, as Walter Kasper has said, those who work for the good of each other will come in solidarity, promoting justice in the world, a justice which expects everyone to respect each other:

Freedom that is conscious of its own dignity will always respect the freedom of others. It will be in solidarity with their freedom, and will stand up for it. Freedom, therefore, is not “freedom from others,” but “freedom with and for” others. Freedom is realized in justice, which gives everyone his or her due. Freedom concretely presupposes that everyone else will respect their own freedom. It presupposes thereby a system of justice, that is, at the same time, a regulated system of freedom. [4]

This is exactly what the promotion of human rights and dignity entails: freedom, true freedom for all, not just for some, as exemplified by the work for justice in the world, a justice which cannot be established if people are trying to find ways to fight each other instead of unite and work together for the common good.

[1] Marsilio Ficino, The Letters of Marsilio Ficino. Volume 4 (Liber v). trans. by members of the Language Department of the School of Economic Science, London (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1988), 3 [Letter 1: To His Friends].

[2] Guadium et spes. Vatican translation. ¶20.

[3] Guadium et spes, ¶26.

[4] Walter Kasper, Mercy. Trans. William Madges (New York: Paulist Press, 2013), 200-1.

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!

Sin, Mercy, Grace, And Reparations

February 21, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Lawrence OP: The New Adam Raises The Old Adam. Detail Of A Window In King’s College Chapel, Cambridge / flickr

Christianity is a religion of mercy and grace, but such mercy and grace would be worthless if it were not also a religion of truth and justice. The truth matters. Justice matters. Mercy and grace only make sense if we recognize that satisfaction must be made for injustices. Neither would be needed if we are not to be held responsible for what we do, that is, for our sin. Both are necessary once we understand the harm we have done goes beyond what we can fix all by ourselves. We would be stuck, without a way out, without hope for things to be better, if we could not receive mercy and grace. Mercy and grace are offered as ways to help us deal with the consequences of injustices, to make sure that all the harm we have caused does not get the last say.

What we should realize is that when we receive mercy and grace we are still expected to repent and change our ways, that is, to reform ourselves. Grace is not being given so that people can continue doing whatever evil they did in the past with the presumption that grace will take care of all their problems. Grace is not cheap. We have been warned that we will have to deal with the harm we done to others, or to the world as a whole: “Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny” (Matt. 5:25-26 RSV). The accuser will be those who we have wronged; the judge is the just judge, Jesus, whom we will encounter in the last judgment, and who will make sure we will deal with all our sins:

But if someone does not obey the unspoken will of the Holy Spirit and shows himself to be resistant, doubtless a man of this sort, after his departure from this life, must be offered to the Son of God, who is judge of the living and the dead, by whom he is handed over to that officer, that is, to the angel of torments, to be thrown into the prison of Gehenna. From there he will not be released until he pays back even the last penny, that is, discharges the entire penalty of the debt down to the last sin. [1]

We are offered grace so that through it, we can turn our lives around, and after doing so, have the means to fix what we have damaged in the world. Grace perfects nature; what lies beyond our ability to repair can be accomplished by grace, but if we neglect what we can do by ourselves, we will find grace remains inactive. This is why we can’t treat grace as the solution to everything and think we have nothing to do ourselves. We have been told differently. We have been told to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (cf. Philip. 2:12). We will have to pay back the last penny.

All of this is true, not only for each and one of us on a personal level, but for humanity as a collective whole. Injustices in the past, such as slavery, must be rectified, not just by the cessation of the evil activity, but by overturning the harm it has caused. Sin has a social dimension to it, and so it requires social solutions. Just as there is to be no cheap grace in regards personal sins, there is no cheap grace in relation to social sins. Mercy and grace can be and should still be involved in the equation, but they should not be used to ignore our own responsibilities.

Christianity, in its understanding of the fall of humanity, demonstrates the social impact of sin and how it can and will affect later generations. Original sin is, as it were, the spiritual climate change which affects the human race. We are born into a world conditioned by the sins of the past. Original sin should not be seen as coming from a one-time event; rather, it is a reflection of humanity and the fall of humanity and the sins of humanity as they collectively affect human history.

Social sin, and the responsibility connected to it, will be with us til the end of the world, whereupon it will receive judgment by Christ:

But we are wretched sinners, yes, and our putrid works follow after us as well. These works are indelibly written in the book of fates [cf. Rev. 20:13], yet their impact extends beyond the borders of this human life. They enter into the fates of all human beings, in the history of all humanity, and upon each one of us hangs the fate of the entire world. We must pull back neither from participation nor from responsibility, and until the end of human history our works will endure. For this reason the Dread Judgment will occur simultaneously over all humanity, and each has lived the life of all humanity, each of the sons of Adam is the entire, ancient Adam. [2]

Trying to ignore social responsibility to sin, trying to say some evil done in the past is not our present responsibility is based upon a false understanding of humanity and human history. It tries to have every person turned into an individual cut off from everyone else, no longer influenced by or affected by each other. It falls for the error of sin itself, for sin tries to break down what should be united. We are not meant to be an island cut off from everyone else. We are meant to join be one, sharing with each other all that we are.

Christianity teaches us we are all interconnected, and we all bear responsibility for our collective sins, including those done before us, a collective sin represented as “The Old Adam,” while the transcendence we are to find ourselves drawn to is that found in “The New Adam” Jesus Christ, where we find ourselves one with Jesus, working with him to repair the harm done by the “Old Adam”:

With the incarnation of the divine Logos in the person of Jesus Christ came the “spiritual man,” the second Adam. By the “natural man,” the first Adam, is not to be understood only one particular person among others but a personality synthesizing the whole of mankind according to nature, and the second Adam likewise is not only this individual but at the same time a universal being who sums up in himself the whole of reborn mankind; Christ is the spiritual centre of a universal organism in the real of eternal divine existence. [3]

Only by accepting our responsibility will we be able to move forward. Only by joining in with the work of Christ can grace come to its fulfillment and establish true, perfect justice within us. But if we resist, if we try to say Jesus does everything and we are to do nothing, if we try to be hedonistic quietists who think the only thing we need to do is accept grace and it will take care of us, we have not yet fully embraced the New Adam, meaning, we are still within the Old Adam, bearing all the responsibility of collective human sin.

This is why it is very anti-Christians to ignore communal sin. It ignores the way humanity is presented in Scripture, either in relation to sin and its shared inheritance of sin in Adam, or in the way of humanity is to come together in the New Adam and through him, find salvation. If we join in with Christ, then we will work with Christ to fix the harm that we have caused due to sin. This is why Paul talks about sharing in the sufferings of Christ:

For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. (2 Cor. 1:5-7 RSV):

Paul recognized he had a role to play, a role which he had in relation to his unity with Christ, a role which likewise we are all called to have, one which looks for and works for the benefit of all as a part of the Christian way of life. Ignoring this, looking out for ourselves at the expense of others, only show us how much we remain attached to the Old Adam. The more we are drawn into Christ, the more we are drawn beyond the Old Adam, the more we will look for injustices which have been neglected, or have not sufficiently been dealt with, and engage them, realizing that is what is expected of us. We are to do far more than simply stop sinning, we are to embrace the way of love and the virtue it brings, a way which will have us, like Christ, seek to repair the harm sin has done to the world. If we are not willing to make amends, if we try to deny reparations for the sins which have yet to be satisfied, personally or collectively, we have not truly cut ourselves from sin, and so risk, through our attachment, experiencing what will happen at the condemnation of sin in the last judgment, because we will have tied ourselves not to justice, but to sin itself.

[1] St. Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermons and Tractates on Matthew. Trans. Thomas P. Scheck (New York: Newman Press, 2018), 199 [Tractate 22].

[2] Sergius Bulgakov. Spiritual Diary. Trans. Mark Roosien and Roberto J. De La Noval (Brooklyn, NY: Angelico Press, 2022), 149-50 [10/23.V.1925].

[3] Vladimir Solovyey, God, Man & The Church. The Spiritual Foundations Of Life. Trans. Donald Attwater (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2016), 68.

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!

Hating Hate

February 20, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Christ teaches that humanity is called to be one, to share with each other their hopes and fears, their triumphs and troubles (cf. Jn. 17:21). Sin has divided us up, warring against each other with hate, while Christ, overcoming sin, works to bring us back together and realize our essential unity in and through love. When we resist this, we resist Christ, and so fall back into the pattern of hate and sin. This is why, throughout our lives, we must not only be reminded that Christ told us to love our neighbor, but also, we should keep in mind the example he gave of that love (the Good Samaritan). For, by listening to Christ and what he says about how we should treat our neighbor, we are given the exhortation we need to keep ourselves focused and stay on the path of salvation all the way to the end (where we find ourselves truly united with everyone and God in a great and glorious bond of love). When we seek to overcome both the temptation for sin, and the harm which sin has already caused us, we must never forget that he told us we should take care of and love our neighbor and that our salvation is found in our adhering to that love. When we are selfish and promote our own private good at the expense of our neighbor, giving ourselves excuse after excuse to do so, we fall back into sin, and risk finding ourselves bound to what happens to all that is connected with sin in the eschaton (that is, thrown into the lake of fire).

The struggle against sin must be a struggle against unlove; to purify ourselves from the stain of sin, we must purify ourselves from all selfishness and realize what it means to become one with everyone. Asceticism, therefore, is not to be seen as some sort of selfish abandonment of the world for the sake of personal spiritual gain. If an ascetic approached asceticism in such a manner, they might be able to do many remarkable things, things which will make them look very pious on the outside, but their discipline will fall very short from what God wants from them. This is why it was important for many spiritual elders to remind monks and nuns their duties to their neighbors:

The elders used to say that each one ought to assume responsibility for his neighbour’s situation; to suffer with him in everything, to rejoice and to weep with him. One should have the same sentiments as though wearing the same body and be afflicted as though one suffered affliction oneself, as it is written: “We are a single body in Christ” [Rom 12:5] and “The multitude of believers had but one heart and a single soul” [Acts 4:32].[1]

This is true, not just for monks and nuns, but for everyone. Our spiritual discipline will be deficient if we ignore our neighbor. We will not build ourselves up right because we will not be united with others, with the whole body of Christ. Often, spiritual elders remind us of this truth with paradoxical conventions. We must embrace love, not hate, but in a way, that can mean, we must hate hate, that is, we must hate sin:

One of the fathers said: “Unless you hate, you cannot love. If you hate sin, you do what is righteous, as it is written: ‘Turn away from evil and do the thing that is good’ [Ps 36:27]. But in all these things it is the intention that is required everywhere. Adam transgressed the commandment of God while he was in Paradise, while Job, sitting on the dunghill, maintained self-control. God only requires a good intention in a man and that he be ever in fear of him.”[2]

To understand paradoxes, we must look to and discern what it is they intend us not only to learn, but to do. The intention behind hating sin is to turn away from all sin, to turn away from the path of sin, the path of unlove, and therefore, to turn away from hate itself. The elder said we should hate sin to indicate that sin is something we should completely reject from the fullness of our being. The elder is using hate to fight against itself, to use hate to self-destruction, so that in the end, when we hate hate, we destroy hate, leaving only love in the aftermath (similar to the way Christ embraces death to destroy death from within). And, once we understand this, we can understand other similar paradoxes, such as the notion we should never tolerate intolerance. The key is the intention behind the words. The paradox comes from the apparent self-contradiction involved in what was said, and yet, that apparent self-contradiction is the point: we are expected to think and ponder, to look beyond mere words and grasp the greater truth which transcends them, to see how that greater truth will always be beyond what could be said.

When we are told to fear God, we must not allow such words make us think of God as some sort of powerful overlord who seeks every excuse to punish us, but rather, we should think of such fear to be the kind of fear people have when they are in awe of someone, when they love them and do not want to disappoint them because of that love. It is, in this way, another way to talk about the great, transcendent love we should have for God, but if we take words simply, if we have not broken through conventions by paradoxical riddles, we will likely misapply what is intended here.

We should approach the world in and through the lens of love, we should approach God in and through the lens of love, and therefore, we should approach spiritual wisdom with that lens, using it to help is interpret such wisdom and the paradoxes which are found in and with it. Love can and will embrace a kind of fear, the fear of disappointing the beloved, or, when talking about our relationship with our neighbor, it is the fear we have of causing them needless suffering. It will inform our intention, and will make us act accordingly, sometimes, doing things which will surprise others, such as when a monk is said to have sold off a copy of the Gospel so that the poor can be fed:

An elder said that one of the bothers possessed only a Gospel. This he sold and gave the proceeds to feed the poor, making this memorable statement: “I have sold the verse itself which says: ‘Sell what you have and give to the poor’ [Mt 19:21].”[3]

The monk saw the irony involved in the situation, but also, he saw how he executed it and in this way, he lived out the Gospel, even, perhaps, can be said to have truly acquired it, which is much more important than merely possessing a book, reading it, and not doing what is said in it. Let his understanding here inspire us as we consider what love should have us do for our neighbor. Let us hate hate so that we can truly have that love, and have it as the foundation of all that we should do.

[1] John Wortley, trans., The Anonymous Sayings Of The Desert Fathers: A Select Edition And Complete English Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 249 [N389/18.44].

[2] John Wortley, trans., The Anonymous Sayings Of The Desert Fathers: A Select Edition And Complete English Translation, 245[N378/11.125].

[3] John Wortley, trans., The Anonymous Sayings Of The Desert Fathers: A Select Edition And Complete English Translation, 251 [N392/6,6].

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!

We Must Reject Putin and Trump’s False Peace

February 14, 2024 By Henry Karlson

0 Comments

Kremlin.ru: Putin and Trump / Wikimedia Commons

Christians are called to work for and promote peace, for Christ is the Prince of Peace (cf. Isa. 9:6). True peace is established in and through the elimination of every evil so that we can then find ourselves advancing towards the greatest good. This is why, as St. Albert the Great explained, it is established by Christ: “To the next, one must reply that peace consists in the removal of evil, and this is caused by the Passion. And there is peace in advancing toward the God who glorifies, and this is caused by the Resurrection.”[1] The full realization of this will be experienced in the eschatological kingdom of God, where, indeed, every evil will have been rejected, and all the harm which it has caused has been healed. Christians can and should experience a part of that kingdom now, to realize not only that they have a share in it, but they that have a role promoting its realization. They are to do this by acting on their experience and using it as they act in history, working, as much as they can, to have eschatological peace realized in history itself. Certainly, they should know that there will be no lasting, perfect peace, no utopia, until the end of time, which is why they should not embrace some false peace trying to make it as if it were something other than it is. Nonetheless, having such an understanding of history, they should not use it to excuse themselves from their duty; rather, it should serve as the basis by which they continue to work for peace in every generation, even as they should be working for and promoting the needs of the poor until the end of the world.

To promote peace, Christians must promote what brings it about, truth and justice. They must not confuse the lack of temporal conflict with peace, especially since such lack of conflict often comes through appeasement with evil, allowing evil to thrive and do whatever it wants. We cannot sacrifice justice for the sake of a false peace. We cannot help warmongers build up their power and resources, calling the lull between conflicts, a time of peace, when it is clear, with the build up to war, and the injustices committed by such warmongers, evil thrives. There can be and will be many ways to resist evil, to resist warmongers, and each must be done in relation to the circumstances at hand. If they can be weakened and contained, and the people they would hurt, given help, so that the warmonger can be taken out without bloodshed, and replaced by someone who will help heal the damage they have done, we should support and promote that. But if they are gaining strength, if they are actively involved in conflicts, if not outright wars, all geared for their own private benefit, hurting and killing countless numbers of people in the process, all while threatening to do even more if they are not stopped, doing nothing, cannot be seen as working for peace. For, the result of such inactivity will be more, and worse war, with more death and destruction which could have been and should have been prevented. This is why calling such inaction peace is a lie, and it is the kind of lie which God, in Scripture, spoke against, when false prophets were encouraging a similar kind of false peace:

My hand will be against the prophets who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord GOD. Because, yea, because they have misled my people, saying, `Peace,’ when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets daub it with whitewash; say to those who daub it with whitewash that it shall fall! There will be a deluge of rain, great hailstones will fall, and a stormy wind break out; (Ezek. 13:9-11 RSV).

Micah, similarly says:

Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry “Peace” when they have something to eat, but declare war against him who puts nothing into their mouths. Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision, and darkness to you, without divination. The sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them; the seers shall be disgraced, and the diviners put to shame; they shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer from God. But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin (Micah. 3:5-8 RSV).

In Jeremiah, we find some of the false prophets promoting a false peace by saying it will help bring healing to the world, but in actuality, as the perquisites for peace are denied, so there will be no peace, and no lasting healing: “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, `Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14; 8:11 RSV).

This is why we must be careful when we hear people speak about how things were peaceful during Trump’s administration. Such a claim is based upon a lie. Not only did Trump circumvent the justice needed for peace, conflicts continued to exist in the world, including ones which the United States took part. Similarly, this is why we must reject as utterly ridiculous the claim that if Russia is allowed to take over Ukraine, that is, if Ukraine is made to surrender, there would be peace. Russia is not only interested in Ukraine, but in the building up of a great empire, and that will require it to invade many more countries in the future. Trump, in his constant appeasement and support of Putin, helped Putin’s war efforts, giving Russia the time it needed to prepare to invade Ukraine. Getting ready to invade other countries is far from peaceful, which is why the time in which such preparation is going on is not a time of peace. And now, Trump has made it clear, if he were president, he would be encouraging Putin’s war efforts, not only approving his takeover of Ukraine, but outright invasion of other countries, including those in NATO, as Tom Nichols reported in The Atlantic:

Trump issued this unhinged threat while telling one of his “sir” stories, a rhetorical device in which some unnamed interlocutor shows Trump great deference while humbly seeking his advice. He described a meeting, ostensibly when he was in office, in which he responded to an ally about NATO funding.

One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”[2]

Trump is not interested in peace. He is not interested in protecting the allies of the United States, allies who helped the United States when the United States was attacked on 9-11. He is interested in protecting and supporting Putin, using whatever excuse he can muster to justify his support. This led him to give the insane statement which reads as if he wanted to turn NATO into a protection racket where, if he does not get what he wants from them, he will encourage Russia to invade them and do what it wants with them. Putin, likewise, gave up the game when talking to Tucker Carlson by saying he was justified for invading Ukraine similar to the way he deemed Hitler was justified in invading Poland. It led Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski to denounce Putin, as Aila Slisco indicated in Newsweek:

During Putin’s controversial interview with conservative U.S. pundit Tucker Carlson, which was released online Thursday, the Russian president argued that Poland was to blame for Hitler’s decision to invade, claiming the Warsaw “went too far” by balking at the annexation of part of its territory.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski suggested in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday that Putin was “paranoid” and called it “shocking” that Carlson “enabled” the Russian president by giving him a platform to spread his false claims and rhetoric.

Sikorski said that it was “not the first time” that “dictator” Putin had made the claim about World War II, while also noting that Hitler was joined in invading Poland by the Soviet Union, which was an ally to Nazi Germany for nearly the first two years of the war.[3]

It is clear, Putin was trying to represent himself as a man of peace forced into action, hoping to have Tucker Carlson’s listeners take in and accept the propaganda he was offering. It is clear, moreover, that he knows many of them are ready to believe it, as many Republicans have made it clear, they think Putin should be appeased instead of resisted. They want to create a picture of Putin which ignores what he has said and done. They want us to ignore his clear indication that he plans to takeover of many independent countries. Like Hitler, it seems, he thinks he can fool people in thinking those he invades are the ones at fault. His response is the same as that of a bully, and bullies blame their victims, telling them, “You made me do it.” This is who Trump wants to back and support. Putin does not intend to stop his war effort, but rather, hopes he can have Ukraine surrender so he can start his next invasion. There will be no peace if Ukraine surrenders; there will be a slaughter in the Ukraine, as Putin will punish those who resisted him, and there will be more, and worse wars, wars which Trump has made it clear that he will support and encourage. And, while it might appear far-fetched, Russian television, which is often used to seed ideas and prepare Russians for Putin’s future efforts, have suggested America is also a target in those future invasions, with not only Alaska, but California being on Russia’s radar, as Aleks Phillips explained in Newsweek:

According to a translation by Anton Gerashchenko, a former Ukrainian internal affairs minister, in a television program on Monday evening, Tigran Keosayan—who is married to state broadcaster Russia Today’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan—said during a discussion of the issue: “By the way, part of the California coastline was once Russian too. Yes. Are we going to get it?”[4]

Christians must promote peace, but to do that, they must promote a true peace, one founded upon justice and mercy. Settling for injustice, giving in to warmongers, letting warmongers take what they want and do whatever they want to the people they conquer without resistance, does nothing to establish true peace. It only promotes its false simulacra, one which leads to great devastation in the world. Proclaiming those who promote injustice and terror, or those who would turn peace into a protection racket, as peacemakers are doing the same thing as the false prophets God denounced did in pre-Christian times. They are promoting peace by appeasement, and have no problems with the injustices such appeasement brings. What comes next, as what came next in times of old, will demonstrate the falsehood of such peace, as multitudes will be sacrificed in order to have the illusion of a lack of conflict in the world. Neither Putin nor Trump represents peace, even if they claim do to so, for, they represent the kind of person Ficino wrote about: “Secondly, they look forward to being masters, and men of peace, only when they are engaged in controlling great numbers of men and events.” [5] The peace they want is the peace of the iron rod, the peace in which their every whim is fulfilled by the people; they promise they will bring peace, but they only promise it, again, if people abandon justice and are willing to sacrifice the greater good, and countless people, to bring it about. Whatever the people receive for such a sacrifice will be short lived, as the one they tried to appease will not find themselves satisfied for long, and then, they will make new demands and use them to justify whatever actions they choose to take to get what they want. This is exactly what Putin has already done with Ukraine – he breached the peace because he did not get what he wanted, though the peace was not really there, as he was working up and establishing the means by which he could begin his invasion. Giving up Ukraine now will not stop him. It will embolden him. Right now, he can be stopped. But if the United States puts into power someone who will support and help him in his war efforts, that might no longer be the case.

[1] St. Albert the Great, On Resurrection. Trans. Irven M. Resnick and Franklin T. Harkins (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2020), 138.

[2] Tom Nichols, “Trump Encourages Putin To Attack NATO Members” in The Atlantic (2-10-2024).

[3] Aila Slisco, “Poland Angrily Responds to Putin’s Claims About Hitler and World War II” in Newsweek (2-9-2024).

[4] Aleks Phillips, “Russian TV Eyes California After Alaska Claim” in Newsweek (1-30-2024).

[5] Marsilio Ficino, The Letters of Marsilio Ficino. Volume 5 (Liber VI). trans. by members of the Language Department of the School of Economic Science, London (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1994), 57 [Letter 36: To Francesco Soderini].

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!