Dedication
This is written for my children, grandchildren, and godchildren. It represents some of the most
important things which should be handed down to those whose moral formation I have a responsibility
and honour to facilitate.
Acknowledgement
I am thankful to my children whose questioning and curiosity spurred and assisted the production of
this work. I am immensely grateful to my father, Barnabas J. Ramon Fortuné, who by his writings did
for me what I am attempting to do for my offspring. His poems “Liquid diamonds” and “Confession”
are featured in this book. I must thank Paul Denley of The Saint Paul Center, and my friend of over
47 years, Gregory Smith J.A. for their support and advice. Special thanks to my parish priest,
Monsignor Esau Joseph, for his guidance and encouragement. But how impossible it is to give
sufficient thanks to God for letting this stone cry out. (Luke 19:40)
Bible quotations are taken from The New Jerusalem Bible, except for psalms which are from the Grail
Version.
Contents
Introduction Thoughts on Beauty God’s Law and Ours
Can we judge the love of God? The purpose of suffering
The purpose of life Integrity
Consequences: Overview of Redemption
Dynamics of Spirituality Some Challenges
Jesus The Christ
Mary Mother of Christ Prayer and Fasting Reason to Believe
Truth
The Eucharistic Intimacy
The Word of God and Holy Tradition The Holy Trinity
Introduction
Decree number 8 of the Second Vatican Council’s apostolate of the laity, (Apostolicam
Actuositatem), exhorts ordinary Catholics like me “to be more diligent in doing what they can to
explain, defend, and properly apply Christian principles to the problems of our era in accordance
with the mind of the Church.” In fulfilling such a mission, one can hardly do more than draw from
the context of one’s experience living through the problems of our era, with the aid of the Church.
Being one who journals as a method of meditating, it may be natural that I try in writing to
bequeath my faith, which is my most valuable asset, to my loved ones. The intent is to reveal
something of the real and profound inner beauty which I have found in the Catholic Faith, and which
has helped me throughout my life. Some theological concepts are presented in the context of life
experiences from my own wretched and sinful life, and the inspiring lives of my father and my
deceased wife.
Ephesians 2: 10, describes God as an artist and describes us as his works of art. The second letter
of Peter 1: 4, says that we are meant to share in God’s nature. Therefore, we may presume that we
too are meant to be artists like himself. The thing about art is that it can draw the beholder to a
limitless appreciation of beauty.
So, what is Inner beauty? Consider an ill person taking distasteful medicine. To an adult who is
intent on getting better, the taste will probably be of little relevance. The adult person may love
the medicine even if it is unpleasant to the senses. To a toddler with no understanding of its
purpose, the taste is all that matters. As what motivates the adult and the child, the difference
of what the soul finds beautiful, and what the sensuous mind and body find beautiful can be
profoundly different.
Second Corinthians 4: 16, speaks of the inner person and the outer person. The inner person is
concerned with meaning, purpose, truth, the outer person operates in the realm of emotions,
impulses and comforts of body and ego. Beauty perceived by the inner person enlivens and frees the
person; beauty perceived only by the outer person frees the passions, which tends to enslave both
body and soul. Perception of inner beauty sustains lasting, loving relationships. When it is
lacking, nothing good is lasting.
Apart from the inner and outer person, there is a third aspect of man. This third aspect is the
will. The will chooses whether to look at things from the perspective of the inner person or that
of the outer person. It should be noted that the default in us is to view things more from the
perspective of the outer man, and it is usually when one experiences trials in life that one is
motivated to abide more with the inner man. To get the most from this book it is advisable for
readers to approach it from the perspective of the inner man.
Note that the difference between the inner man and the outer man does not just lie in one
reflecting on things while the other does not. The inner man seeks the deeper truths of purpose,
and perhaps instinctively knows in his spirit that the ultimate beauty lies within that truth. So,
he “ponders things in his heart,” as scripture says of The Blessed Virgin. The outer man may be
quite concerned about the technical or political or cultural or emotional motivations of things,
without thought of what they mean to his purpose in creation. Or, to put it another way, they may
pursue answers to the technical and scientific question, “why?” Such as why does the apple fall?
They may be content to accept that all things exist because of “The Big Bang,” the universe
expanding from some primordial point. But the inner man considers a philosophical or theological
“why.” The inner man considers the meaning of nature and of existence. The outer man would read
about the story of Adam and Eve and argue about its practical implausibility. The inner man would
contemplate his nature and purpose, his moral obligations and the beauty of spiritual freedom using
the same narrative.
The ultimate beauty of life can be compared to a divine dance in which the disciple and God
engages. God leads and the disciple follows. But the disciple should be aware that sometimes they
may be in such perfect step with God, and each yield so perfectly to the movement of the other,
that the disciple cannot feel the presence of God. He feels as if he is dancing alone, yet as psalm
21 indicates, there remains total confidence that God is always there, always caring, and that
confidence is never in vain.
Now we work towards this beautiful relationship amid a world which opposes it, by allowing
ourselves to be motivated by the Spirit of God. Eternal life comes through this Holy Spirit, who
leads us in step with God in the Divine dance.
Thoughts on beauty
The beauty of humanity
Angels are said to be non-human, immortal persons, who exist in a realm not limited by time as we
know it. At their creation, the so called “good angels” freely choose to serve God. Theologians say
that angels of heaven have a perfect vision of God’s glory. They are never in want of anything.
They have never wanted food or shelter or safety; Each is focused on God’s will. None of them have
any cause to concern themselves with the welfare of other angels although they surely love each
other. Angels are said to possess a beauty which comes directly from God. Theologians say that they
are holier than humans, but since the holiest created person is the Blessed Virgin, I am not sure
whether they are holier than the rest of us by their nature or by grace.
In contrast, humans are weak creatures, especially as individuals. We depend on each other for a
great many things. Although we are ultimately dependent on God for anything, and it is by the grace
of God that we can even care for one another, we still depend on each other for food and other
essentials. By such natural necessities we are designed to be a community; to be in a sense, “one.”
To exist we must love each other in practical ways, we become one through a different path than
angels. When I recall Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20- 23, that his followers “be one as he and the
Father are one,” I can see how our interdependence in community precisely accommodates God’s loving
plan for us.
It seems to me that God in his Trinitarian nature, is a community of loving persons. So, when man’s
interactions are motivated by love and trust and generosity, and with faith in the providence of a
God we cannot even see, we partake in the beauty of God in a way not even the angels do. I used to
wonder why God did not choose to create me and other human persons as angels.
True, some of us would probably have refused to serve God at the instant of our creation, but those
of us who would be good would not have to endure the evils within our fellow persons. I suppose
that God willed that a certain aspect of his beauty should be expressed by weak sin-prone humans
who to some extent, must choose to love each other to exist and be glorified through patiently
bearing the sufferings of ourselves and of others.
Seeking beauty
Most Christians probably have heard or have taken part in arguments about the historical accuracy
of the Adam and Eve story. But I have always been much more interested in the underlying truths it
teaches. It is interesting how it speaks to truths we experience today. We desire some good thing
which we are not entitled to have. But instead of asking for it and waiting for it to be offered,
we take it. When confronted to explain our action, we blame others, and even God, as Adam blamed
both Eve and God when he told God in Genesis 3:12, “it was the woman you put with me; she gave me
the fruit, and I ate it.”
The book of Genesis teaches that all of creation was good. Man desired to have a certain beautiful
thing, a fruit which was “pleasing to the eye,” according to Genesis 3:6. But it was against God’s
wishes for man to have it, so man’s desire
for it presented a situation he had to deal with. His decision to take it proved that he lusted for
it. The story also reminds us that the perception of beauty plays a part in human reasoning, as it
impacts our value system.
In the story of Adam, his disordered engagement with the good, beautiful thing was bad. The way he
perceived the beauty of the forbidden thing, the way he related to it was bad. When he acted in
accordance with his disordered attitude to the beautiful fruit and tried to possess it within
himself, his self-perception changed. He hid himself, indicating that he saw little or no beauty
within himself.
The Church teaches that nature is still good, and there is a good way to relate with nature’s
beauty, which leads us to appreciate the beauty of God. But there are also unwise ways of relating
to beautiful things, ways which keep us from having a healthy, wholesome relationship with
creation, with ourselves, with other people, and with God. Instead of the beauty of creation
leading us to appreciate the beauty of God, our disordered engagement with beauty can enslave us
and may become an obstacle to appreciating divine beauty.
Saint Augustine of Hippo lived a hedonistic life before his conversion. He lusted after pleasures,
he lusted for the beauty of the good things in life. In later years, in his work, “The
Confessions,” he addressed Jesus when he wrote, “Late have I loved you, O beauty ever ancient, ever
new, late have I loved you.” He continued acknowledging that for too long, he neglected the voice
of God calling within himself. He neglected the inner beauty and indulged wastefully in lusting
after
external beauty. Then at last he allowed the beautiful voice of God to transform his heart. Now he
hungers only for the divine beauty of God.
Whether it is internal or external beauty, we seem to have a very powerful drive to find and
immerse ourselves in it. If we add up the time and resources spent in the music industry, fashion,
perfume, cosmetic, dance and performing arts, and environmental aesthetics on our homes and
gardens, the amount seems inordinate compared to other creatures. And our preponderance on beauty
reaches even beyond such material things. We seek even beauty of character in ourselves and in
others. In other words, our hunger for beauty affects our very soul. It seems like a hunger for
beauty is an essential element of our nature.
We would probably pity anyone who is incapable of discerning a difference between random noises,
and a rhythm or melody. They would have no capacity to enjoy music. Tragic also would be a person
without a discerning sense of taste, or one who could find no pleasure in witnessing a dance.
Imagine if you can, being able to notice all the elements of a painting which everyone else finds
beautiful. You see balance, contrast, movement of colours and shapes flowing in order. But you can
only perceive these things as a computer might capture elements of an image, incapable of
appreciating any beauty in it. Incapable of allowing it to affect any emotion. That would be tragic
indeed. But how tragic would it be if a person can find pleasure in such beautiful things, but
cannot appreciate the beauty of a loving and true relationship?
What different cultures and individuals consider beautiful can vary. However, two things are common
among all peoples. The first is that, even though what individuals find beautiful may vary, all
have an innate capacity to appreciate beauty to a profound extent. Second is that the things we all
find beautiful in a person’s character is remarkably consistent. Everyone finds character traits
such as dependability, honesty, selflessness, courage, temperance, and self-control, endearing. A
person with most of these would likely be classified as a beautiful person. And even if their
outward appearance is unpleasant before, as someone gets to know the person better, their outward
appearance may seem more beautiful in time. So, the general beauty of a person is linked to their
integrity and authenticity of character.
If there is any link between truth and beauty, it may be most evident in the beauty of an honest
and faithful relationship. Truth and honesty would be of the very nature of the relationship. Its
truth would be its beauty. However, there is always a wider context to any relationship. Honesty
within a relationship is not just about being honest with each other. The relationship itself must
conform to truth. In other words, it must be in accordance with God’s law, as God is Truth.
Otherwise, the beauty which is perceived within the relationship would be untrue, false and an
illusion.
If for example, a married teacher is having an affair with a student, the two might be open and
honest with each other, and think that the pleasure they give to each other is beautiful. But to
perform the marital act with someone with whom one is not married is dishonest. It would be similar
to, but much worse than them buying a trophy, engraving on it that they both won the school’s
doubles
tennis championship, and enjoy pretending to each other that they honestly won it. Just as the fact
of not actually winning the championship precludes them from having the true trophy, not being
married to each other precludes them from honestly engaging in marital relations. It might make
them feel close to each other but performing the marital act would be as farcical and pretensive as
their trophy. A beautiful relationship then, is one which is holistically true, and not false in
any way. A holistically true relationship would be like the melody and rhythm of a beautiful song,
it will be just, dependable, and in a sense, even rational.
Many argue that beauty is merely a construct of an individual’s mind. This is probably a less
convincing suggestion when it comes to inner beauty though. Anything which is universally perceived
by almost everyone in the same way as inner beauty is, is for that very reason defined as true and
real.
But even if beauty was only a mental construct, one thing would be odd. Apart from trying to
distract our own selves from perceiving beauty which is outside of ourselves, it is difficult to
stop acknowledging its presence there. And why you might ask, that persons would not want to
perceive beauty outside of themselves? Because beauty is not only enjoyed by healthy souls. Sadly,
beauty which is perceived as being outside of a person which the person does not possess, are often
objects of envy for the person. Beauty can remind us of our deficiencies and challenge us to be
better than we are. We can take this positively or negatively.
Reactions to perceiving both inner beauty in others, and outer beauty in things which others own,
can be uncomfortable to the point of being unbearable. In extreme cases, such envious and
rebellious reactions to the perception of beauty have motivated murder. We might poetically suggest
that according to one’s disposition, the perception of beauty could mean heaven for some and hell
for others.
A common saying of Catholic spiritual directors is that humility is the key virtue necessary for
spiritual advancement. Whereas envy stops a soul from being positively motivated by beauty,
humility allows the soul to embrace and enjoy all beauty. A humble person would not think that they
have a right to be better or to be more beautiful than anyone else. Humility cleans the heart and
opens it for genuine relationships. Then one can be genuinely happy for the person of beauty and
give full glory to the source of beauty.
This is so meaningful and important. There is no need to be envious. One is not limited to be
enriched only by one’s own beauty. To be happy and give thanks for any beauty of another is to be
enriched by their beauty. Even to praise God’s beauty is to be enriched by God. In a spiritual way,
when we rejoice in a beautiful soul because of their beauty, we share in it. When we praise God for
any beauty he shows us, we align ourselves with him. A humble and compassionate soul is open to all
beauty, all beauty which God allows that soul to perceive, whether in heaven or on earth. That is
why the most perfectly humble creature could have honestly said in Luke 1:46, “My soul proclaims
the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit exults in God my savior.”
The beauty of truth
To further explore the connection between truth and beauty, it might be best to start with the
scriptural example of the ugliest lie. That is the betrayal of Jesus by His disciple’s kiss. Not
only was the God of Truth betrayed by a dishonest “friend,” the dishonest betrayer used a kiss,
something which is supposed to express love, to kill the God of love and life. We can imagine that
a stranger who witnessed the kiss but was unaware of the secret intentions of Judas might have
judged the relationship between the two as beautiful. But that judgment would have been merely a
mental construct.
Let us now further explore beauty in truth with a simple scenario. Consider one man giving a meal
to a beggar. It could be that the man was acting out of love, or pity. He might have been
condescending, with little respect for the beggar. He might have given the meal to make himself
feel good or even as a show for others, to enhance his public image.
For his part, the beggar might receive the meal with thanks, or with apathy toward the man. The
beggar might even take the meal in a spirit of entitlement. According to their inner dispositions,
the beggar’s offer of thanks could be a more generous act than the man’s offer of the meal. But
their inner intentions are known only to God. If there is spiritual beauty, it could only be sensed
by the spirit. And like the spirit, such beauty cannot fade.
Consider if the man was full of gratitude for the very opportunity to serve his fellow being. He
gave the meal to the beggar, but also gave full thanks to God. And the beggar receiving the meal,
gave fullhearted thanks to the man and to God. What we would have in such a scenario is as close to
perfect spiritual beauty as humanly possible. We would have something resembling the generosity of
Christ described in John 1:16. That is, we would have grace in return for grace. Which would be an
example of what the beauty of the Church should be.
Meditation
Consider the following scenario:
A beautiful painting done by a new artist was on display for sale in a public gallery. On the first
day, a rich socialite viewed it and thought it would be a good addition to her collection. Seeing
it the next day was an art critic who marvelled at the composition of the piece. He was sure the
artist would be famous if properly promoted. An investor viewed it next and swore he would buy it.
She assessed that it was likely to increase a thousand percent in five years. On the last day of
the display, a young student saw it and was almost moved to tears by its beauty. He knew it would
be something he would keep in his memory; something which would always inspire him. That same day
the socialite bought it, hung it in her hall, and hardly took notice of it thereafter.
Who drew most value from the painting? Which is more valuable, the beauty of the painting or its
legal ownership? Does the student possess the painting in any
sense? How does this meditation relate to Jesus’ proclamation that “the meek shall inherit the
earth?”
Consider the meaning of the following poem by Barnabas J. Ramon-Fortune, inspired by an experience
he had while bathing at Maracas beach.
Liquid diamonds
Once I owned a million million diamonds; they were raindrops falling on the sea,
which as they struck the surface of the ocean; infused with the clear sun’s transparency,
shattered, and scattering made the ocean seem, studded with jewels, brilliant, all agleam.
And suddenly, standing waist deep in the water I had become the wealthiest of men; all these were
mine, —rainbow-gleaming droplets as far as eye could see.
But thinking then, to own them after rain and sun had gone, I scooped a miser handful but to find,
they straightaway turned to water, every one. And being angry and distressed in mind,
I hurled the handful back into the rain;
when lo, they turned to diamonds once again.
God’s law and ours
I was about ten years old when I asked my dad “why should I obey you?” He was wise enough to sense
that I was not challenging his authority but simply seeking a reasoned, philosophical answer, even
though I had no understanding what philosophy was. His answer was practical. Something along the
line of it being a smart thing to follow the advice of someone who loves me and has my interest at
heart.
God’s jurisprudence
Holy Scripture prescribes many commonly accepted principles of justice such as a just wage for
workers, appropriate punishment for wrongdoing, and equal dignity of all human life. However, Holy
Scripture also reveals that the fundamental principle on which God’s jurisprudence stands is quite
different from that of any human justice system.
Consider the implied jurisprudence in the parable of Matthew 18:23-35. In the story, a rich
powerful man forgives an enormous debt of a poor man. Shortly after on that same day, the poor man
who was just forgiven his debt, presses another poor man to give him back a small sum of money
which he lent him. Jesus said that because of the generosity which the rich powerful man showed
him, the first poor man was bound to show mercy to the man who owed him little. It is similar to
“paying forward” a good deed that one receives.
The word “bound,” is a legal term. How could accepting a gift from one person bind an individual to
be generous to another, unrelated person? It is as though God’s justice, while acknowledging
personal rights, is not fundamentally about upholding human rights, but about an obligation
to return generosity universally, for any random generous help one receives.
Further to this, Jesus’ teaching seems to favour the controversial question of collective justice.
If we accept that a person who receives mercy from someone, must then show mercy to third parties,
should the principle not hold true when a person is treated badly? Would a person who was treated
without mercy be bound to show no mercy to others?” If so, then in extrapolation, one might surmise
that anyone and everyone should pay for injustice done to one person. In fact, the person who was
treated badly would have an obligation to treat others badly.
However, and fortunately, the logic of this argument would not hold if psalm 102:8 is true. This
line of scripture says that “God is compassion and love, slow to anger and rich in mercy.” God is
by definition, the first principle of everything. If God is compassion and love, then his
jurisprudence would only be bound by generous, self-giving compassion. The principle of his justice
would be love. Under God’s rule we would only be bound to return grace for grace, perhaps we would
even be required to return good to others who treat us badly. It is because God is love that we are
required to promote love and not hate, mercy and not vengeance.
Anyone, including atheists who agree with the teaching of the parable, should ask themselves
whether it is possible to see virtue in the story, without some inner knowledge of love as a
principle of justice. Whether they accept the principle of the Christian God of love. Whether
unknowingly, they have at least a seed of faith in their soul.
Nature’s jurisprudence
When we perceive something or some situation, we can consider at least four things:
(1) Its present reality.
(2) What we expected it to be. For example, we might expect some rich, powerful politician to not
suffer the consequences for his crime.
(3) How we wanted it to be. For example, we might want a loved one not to be charged for causing a
serious accident.
(4) We can try to judge how something rightly ought to be in an unbiased way.
Without the ability to make that fourth judgement we can have no concept of moral justice. We
should also note that any two or more could be the same, or any one or more could be radically
different from the others.
Perhaps most other creatures are more pragmatic than us. They simply perceive things the way they
are, or at least their perception is geared solely toward the survival of their species. They might
have some sense of what is normal. A lion for example, would expect the antelope to run as he
approaches it. Young chicklets might expect their mother to feed them. Such animals have
expectations of how things would be, but as for having a sense of how things ought to be is an open
question. From my observation and inference, the few that might have such a sense seem to have very
little of it.
We, on the other hand, might easily judge that some guy ought to spend his salary and time tending
to his wife and kids, rather than on drugs and in the bars. Or we might judge that a woman ought
not to get an abortion. And we might say that a promise ought to be kept, even if doing so might
not be in the interest of the family of the one who made the promise. If one person gives something
to another, we would say that it now belongs to the other person. The person who gave it has no
rights at all to it.
Many might argue that this capacity of man to operate from a sensitivity of what ought to be,
rather than what is immediately pragmatic, could be an expansion of pragmaticism in our more
sophisticated mind. They might argue that the existence of a moral code, or the sense of how things
ought to be, or a sense of justice and injustice, promote the viability of our species to a greater
degree. This is an interesting topic but way too vast to be analysed here, and one to which I am
probably incapable of doing justice.
What seems clear however, is that the pragmatism of other creatures does foster a type of balance
in nature. Harsh as it is, on a basic biological level the adversarial system where the strongest
survive, works for the sustaining of biological life. And interestingly, though not as harsh, every
human justice system is also mostly adversarial. In human systems of justice, persons vie with
each other for access to resources, through which they also gain social rank. But could there be a
non-adversarial system of justice?
When it comes to God’s justice, we see a fundamentally different order. Whereas in the jungle and
in human societies, some balance is maintained by adversarial tensions among creatures, God’s
jurisprudence would promote balance without anyone seeking their own interest first. (Philippians
2:3-5).
This jurisprudence is not based on eagerness to competitively stake out what one ought to have.
Instead, one is eager to serve others. One is not even concerned whether the other is deserving of
service. This is what Jesus seems to be encouraging in Luke 6:30 when he said, “Give to anyone who
asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you.” Notwithstanding that
Jesus was not a pacifist and is actually recognising one’s right to personal property by this
statement, his suggestion of extreme generosity seems too radical for comfort. This type of
detachment from one’s possessions might make perfect sense to angels in heaven, but it would surely
seem crazy and impossible in practice in our world where there is much selfishness.
In Matthew 6:28-34, Jesus advises that we should rely on the providence of God for whatever we
need. Any individual trying to live like this on earth would need a heart full of faith and love. A
person who follows Jesus’ advice here on earth will be considered a naïve fool, even though,
arguably, such a person would be a joyous fool, wealthy with an abundance of opportunities to love
and serve. The person would also experience peace, as psalm 84: 14 says, “Justice shall
march before him and peace shall follow his steps, and verse 11 confirms the unity of the justice
of God and the peace of God, “justice and peace have embraced.” Given that this psalm has a
parallel meaning, prophesying the coming of Jesus through the fidelity of the Blessed Virgin, the
“peace” would correspond to that peace which Jesus said the world cannot give, in John 14:27.
Being an expert in human law, Saint Paul was keenly aware of the apparent foolishness of the
Christian ethic. But in 1 Corinthians 1:22, he argued that “Christ is the power and wisdom of God.
For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human
strength.”
Jesus indicated that one should acknowledge divine jurisprudence while honouring human law when he
told his detractors in Mark 12:17, to “Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what
belongs to God.” And the apostles indicated which jurisprudence the Gospel was based upon in Acts
6:2 where they said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the word of God so as to give out
food.” (Modern theologians of a certain thinking should meditate on this). To fix social injustice
we must attend first to honouring divine justice.
It is not that Christians deny the goodness and practicality of human judgments and adversarial
law. We simply see an additional factor which must be considered. We see an important, divine
factor which sends our jurisprudence further. In fact, it would be impractical for Christians to
limit our jurisprudence to purely matters of temporal, material equality, and human rights. We
acknowledge as fundamental, the rights of God, and secondly, our privilege to rely on his goodness
for all our needs.
Finally, we should note that as radically different as the Christian ethic is to popular world
ethics, there is overlap, such as the justice of keeping promises, or covenants and contracts. For
example, when God promises something, his integrity binds him to the promise. And when we make
promises that are not opposed to God’s will, it is unjust to break them in God’s eyes. Even
unvocalized promises which may come with natural actions would be binding. An example of this would
be the promise of exclusive fidelity in the marital act. If such unvocalized promises are broken,
or if, as in the case of adultery, the promise was opposed to God’s will in the first place, the
action would be considered deceitful.
Meditation
In the spiritual realm, many graces may be given to and taken away from a soul for specific
purposes. Others, such as our free will, may be given permanently. As it is in natural law, when
God gives an individual something like “free will,’ it is considered to be the lawful property of
the person. Even though all things are under God’s authority, being true to himself, once God gives
free will to a person he would never take it back.
God, as omnipotent as he is, is not a dictator over us. To God, the exercise of our free will is
our prerogative, and the consequences of our choices are ours to enjoy or to suffer. He is not like
earthly powerful authoritarians who would order
their own courts to drop all charges against their spoilt, criminal children, and show contempt for
their own justice systems. God would never treat his own jurisprudence with contempt. If God wishes
to save his children, he will pay the cost for their wrongs himself.
Jesus says in Matthew 5:7, “Happy are the merciful: they shall have mercy shown them.” Will mercy
be shown them, because only those who show mercy have allowed the beauty of God’s mercy to dwell
within them in the first place? Conversely, will it be a natural consequence, and the justice of
God’s truth that those who are not merciful, will not see mercy, because they have closed their
hearts to it?
Can we judge the love of God?
I think the presumption that we could pass judgement on God is absurd. When I consider Isaiah 55:9
where God says that his thoughts and ways are impossible for us to understand, I could easily
accept that. A sinner like me is always amazed that he still shows me so much mercy. However, as it
is common for us sinful, mortal creatures to consider judging God, the issue must be addressed.
Some persons judge God as cruel because they argue he creates people knowing that they will choose
to do evil and eventually end up in hell. It seems to me there are at least four factors which move
a person to question God’s love like this. Firstly, they do not realize that they are judging a
being who exists in a context very different from their own, which probably makes their judgment
flawed. Secondly, they assume that God has an imagination as human minds have. Thirdly, they
overlook the fact that the worst of us sometimes influence others to self-reflect and better
themselves. And lastly, they need to appreciate that the cause of sin is within man’s own imperfect
desires as James 4:1-3 describes.
To what extent can we understand God’s point of view?
God apparently thinks that man’s greatest blessing is God himself, that is, to be like Christ. In
following the promptings of the Holy Spirit, we are to effectively, gradually conform our
perceptions to his. But how many of us consider our greatest blessing is the invitation and power
to be an obedient servant as Christ
is? If we do not properly value what our greatest good is, are we good enough to judge the goodness
of God?
Another factor which mitigates against our being qualified to judge God is our temporal context.
Time is also God’s creation and gift. It is a fundamental part of the entire context in which we
now exist. God exists in a different context, outside of time. We need time to know the difference
between a cause and its effect; the effect always follows the cause in the flow of time. But God
understands cause and effect without considering that one must occur before the other in time.
We should not take this fact lightly; it may have profound implications. For one example, if God
forgives me the moment I repent, is his mercy the cause of my repenting, or does my repenting cause
him to show mercy? Another question is whether those who would go to hell, go because they choose
to reject God’s saving grace, or do they refuse God’s saving grace because, (from our point of
view), they were destined to go to hell? The answer to these questions can change so much in our
relationship with God. Some simply do not try to live moral lives because they assume that their
future is predestined, and so they in a sense might be the cause of their own predestined future.
Yet another thing we assume is that our understanding of freedom is at a high level. But God’s idea
of freedom is also likely to be different than our own. Almost everyone I know imagine freedom as
bearing as few responsibilities as possible and having the fulfillment of all their egoistical
desires assured.
Whereas Catholic teaching says that freedom is the ability to attend to one’s responsibilities
without being held back by vices such as envy, lust, and sloth.
Now, concerning God not creating someone who through their own choices go to hell. Would it be just
for God to refuse them life and free will after creating them in his mind and loving them? Or does
God create someone by the very act of knowing them? Is this an issue of cause and effect? Can God
know and love something without causing it to come into being? I do not think we are in a position
to definitively answer any of these questions.
Another proposal some give in their judgment of God is that if God was loving and omnipotent there
would be no suffering in the world. It seems to me that God’s detractors never consider that
suffering might not always be evil. (We would see this in the next chapter).
There is another thing which should be obvious. It is something universally acknowledged. It is
that personal responsibility is inextricable from freedom. When God gives free will to any being,
whether they are angelic beings or physical beings, they are responsible for the choices they make.
And no, true freedom is not freedom from responsibilities! Every person who is capable of knowing
right from wrong has a responsibility to worship God, by investing in what he has been given,
(Matthew 25:14-30), to be a good influence on others, or at least not to scandalise anyone. True
freedom is freedom to fulfil our true purpose.
Psalm 113:16 states, “the heavens belong to the Lord but the earth he has given to men.” Psalm
8:6-7 tells us that God made man “little less than a god.” Considering these two psalms, I cannot
believe that God intended us to be irresponsible cry-babies. If we would hold God responsible for
his choices, then so must we hold ourselves responsible for ours. It is an indispensable part of
being “the image and likeness of God,” Genesis 1:26. The question we should ask therefore ought to
be directed to ourselves. We should ask ourselves, “would there be excessive suffering if we all
truly loved and cared for each other?” And the question of why there is so much suffering in the
world which some of us ask God, is one which is more appropriate for God to ask us, who after all
are the ones who do evil and cause suffering.
Perhaps our questioning God occurs because we do not know ourselves sufficiently. If we lack
self-knowledge, how can we begin to understand the ways of God? I will go further and suggest that
we do not even know what divine love is. Our understanding of love is probably quite limited, being
based only on our human experience of it.
Still, it is understandable for us to imagine that the dynamics of God’s love is like our own. From
our experience we see a good person who shares our values and interests, and we develop a liking
for them. If the relationship develops into love, it seems to us that our loving the person
happened automatically; we only discover that we love them. It seems to us that love happens
automatically at a subconscious level.
But if God is omniscient, then he is always perfectly conscious of everything, and he would have no
subconscious. This is why Catholic theology says that God does everything wilfully. Therefore, he
always chooses to love; his love is never automatic just as his saving us on the cross was
something he wilfully chose to do. He could easily have chosen not to save us.
Most of us limit our understanding of love to an emotion which comes without much input from our
will. The first problem which we encounter when trying to understand God is our difficulty to
imagine a love which is greater than emotion. So, we must investigate the matter more closely.
Perhaps if we understood the purposes of emotions, their strengths and their weaknesses, the matter
might be resolved.
While each of us knows what suffering is because each of us has experienced pain, the omniscient
God knows suffering without having to experience pain. God is said to be impassible, which means he
is never moved by emotional fluctuations. This makes some persons struggle to reconcile an
impassible God with the God who Holy Scripture says is compassionate to all his creatures. But Holy
Scripture does not only say that God has compassion, it also says that he is compassion; he is
compassion, and he is love. He is the source of compassion and love. Whatever compassion we
experience comes from this impassible God. So, God’s appreciation of compassion is infinitely
greater than our own, which many of us think is only an emotion.
We all experience emotions; we are inexorably motivated by them; we are almost inexorably
controlled by them. Some are wonderful to experience, and others are not so enjoyable, but they all
make the human experience interesting. One would feel less alive the less intensely one can feel
them. Emotional comforts and pains can be much more intense than physical comforts and pains, so we
should be particularly sensitive to the feelings of others and of ourselves. Emotions seem to be
integral to our very souls, or at least integral for as long as our souls are integrated to our
bodies. In fact, they might seem to be generated from the physical body. The interplay of hormones
has great influence over them. But emotions can also be influenced by metaphysical agencies such as
the soul and God, or less benevolent agents.
Emotions are also fickle, and one should be cautious and not give in to them without thought. As a
cautionary example, we hear too often about victims of crimes of passion where one person who
declares that the betrayal of their love for their victim caused them to injure that “beloved”
victim. Still, we so often treat emotions as if they are the most important things in life.
Depending on the way we view our emotions they can be aids to self- understanding. For example,
feeling embarrassment or anger can indicate a lack of humility. Envy would be a sign of deleterious
pride within one’s soul. A feeling of gratitude for blessings received would be a sign of spiritual
health. So too might be a feeling of inner peace in the midst of external or physical conflict.
Fear would indicate a lack of faith or hope. A feeling of delight can be of a healthy spirit or of
a diseased spirit, according to the object in which one delights. Delight can be purely of the
spirit, purely carnal or a combination of both.
Because emotions motivate us to act in various ways, we ought to encourage emotions which inspires
virtuous actions and do what we can to reduce those which inspire deleterious actions. As examples,
we should allow feelings of tenderness to move us in caring for a loved one, but examine feelings
of envy to find and humbly remove the cause of it. We should also be aware that emotions can be
deceptive. For example, although a feeling of tenderness towards a person can foster deep
friendship, The feeling might be derived in part because of how the person makes us feel instead of
who they are in themselves. It can also foster biases in favour of the one to whom we feel
tenderness.
Thus, we should not put too much trust in feelings. They often emerge from subconscious places with
roots tangled with personal histories and other subtle emotions. And we should be wary of
classifying emotions as negative or positive. By themselves, emotions are neither intrinsically
good nor intrinsically bad. Both emotions linked to suffering and emotions linked to comfort can
motivate or demotivate us to improve our lives and the lives of others, according to how we choose
to deal with them.
Love
We may say that to love means “to value greatly.” The word “love” is used to denote two classes of
things, both of which can be experienced by us, and one of which comes directly from God. We can
love another entity partly or wholly because of how he, she or it makes us feel. And we can love
other persons for who they are in themselves. Our love can be subject only to our feelings, or it
might only be subject to the truth of the entity which is loved. In the second case, in its purest
form the love is ultimately motivated by love of truth, which is actually love of God. In its pure
form, in the first case the motivation is wholly love of self.
We can also distinguish the two loves as one where love is subject to the lover, and the other,
where the lover is subject to love. To explain the first love in practical terms, consider someone
who visits a garden. The person is comfortable there and develops a love for the place. This
love is dependent on the preference of the person. The second love comes from the influence of the
Holy Spirit. The person knowingly or subconsciously subjects himself or herself to the power of
God. In this case, the lover is subject to love.
It is often difficult to discover the reason for the first type of love; sometimes a person falls
in love with a thing or a person which is obviously bad for the lover. However, it is impossible to
find a reason for God-inspired love. Consider the following:
General Napoleon was about to execute a soldier for desertion when the condemned man’s mother
pleaded with the General to have mercy on her child. Napoleon retorted, “Madam, your son does not
deserve mercy.” The woman replied, “If he deserved it, it would not be mercy.”
Mercy can have no reason. To seek a reason for mercy is like asking what is the weight of the
colour blue. Just as colour is not subject to weight, mercy is not
subject to reason. Mercy therefore can neither be reasonable nor can it be unreasonable. It is
non-reasonable. And God’s love is of the same nature as his mercy.
Of course, we can love someone in a bit of both ways at the same time. And sometimes, according to
the thing which is loved they might cause conflict within a person. An example of this might be
romantically loving someone who is married to another person. However, if the two types of love are
respected for what they are, there could be harmony and peace within the person.
The first of the loves is an emotion which everyone experiences either as the one who loves or the
one who is loved, but I imagine most persons would experience both loving and being loved in this
emotional way at various times in their lives. The second type of love is not rare but evidently
not as ubiquitous. This more substantive, higher type of love is not an emotion but a selfless
desire and a choice to unreservedly give oneself in serving another. It is much less complex than
an emotion but infinitely more profound.
Although this love is more substantive than any emotion, it often inspires a profound joy. But even
this joy is unlike any other type of joy. It is not like the joy experienced from winning any prize
or accomplishing a goal in life or getting married to someone with whom one is completely in love
with. Perhaps it is like what the two men on the road to Emmaus described in Luke 24:32 as “hearts
burning within them.” Perhaps it is something which cannot be described to persons who never
experienced it, but one can only say that if the normal joy of
life is of the emotional “heart,” the Joy which sometimes accompanies this higher love seems like a
delight of the soul.
Loving in this highest way, while reducing some emotions such as disappointments, envy,
and a certain type of sadness, it seems to enhance others such as emotional love, and compassion
which includes sorrow for others in need.
In the first type of love pleasant feelings motivate one to draw close to the beloved. These
feelings inspire one to care for the beloved. However, if the beloved does not return the love, or
if the beloved treats the one who loves badly, the love can disappear, and feelings of hate can
take its place. The second higher type of love exists without motivation. Its only desire is for
the wellbeing of another. Someone who loves like this gives no thought of himself or herself as
they love without reason. This love is its own reason, it needs nothing to justify itself.
According to Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13, this love is the greatest thing in life. It is a
gift of God which inspires us to perceive others and relate to them not on the basis of how they
make us feel, but from the Spirit which unites us person to person. This love may seem natural to a
humble heart which is not overly concerned about self-promotion. Those who practice this higher
love often experience a type of peace which seems immune to personal tragedies and adverse events
of life. It is the “peace the world cannot give,” John 14:27).
Neither the joy nor the peace comes from the thing or person that is loved, but rather from the act
of love itself. They appear to be part of the nature of the soul rather than a fleeting phase. When
these delights subside, it is as though they subside only from the conscious mind but still exist
somewhere within the soul. As a person can put their hand on their own chest and be aware that
their constant heartbeat was always there, the joy and particularly the peace seem to always be in
the soul like a spiritual heartbeat. Perhaps the soul discovers itself as it chooses to love
unreservedly. Hence, we have examples of martyrs who rejoiced even as they were tortured to death.
These gifts are not even directly sought by those who love. They desire only to love, and God gives
these spiritual gifts freely to their souls.
Yet, the other, lesser type of love can feel more intense and all-consuming to most people than the
higher love does. Perhaps pure romantic infatuation might be considered as the strongest love most
people can imagine, but if there is none of the higher love supporting it, it often fades rapidly
when some other person or thing becomes the object of infatuation. We often do not choose to love
in this lesser way, and in fact, we might not desire to “fall in love” with the thing or the
person. Yet, this emotional love is not necessarily God-generated and might not even be
God-approved. And even when it is God inspired It is still always an ego-generated delightful
feeling. This might seem odd because modern society teaches that what is natural is perfect. So, we
expect that something we deliberately choose would not be willed by God, and the love which comes
naturally would be willed by God. But our choosing to love is always prompted by the supernatural
Spirit of God, while the lesser love which
comes naturally is prompted by natural bodily and emotional callings. These may or might not lead a
person closer to God.
The lesser love can be directed to people or to things in which we delight. For example, we can
love to go hiking, or we can love to spend time with a special person. This emotional love can
generate comfort and wellbeing. However, it can also generate envy and unhappiness. Different from
the higher kind, this love is not existential, existing in itself and for itself, and does not
exist without the object which is loved, or without at least the thought of it. This emotion can be
deceptive, and retarding if it is falsely recognised as the higher love. We can feel that we love a
person completely even though there is little to none of the highest type of love at play. Romantic
love can be a bit of both God-inspired and nature inspired love. It necessarily encompasses a
certain delight in the person who is loved, but almost always with a degree of exclusivity and
sexuality.
Perhaps sharing a personal story would further clarify the two loves: Within the first year of
marriage, my eccentricities caused our first argument. It was very heated and protracted and
thoughts of separation lingered through my mind. On the third day I looked at my wife, Michele, and
felt practically nothing but pain and frustration. Then, for reasons I only understood after, I
swore that “I am going to love this woman and there is nothing she could do about it!” From then
on, whenever we began quarrelling, I would do things like go into the kitchen and make her a
delicious cup of cocoa, or take her work-clothes from the dryer, iron them and hang them in the
closet for her.
At that time, I felt no romantic love for her, only a small desire for her wellbeing, a strange
peace and some self-control. After a few days all the abrasiveness between us subsided, and a
renewed unconquerable, passionate romantic love began to grow between us. We never argued
thereafter. This was the first time I understood that liking someone and loving someone are not
necessarily corresponding phenomena. I realized how much I loved her when it was not linked to
liking her, then I liked her more than ever. Consider also that Jesus might have disliked the
Pharisees and their moral dishonesty of his day, but he loved them with his whole being, and gave
his life for them. Consider also that we are to love God even when we do not like him or his divine
will.
Compassion
The etymology of compassion is “to suffer together,” or “to suffer with.” But suffering should not
be understood only as painful suffering. It involves appreciating any experience of the other as if
one is somehow united with the other. So, to be happy even for someone you dislike, who experiences
a good and pleasant blessing, is part of having compassion for that person. Compassion is very
similar to empathy, differing mainly that it is more active than just sharing feelings.
These are deceptively simple facts which if not appreciated, can seriously impair one’s
understanding of Christianity. It is important to know that even before man ever sinned, God has
infinite compassion for us. How he expresses it would vary according to our needs and not our
wants. Our sinning saw God’s compassion being expressed in Christ’s suffering and death.
Compassion seems to be a subset of both types of love, or a consequence of love, or perhaps
begotten of love. It cannot exist without some measure of love. Of course, it involves an
appreciation and concern for another creature’s wellbeing.
Many think that for a person to feel compassion for another they must have personal experience of
what the other is going through. But while it is true that compassion would be enhanced if a person
has had similar experiences as the one for whom the person has compassion, being able to personally
identify with the experience is not as important as actually loving the other being. For example, a
man might have more compassion for his wife in her labour pains, than a random woman who
experienced labour pains multiple times would have compassion for his wife.
Also, compassion ought not to be judged only by how one feels. Consider a mother who is angry with
her daughter. At that moment the mother might feel no tender emotion for her daughter. Yet, even
when the mother feels no love for her, if the daughter is suddenly faced with danger the mother
might instantly, willingly put her life in danger to save her daughter. Only after the daughter is
safe again, only after the mother’s loving actions are done might the mother afford herself the
time to feel loving emotions again.
Or imagine a mother takes her child to a doctor whose treatment will be painful, but important for
the child’s long-term health. If the mother is mentally and
emotionally distracted by more pressing matters and cannot feel compassionate at that time, could
anyone accuse her of being hard-of-heart or without compassion for her child? It could be extremely
misleading to judge compassion by emotional signs and not by wilful acts and decisions.
Compassion which comes with the higher love is special though. We could consider that a man might
assist an enemy who he strongly dislikes, simply because the enemy is a fellow human being. The man
understands a connection between himself and the enemy which transcends emotion. The man chooses to
assist not because of any emotional connection with the enemy, nor because of any good
characteristic his enemy might have.
He might choose to assist his enemy because he recognizes the enemy as firstly a person, and only
subsequently an enemy. Perhaps subconsciously and/or spiritually, he understands that judging
someone as an enemy is a mere perspective, while recognizing the person is to embrace an eternal
truth. He chooses to love the person and not necessarily the enemy. Even so, assisting this person
who seems to be an enemy might not evoke pleasant emotions within himself, yet this is
unconquerable love. Is this compassion? Even though the man does not have any warm feelings for the
person I would argue that it is compassion based on love. It is compassion because the man is
loving, not because the enemy is loveable. In fact, that man will be displaying exceptional love
and compassion. He does not love to feel good; he loves because he is good. God’s compassion for
man is similar in origin. It is not based on emotion but on his nature which is love. God chooses
to love us because he is loving, and we are lovable because God loves us.
The Impassibility of God
Some think that God does not understand our suffering. They argue that he cannot feel pain as we do
since he does not even have a physical body. However, to think that God lacks empathy or is
deficient because he does not experience fickle emotions as we do is absurd, because what he would
experience is vastly more intimately uniting and caring than any human emotion can ever be.
Human compassion involves imagining or assuming knowledge of how another feels. And even this has
its limits in time and intensity. But God is united with each person in an infinitely more intimate
way than we are united with one another. God’s caring and compassion is infinite and unrelenting.
And it comes from his knowing exactly what a person feels, will feel, the factors which causes the
suffering, what are the good and bad consequences of the suffering and what is necessary to relieve
the suffering.
God’s impassibility is neither apathy nor the inability to appreciate the joy or suffering of
others. Such abilities are of the very nature of love, which is the nature of God. In the parable
of the prodigal son, Luke 15:11-32, God (represented by the father) is “moved with pity.” Some
imagine God’s impassibility like a stone which neither moves nor changes. But it may be better to
understand it like water which touches and is touched by rocks and soil as it cuts through
mountains and makes things grow. But while there are currents within it, and even as it moves where
it wills, it remains constant within itself. Its nature experiences no change at all. Being moved
with compassion does not
change him in any way as compassion is part of his unchangeable nature. He constantly moves with
compassion. If God ceased to be able to be moved with compassion, then he would have changed.
God always desires for us to delight in him, not because he has anything to gain from us but
because he knows that our perfect happiness can only be found in him. He knew the pain man would
suffer and the pitiable state man entered when man first sinned. He is infinitely more aware of
these things than man who would experience them. And what God did when man first sinned is extreme
love. God chose to assist man who made himself God’s enemy. God desired and decided to be born as a
man where he would experience the suffering of man, and to be the way which leads man into a better
relationship with him. Note that God who exists outside of time, and to whom all things are present
would know the sufferings of Jesus Christ even before man was even created.
Original Sin
So, why do we suffer? According to the story of Adam and Eve, man had access to the fruit of two
trees, one which gave moral knowledge and the other, eternal life. However, God told them not to
eat of the tree of moral knowledge. Man disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. One result of
this was that for man’s own good, God removed man’s access to eternal life. It would always be hell
for man to “live” forever while unreconciled to God. This deprivation of access to eternal life,
which is the consequence of disobedience is what is passed down from generation to generation.
Access to eternal life which our parents do not possess, cannot be passed down by them to their
children. Original Sin which
our children inherit from us is not something; it is the lack of something; it is our spiritual
poverty, our lack of inherent divine grace, our lack of eternal life.
Therefore, what we call original sin is not the first sin but the consequence of the first sin. And
things could have been worse if man did not begin to suffer; man suffered the stress of shame for
his sin even in Eden. If man considered his evil deed to be good, and as long as man considered his
evil deed to be good, reconciliation with God would be impossible.
For those who get stuck in the debate over the historical accuracy of the Eden story just consider
this: Uniquely, all human cultures, globally and throughout history has held religious beliefs, we
can deduce that at some point in time man was created with a special desire and propensity to
worship God. And if we acknowledge that we are not perfectly good creatures, we can deduce that at
some time in history man first sinned against God. Finally, if God is infinitely good and just,
then from the moment man first sinned many things would have happened.
Man, the creature through whom nature was to willingly and freely contemplate God’s glory and to
serve God ceased to do so. Man lost his innocence and a pure connection to the God of truth.
Because he lost his relationship with the God of truth, man’s perception of himself and of nature
would be changed. Man would lose trust in God and worry about what he should eat of how he should
clothe himself. In Matthew 6:25-34 Jesus addresses this. For man, not only his soul would become
tainted, but the whole of nature would also become tainted.
Objectively, nature was not serving its purpose perfectly, which was to be the context where man
would worship God willingly and without fear. And because man injured his relationship with the
Lord of Life, his body would remain subject to corruption and death.
It is not that the fruit which Adam ate was bad. Everything is good in its proper context. Even
evil temptations can serve a good purpose if they are rejected. So, the suggestion that God made a
mistake in allowing man to be tempted is inaccurate. Man could have turned the temptation into a
blessing instead of his curse.
Man’s decision to eat the good fruit was evil because it was done outside of its God-given context;
it was done in opposition to God’s will. Notwithstanding that it was natural for man to desire the
good fruit, man acted against God, and revealed his weakness. We might speculate that if man had
not sinned, then at some time God in his compassion would have allowed man to eat the forbidden
fruit, and even the fruit of life. Then in some order, each person would have been taken up to
heaven as the “New Eve,” The Blessed Virgin who is unaffected by Adam’s sin was taken up into
heaven. I suppose we may never know.
Most importantly, the infinitely wise God knew that man who freely chose to sin, was now not free
from sin. There needed to be a man who was truly free to offer himself to God in the purest way.
But man was unaware of this. Man was incapable of fully understanding the gravity of his sin. Man
could not comprehend the objective contempt he showed for God by his error. Man could
not appreciate the profound desire of God to be united with him, or the damage to his relationship
with God which his action caused. This is so because to appreciate the full horror of his offending
action, man would have to know the extent of the divine love which he injures. Man would have to
know the depths of God. But do we have the capacity and purity to appreciate limitless divine love?
The purpose of suffering
I think that the biggest obstacle to accepting the Gospel is a biased assumption. We often assume
that whatever man finds agreeable is good, and whatever pains man is evil. The extent of our
disdain for suffering makes any unbiased study of it challenging. However, as suffering affects our
lives so much, and because the Gospel presents it as central to man’s redemption we are obligated
to try.
It happens often enough that persons who have every comfort, wealth, great social standing and a
loving family, still experience a discontent deep within themselves. Their youthful ambitions are
all accomplished, but they still feel there is something missing. They suffer emptiness from a
desire unfulfilled. But the real problem is that they do not actually know what they desire, so how
can the emptiness be filled? This feeling of emptiness drives them to seek relief. Some take to
unhealthy ways of filling the void, but in one way or another all such persons consciously or
subconsciously look for a reason to keep on living. Is this suffering a bad thing? Is the search a
good thing?
More often, the rest of us are aware of our unfulfilled desires and physical pain, and these
motivate us to seek a purpose for the pains. We ask ourselves, why does life have to be so
difficult? We may even ask, “If we must suffer, then why go on living in the first place.”
However, without suffering, most of us probably would be content and settled in our comforts, to
the exclusion of any hunger for deeper meaning. Or we might be satisfied to think that the meaning
of life is to have comforts and nothing more. Without suffering, most of us would probably not seek
any higher cause. We would not spend energy and time to put ourselves through the arduous task of
such difficult philosophical questions. Therefore, generally, without suffering, someone’s
inquisitive mind may ponder the philosophical question of our purpose in an academic way. But those
who suffer much are more likely to be driven by the force of necessity to do so.
So, does suffering cause us to seek purpose in a world where nothing has ultimate purpose? Does
suffering do anything other than motivate us into a world of illusion, trying to make sense of our
existence which ultimately serves no purpose? Catholic theology probably gives the best teachings
on these subjects, and the most comprehensive as it ties the phenomenon of suffering with our
ultimate purpose.
Christian theology teaches a cause-and-effect relationship between estrangement from God and
suffering. Certainly, the cause of suffering is intrinsically bad, but is the effect also
intrinsically bad? While many theologians refer to suffering as a curse, saintly mystics
consistently refer to it as a blessing. Jesus calls those who suffer “for righteousness’s sake”,
blessed” in Matthew chapter 5. So, it seems that suffering could be viewed as both good and bad,
according to the spirit with which it is received.
2 Corinthians 14 tells us that because of sin, no one should even be alive. Thus, the Christian
sees suffering in a context of general gratitude for even being alive. Even with its many pains,
being given life on earth is by itself a great mercy. And even more than this, because our promise
of eternal life is gotten through the suffering of God who became man, Catholics see suffering as a
means, a tool useful and necessary. It is the context in which God and man can unite even while on
earth.
Generally, from a scriptural point of view, suffering would be a very effective tool for spiritual
advancement. 2 Corinthians 7-10 tells of God deliberately causing Saint Paul to suffer and telling
him that it was for his good. We could relate this to the psalmist’s proclamation that all things
serve God (Psalm 118: 91) and confirm that “all things” include even the unpleasant things. In
Psalm 118:71, the psalmist says, “It was good for me to be afflicted, to learn your statutes.” I
think the scripture passage which is most informative on suffering is in Hebrews 5:8, where it
states that even Christ learnt obedience through suffering. It confirms that suffering is something
of a tool, a key which teaches.
Suffering may be consequent to man’s sin, but it is not evil in itself, as sin is. If it is
punishment from God, it is good. Holy Scripture suggests that human suffering is both a form of
punishment for sin, and an aid for our benefit. It seems to me that suffering is God’s parting gift
to us on leaving Eden, a gift necessary for our reconciliation to God. And it would be wise to use
it in the spirit it is given.
Our redemption is classically and correctly presented as God becoming man and sharing our
suffering, even to dying for us. He took our punishment upon himself. He took our curse and made of
it a blessing. But we can also present the same redemption story from another angle. We can say
that even before man ever suffered, God knew that man’s redemption required that he would become
like us and suffer the consequence of our sin for us. But if we never experienced any suffering, it
would have been impossible for us to appreciate God’s loving plan. We would not even know what we
did wrong. We would lack important self-knowledge. For that reason, we were given only a small
taste of the suffering consequent to our sin, in order to appreciate and unite with his loving
spirit. In other words, just as much as God came as man to suffer punishment for us, we are made to
suffer so that we can unite with God, our redeemer.
The gift of suffering
I think we need to understand that although it is unpleasant, the suffering of Christ is fashioned
from the compassion of God. Now, if we would only accept our suffering in the same fashion Christ
accepted his suffering, we may realize that our suffering is also fashioned by God and given to us
for that very purpose of imitating Christ in his suffering. Then, through Christ we would attain
unity and reconciliation with God. I like to consider the rough analogy where our suffering was
always the key which God lovingly gave to us for our salvation. But this key, this suffering would
only work when united to the door of our salvation, who is Jesus Christ.
Perhaps we can summarise the question of suffering as follows: As Jesus expressed God’s compassion
through patiently suffering, man would also be allowed to suffer, if only a fraction of the
consequences of his sins during his time on earth. And by being allowed to suffer we can
participate in God’s compassion in Christ and with Christ. Without Christ, man cannot fully access
the compassion of God. But with Christ we can fully share it. And through our individual suffering,
with the right spirit, we can even participate in the salvation of others.
I think the fact that Simon of Cyrene, an ordinary man, was made to carry Christ’s cross speaks to
this. He was made to share the cross of Christ, but only outside the Holy City. This symbolizes man
being offered a connection to God’s compassion on earth. The cross was taken up by Jesus inside the
Holy City, which could symbolize God’s timeless heavenly compassion. Only Jesus carried it in the
Holy City, as God’s compassion for man resided with him in timeless heaven. Of course, this does
not mean God is not united with us in our suffering on earth. It just means that in Christ, God
shares our suffering, and as we bear our daily sufferings like a gift of obedience to God as Christ
did, we share union with God in the Spirit of Christ.
It seems that through our little daily inconveniences, by the sufferings we endure in serving
others, and by being patient with ourselves in our sufferings we are moved by the same Spirit of
Christ. In this we even partake in Jesus’ work of redemption. So, the union of man’s suffering with
God’s suffering in Christ would be the most blessed way, or even the only way for the relationship
to be
perfected. But once perfected, the relationship would be without suffering in the next life in
heaven.
While on earth, along with a mystical way of uniting with God, there is a practical purpose for
suffering. It reveals or is symptomatic of a profound reality. All societal ills, wars, famines,
plagues, physical, emotional, and spiritual sufferings of man are symptoms of an underlying
ailment. The ailment is a disorder in our relationship with God. While in Jesus, God did heal many
individuals of a few symptoms, his mission was to address the cause of the illness. He was to
restore our broken relationship with God, which is the fundamental cause of all evil. As we learn
to perceive the phenomenon of suffering less through our own natural but biased aversion to it, and
understand it from God’s broader point of view, we may appreciate it more as a gift, or at least as
a means to a much greater good.
Suffering serves other purposes. Whether or not one believes in the literal historicity of the Eden
story, not being in an Eden now means that we need things which sustain physical and emotional
health. Suffering reminds us to tend to these needs, which are met through compassion and
interdependence. Self- sufficiency is a less useful state to prepare for paradise with a
compassionate God. A world where selflessness is not required, where no one needs another, where
neighbours, spouses and children are all self-sufficient, would be a dystopia even more
love-deprived than our own world.
Suffering can be a way of showing generosity. One can be happy to express love by suffering loss of
comforts to help others. It therefore adds value to any gift. Consequently, it increases the value
and appreciation of relationships. Suffering of conscience acts as a sign back to God. And simply
suffering without resentment or wanting to “hit back” could strengthen integrity.
Man’s fallen nature is a gift from God who sustains it. Christ works not to destroy our nature but
to elevate it through sharing it as we share his suffering. Through Christ’s life of suffering, he
teaches man its value. Through the merits of Christ, when we perceive pain and suffering as gifts
as Adam perceived all of creation as gift before he sinned, we are working with the Spirit of God
who reverses the misperceptions which came with man’s fall from paradise.
Meditation
If disciples only pray and go to Church when they feel to do such things, are they serving God
generously or are they primarily serving themselves? Consider that many saints experienced moments
of “dryness,” lack of motivative emotions where they sought and did God’s will. They loved when
they did not feel like doing so. They all considered such times exceptionally fruitful in their
journey toward a more meaningful relationship with God.
The purpose of life
The first two religious lessons I was formally taught as a five-year-old was that God made me, and
that God made me to know him, to love and serve him, and to be happy with him forever in heaven. I
feel that the profound implications of such a simple teaching is often lost on us as we grow older
and try to negotiate the complexities of life. How better it would be if we allowed the truths of
these childhood lessons to simplify our lives instead. Now, since most of us are not simple,
further explanation is required.
God’s purpose
God acts in accordance with his nature. God loves because he is love. God expresses what he is in
what he says and does. He does nothing halfheartedly and is loving in all his deeds. (Psalm 144:
13). His action come from his very being and glorifies himself. Uniquely, God’s purpose is himself.
A man might describe himself as being the father of some other person. Similarly, God says that he
is our creator. But when it comes to naming himself, God is unique. God has no family name and does
not name himself according to his relationship with any other being. True, God told Moses that he
is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but Moses understood this to be more a contextualization
of their encounter rather than God defining who he is. It is similar to having a conversation with
a stranger, who then tells you that he is your father’s cousin. Saying that he was the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have been appropriate in God’s conversation with Moses, because in
that
conversation, God was directing Moses to free the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What is
really interesting though, is God’s response when Moses asked God who he actually was. God simply
calls himself “I Am.” (Exodus 3:14).
Whereas God is not defined by any relationship outside of himself, it is most appropriate for us to
call ourselves servants of God. Holy Scripture says that all things serve him. Whether creatures
with free will like us serve God willingly or inadvertently is another matter.
There is a common misconception that every person is a child of God by nature. However, Holy
Scripture indicates, and the Church teaches that we are not God’s children by nature but by grace,
even as our nature has the capacity to be moved by grace. Therefore, we say that baptism makes us
children of God. Being faithful to our baptismal promises manifests our being children of God. (1
John 3:1, John 8:42-44).
Jesus’ self-understanding
Jesus is the only human person who is a child of God by nature. Jesus said many things which
indicated his self-understanding. These include: “I am the light of the world, (John 8:12). I am
the resurrection,” (John 11:25). “I am the way the truth and the life.” (John 14:6). But most
significantly Jesus said, “The Father and I are one.” (John 10:30). And in John 8:58 he referred to
himself using the phrase which God used to identify himself, “I Am.”
After Jesus was baptized, where God proclaimed that Jesus was his son, the devil tempted him by
trying to make him question his very nature, his identity as ‘Son of God.’ “If you are the Son of
God,” the devil challenged, “tell these stones to turn into loaves.” “If you are the Son of God,
throw yourself down.” (Matthew 4:1-6). By challenging Jesus’ sense of self, the devil foolishly
thought he could cause one who shares the nature of God to falter.
A perfect model for man
The Blessed Virgin’s response to God’s request in Luke 1: 38, is very revealing. She did not say
that she would accede to God’s will because it would make her happy, or because she had anything to
gain by it, or because she had no other choice. The reason she gave for accepting God’s will was
her relationship with God. She saw her purpose as to serve the one who needed no other purpose than
himself. She told the angel, “I am the handmaid of the Lord.”
The Blessed Virgin’s actions are a product of her knowing what she is to God, and her desire to be
true to her relationship with God. Or we can say that her purpose is to be true to her God-given
nature.
This is key to understanding purpose. Consider the Blessed Mother as the model. Her relationship
with God who is the essence of being, is the motivation for all her decisions. Her sense of purpose
flows from a true understanding of her nature. And there is a lesson here for those who believe
that the purpose of life
is to have personal happiness, which is a belief not founded on revelation or logic, but solely on
personal bias. The Blessed Virgin’s happiness would be a byproduct of her acting according to her
true nature. Happiness was not her end goal. Doing God’s will, which is natural to her pure soul
was her end goal. Her soul did not rejoice in herself, it rejoiced in God.
Man’s true nature obscured
Holy Scripture says that we were all made “in the image and likeness of God.” (Genesis 1:27). In
some way, our nature is like God’s. We can surmise that we are created by God for God. Or to put it
another way, we were created by love for love.
However, after man’s first sin, man perceived himself as shameful, and God said that man was dust,
and will return to dust. This poses some questions. If we are to return to dust, was man not dust
before we sinned? Or is it only our mortal bodies which are dust? Surely our spirit is not dust. Is
the nature of our spirit the image and likeness of God?
In verses 3 to 9 of his first letter, Saint Peter wrote that we are to “share the nature of God,”
and in the end, by the grace of God, even our corruptible bodies are to be glorified through faith
in Jesus Christ. Note that Jesus Christ is both truth and love.
So, perhaps we seek purpose because some primordial, spiritual instinct within us knows that there
is more depth within us than just our physical, mental, and emotional selves. And perhaps we often
seek it in external actions because we are unaware of the beautiful nature of our souls, and the
nature of God’s love and truth calling on us to be loving for the sake of love. Perhaps this
ignorance of our true selves, which is an ignorance caused by satan’s deception is the cause of all
our evils.
Finding meaning
1 Peter 2:9 tells Christians that they are “chosen” and “set apart to sing the praises of God.”
According to Holy Scripture, we are meant to praise God; this is our purpose. But how do we praise
God? The eighteenth-century English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton was probably most
instructive here when he said that “imitation is the sincerest of flattery.” After all, Jesus told
us to “follow him.” We praise God, and so find purpose, by being like God. But to get to this
state, it is helpful to investigate the state in which we live; how man currently seeks meaning and
defines it.
As we consider purpose here, we are focusing on “good purpose,” as opposed to something like a
nuclear bomb which was created and used for the purpose of killing people. A most important point
is this: As we would deem a chair or car to be good if it fulfils its purpose well, we may consider
a person good, that is, morally good if he or she fulfils their purpose well. But is out purpose
simply about utility, or is it a matter of being, that is, being in relationship with God? Is
service to God a manifestation of that relationship?
There are two popular approaches to the question of meaning or purpose in today’s world, and a
third approach which is rare. The first ties meaning and purpose to enjoyment of one’s own life.
The term “quality of life” is often used here. If much pain is experienced, and little personal
value is perceived to come from the suffering, those who follow this approach might find no purpose
in life.
The second find meaning in their usefulness to others. A medical doctor for example, may feel
useful thinking that his or her purpose is curing the sick. The doctor may find meaning in that
purpose because it is useful to others. A soldier may feel useful and have a sense of purpose in
defending his homeland. A clerk might have a mundane job which is useful to pay the bills and eat.
Perhaps in trying to make ends meet and worrying about the future, the clerk has little to no
concern about finding meaning or purpose in life.
But one day a stranger meets the clerk in the grocery and thanks him or her for putting through
some transaction, an ordinary thing long forgotten by the clerk. The clerk then experiences an
unexpected euphoric feeling of worth. Perhaps the soldier is commanded to fight in what he or she
considers an unjust war of aggression, or the doctor, made to perform euthanasia against his or her
conscience. They might suddenly find their lives meaningless. They might experience a severe
existential crisis.
Note that in the first two modes of approaching the question of meaning and purpose, while
different in the object that is served, both seek some utility or sentiment in life. In the first,
that object is themselves, in the second, it is others.
The Blessed Virgin’s response to the angel’s call reveals the third approach. She first sees that
God is Love, and her purpose lies in understanding her relation to God. It consists of being open
to God’s will, which includes being satisfied with whatever he offers, and eager to serve God in
whatever way he wishes. It is like a new bride whose only desire is the happiness of her
bridegroom. Just that. It does not matter whether life is easy or tiresome. Here one is not
primarily concerned with oneself. One’s life is not primarily one’s life, but God’s. Unlike the
second or the first approaches, here the fundamental concern is one of relationship not of utility.
It does not matter if anyone else finds the person useful or even likes him or her.
The profound difference can be better appreciated when considering that while the other approaches
seek purpose through serving a created being, the third is found in fostering a relationship with
the source of being, the source of one’s very existence. It is true that God exists and that we
also exist, so we are all beings. But God is the cause of existence itself. God is the ultimate
purpose. It might be worth noting for those of the first two categories, that those of the third
are the most open to serving others, and to finding enduring personal happiness.
The divine gift of love
Although the verb “love” is understood in varied ways, there is a shared dimension to it in all
definitions, which is, “to value greatly.” However, the Christian understanding of the noun “love”
includes God, and this needs even more clarification before proceeding further.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7, gives the best description I know of the Christian understanding of love as
it says that “Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous; love is never boastful or
conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offence, and is not resentful. Love takes
no pleasure in other people’s sins but delights in the truth; it is always ready to excuse, to
trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes. Love does not come to an end.”
Just before this description, Saint Paul said that love is a Gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not
then merely of human nature. It could engender emotion, but it is not an emotion. In verse 13 of
the same chapter, Saint Paul confirmed love to be the greatest gift God offers to us. In the Spirit
of Love, God gives us himself. Whereas the common non-Christian understanding assumes love to be
human in origin, and it is open to exclusivity and jealousy.
As we proceed, either the common understanding of the word “love,” or the Christian understanding
of the word “love” would be relevant according to context.
Serving the eternal gives us eternal meaning
What often happens in practice is that during a person’s life, the thing a person loves and values
most, changes. For example, a mother might find meaning raising children, but they might die before
she does. So, seeking meaning in a temporal thing acts as a stopgap to man’s deepest longing. But
if the thing which is loved was itself, timeless and immaterial there would be no end to meaning or
purpose. And if what is loved and served is God’s Spirit of Love, another wonderful consequence
emerges. If we value love the most, if our only fundamental desire is to be loving, then the desire
itself is the spirit of Christian love. Simply to act according to the desire to love is to love.
If our hearts are turned to God in this way, if we desire to love, the very core of ourselves will
be in union with God. This contrasts with someone whose desire is to be rich, or to be healthy or
to be famous or to have a family. The desire for these other things is neither their fulfilment,
nor a guarantee of their fulfilment. Whereas, to pursue wholeheartedly a desire to love is to love.
The only thing left would be to grow better at loving.
If the desire to love is consistently fostered, by the grace of God loving begins to feel more
natural. One would find that people who were difficult to love before, become more loveable in
time. In most cases this might happen not because of any change in the person being loved, but
changes in the heart of the one who loves. One learns to love the true person, not necessarily the
false images of themselves people portray to the world.
Imagine if we can love because we are loving, if somehow love becomes part of our nature, then
perhaps we will never be without meaning (as God presumably is never without meaning). If we
consider how a man can love his brother not
only because he is his brother, but because the man is loving, for example. Or how a mother can
love her child, not only because it is her child, but because she is by nature, loving, then we
would discover the key to true meaning and purpose.
As a Christian I will describe the meaning of life as the privilege to serve mercy, love, and
truth, —the non-reasonable things of God. As we grow in Christ and find our meaning in him who is
compassion, mercy and love, the answer to the question, “what is our purpose” becomes more obvious.
As a result, because there is less emptiness within us the question itself is less considered by
us.
The more we become merciful and loving, the more our nature is realized as a reflection of love and
mercy. The more these become our nature so to speak, the more we become like God. The more we
become like God the more we become that which we sought. Ultimately, we find our purpose by being
one with love. Then, as it is with the God of compassion and love, the question of our purpose also
in a sense becomes non-reasonable. To answer the question of our meaning in the simplest way: our
purpose is to be like “The Way,” Jesus Christ (John 14: 6).
Saint Peter said that we are to share God’s divine nature. In heaven, the state where love will be
all in all, the state to which we are all called, we would look at ourselves and see a reflection
of God, and we would look at God and see ourselves in him.
Meditation
Consider that any entity which serves well the purpose for which it was created, is a good entity.
A chair for example, would be considered good if it can comfortably accommodate a person who wants
to sit. Consider that our free will gives us the ability to act in opposition to our base nature.
Inasmuch as our free will allows us to act in accordance with our base nature, the free will is
redundant. The purpose of our free will is therefore to oppose our base nature when necessary. Our
base nature, like the nature of all other animals, serve the purpose of keeping our species alive;
it is self-serving, which is not a bad thing. However, this still means that the purpose of our
free will is to have us serve others in spite of our selves. In other words, its purpose is to
allow us to love.
Considering the Christian understanding of love, are we to make distinctions between whom we should
and should not love? Is the fact that a person claims to love only certain people, hate a few, and
not care either way about many, evidence that the person judges everyone? Can a person who does not
care about everyone, love anyone in the Christian sense?
Imagine God as a flat mirror which not only reflects light, but from which all light begins.
Imagine a soul after the death of the body as a flat mirror facing parallel to the God-mirror. If
the soul-mirror has any impurities on its surface, divine light which reflects off any pure parts
of the soul is re-reflected by the God-mirror onto them. As the redirected light reflects the
soul’s good nature, it exposes and
removes the impurities within the soul, even though the process is painful to the soul. Divine
light then passes from God to the soul and back to God, infinitely. The soul will be reflected in
God infinitely, and God will be reflected in the soul infinitely. However, if the soul-mirror is
completely tainted and has no area which can reflect God’s divine light, no purifying light can be
redirected to it. That soul will be subject only to the burning suffering forever.
Integrity
Integrity is the level of stability that keeps something in a state of wholeness. For example, a
bridge will have high integrity if it remains undamaged after floods and severe weather over an
extended period. Integrity then, is the ability to keep form or nature despite factors that act to
destroy that wholeness. One could speak of the integrity of an engine, an organization, a nation
and even mankind.
Many ask the question, “Why doesn’t God just make everyone good and take us all to heaven? If he
can do all things, he can change our hearts, they imagine. This is an intriguing question. First,
we must define what it means to be morally good. We will define it as “Being committed to choosing
God’s will even though one might falter sometimes.” Now, let us consider what “choosing” implies.”
Imagine God as a beautiful young adult heiress, who is intelligent, fun to be with, and humble but
very wealthy. And imagine that she falls in love with, and longs for a particular ordinary
available man. Subtly, she makes her feelings known to him. They would have a blissful life
together, except that the man simply does not want her. Can she force him to love her? The very
idea of forced love, or to love without the freedom of choice to reject love, is
self-contradictory.
Even if God could do such a self-contradictory thing to us, our very nature would lose its
integrity, and so would our relationship with God lose integrity. Although God made us all without
our input, now that we have a free will as he does, he would not force us to do anything against
our will.
But some would point out that when God created the Blessed Virgin Mary, he redeemed her at her
conception and filled her with grace so she would always choose his will. Why can’t he do the same
for everyone? Here again we may have a self-contradictory situation. Because what triggered God’s
conceptual redemption of Mary, and her being filled with grace in the first place, was man’s sin.
Without man’s sin there would be no need for a redeemer, and no coming of the Holy Spirit upon man
as a consequence of his resurrection. There would be no Holy Spirit conceiving Jesus in a woman’s
womb, no immaculate conception. So, to save us all from the sins from the moment of our
conceptions, by redeeming us all for the sins we would have committed after conception, is an
oxymoronic idea.
But the way things are might be the best for us, because without man’s faults we would not know the
fullness of the love of God which was made manifest through Jesus Christ our redeemer. As scripture
says, “Where sin abound, grace more abound.” (Romans 5:20).
To put the whole of creation in context, one should consider the Catholic teaching that God did
create good beings before he created space, time or any material thing. These good beings were the
angels. Of these, a third “instantly” rebelled against God.
Being outside of space-time, where time is ultimately a measure of change, they are forever unable
to repent because they are incapable of changing. However,
when it comes to the creation of man, our soul is eternal, but our physical body and mind can
change, which has the effect of determining where we would be at the end of time. To this end, when
God himself physically entered space-time, he brought hope to physical creation in a way that is
different to what angelic beings have.
So, why can’t an omnipotent God just make everyone good and take us all to heaven? Perhaps it is
because it will not be the best or fullest way for mankind to know the love of God. Or perhaps the
suggestion is self-contradicting.
Therefore, it is at least partly up to man to sustain high moral integrity. If we are willing, God
in turn will help us, especially if we ask him. How can we be sure we want integrity for ourselves?
By honestly seeking the Truth. By striving to keep living in accordance with moral principles,
which themselves have integrity, even while living amid a society that tries to dilute or destroy
such principles.
What can be said about people who verbally teach others to keep moral principles, such as to be
honest, to be kind and generous, but who do not live according to such principles themselves? Such
persons would have no moral integrity for two reasons. Firstly, because they live unprincipled
lives, and secondly, because there is no parity between their words and their actions. Between
their words and actions there is no wholeness. But consider that the human person is quite complex.
We do not only have the faculty of speech, and the capacity to act in accordance with, or not in
accordance with our words. We are more than simply moral creatures. We have physical bodies also,
which may
have varying degrees of integrity. Many moral persons may have physical bodies which are quickly
deteriorating, and so, lack biological integrity. Can anyone claim to be a person of complete
integrity, wholeness of mind, body, and spirit?
Do we not often choose to advance the integrity of our spirit over that of our body, or vice versa?
Sometimes it seems that telling a little lie could relieve a stressful situation. Then, our bodies
can relax a little more. On the other hand, we sometimes overwork ourselves to provide for our
families or some duty God has placed upon us. We give less attention to our physical wellbeing than
God’s will. With good reason, the Church will advise us to always seek moral integrity before
biological integrity. It is the way of Jesus which often involves the way of the cross. Many people
who do not understand the wisdom of the cross, think that it is foolish to be faithful to moral
integrity at the expense of physical comfort. They see physical comfort and wellbeing as of greater
value.
It is significant that every physical human body, and indeed all matter was created by God, who is
pure spirit. The body was created by spirit, and not the other way around. Christian theology would
advise that, as with creation, our redemption, that is, God’s re-creation of man’s complete
integrity, also starts with the spirit. In 1 Corinthians 4:16, Saint Paul observes that, “Though
this outer man of ours is falling into decay, the inner man is renewed day by day.” The inner man,
or spirit of man is to acquire integrity, and in the fullness of time the whole person, body, mind,
and spirit would gain wholeness. Then, we are to become people of complete integrity as the
resurrected Christ, and forever. (Luke 21:16- 19).
It cannot be overstated that unlike any of the other main religions of the world, Christianity does
not teach about a heaven where disembodied spirits reside for eternity. Nor about spirits
reincarnating in new bodies. The followers of Christ are to be beings of complete integrity; our
humanity, body, mind, soul, and spirit are to be glorified forever. Perhaps it is impossible to
understand or even to imagine, but that is the promise of Jesus, the man who rose from the dead in
his glorified, immortal, unencumbered, limitless divinity/humanity.
In 1 Samuel 6:7, scripture says that man looks at appearances while God looks at the heart. Perhaps
because we are really meant for heaven we instinctively, subconsciously expect complete integrity
in everything. We look at a handsome person and naïvely expect them to have matching goodness of
spirit. And we pre-judge others who might not be so pleasant to look at, as probably lacking in
moral integrity also. It will be helpful always to remind ourselves that we and the world we live
in are flawed. It is dangerous to judge by appearances in this present world that is far from
having complete integrity.
Consequences: An Overview of Redemption
One thing that is surely true is that everything has consequences, and God is the author of all
truth. The “Law of Consequences” then, might be seen as a law of God. Perhaps this law is the basis
of all justice, except that often, those who do something bad suffer pleasant consequences, while
innocent victims experience unpleasant consequences. Thus the “law” of consequences often seems to
deliver injustice.
But consider the concept of consequences in a different, more fundamental yet universal way. For
example, the first consequence of someone destroying someone else’s property would be to make the
person who loses the property, a victim. At the same time, the perpetrator of the crime would
destroy his or her own integrity. A third consequence might be the weakening of the relationship
between the victim and perpetrator.
If the victim forgives the one who did the wrong, and the one who did the wrong is sorry for the
offending action, their relationship might be mended to some extent. But note that the victim
remains a victim, therefore, perfect reconciliation will not be had. On the other hand, if the
perpetrator replaces or gives adequate compensation for the lost property, the consequence of that
might be the negation of victimhood and perfect reconciliation.
Another consideration about consequences is that not only actions have consequences, the nature of
anything and anyone also has consequences. For example, because of its nature, a fish might be
capable of swimming but also be incapable of flying.
Now, consider a God who is the source of life and whose nature is love. Man cannot take property
from God, but we do disobey him and treat his majesty with contempt. God deserves our obedience and
respect, and we can choose to give him neither nor both. We can be unjust to God. However, because
of God’s nature, God would desire to forgive any injustice or insult done by man to him. On the
other hand, because of man’s nature, man might not be capable of having true sorrow for his
injustice.
A very significant consequence of man’s nature is that he cannot fathom just how bad his offences
against God are because he cannot fathom the nature of divine love. He does not know its value. In
destroying his relationship with God, man is worse than a disobedient and unruly child who destroys
a priceless work of art in a museum. In destroying his relationship with God who is the source of
life, man forfeits his own life. One could call it a just punishment for disobeying God, but death
is simply the natural result of man breaking his relationship with the source of life. Sad as it
may be, for the most part man really “knows not what he does,” (Luke 23:34).
Further to this, is it our nature to claim responsibility for being unjust to anyone? If so, to
what degree? Indeed, is it not in the nature of man to try and justify his
actions, even if those actions are unjust? Which individual person then can ever give pure and
sufficient sorrow and recompense to God for the consequences of his or her sins?
Jesus Christ, who is said to be both God and man presents an interesting phenomenon. How does the
law of consequences play out in him? One might think this Godman, sharing the sinful nature of man
while having the nature of God would be internally conflicted. But scripture explains that although
he has the same human nature as the rest of us, he is God’s new creation of man. He was not born of
the usual stock, but miraculously. To this end, the woman who was to bear him in her womb was also
to be completely pure and undefiled by sin. He is therefore undefiled by sin, without an ancestral
connection to sin in any way. (John 1:13-14).
Each nature of Jesus carries its own consequences. But having both in one person means that he
could reveal at least two things. In his very being he could reveal what man’s relationship with
God should be. Secondly, the way other people treat him, reveals the truth of how mankind treats
God.
He was subjected to utter contempt and suffered grievously before dying. This is seen by Christians
as God’s redemptive action. But it would also be the expression of a primordial truth. It reveals
God as a victim of man. He is the “sign that is rejected” (Luke 2:34). On the cross he would be a
sign like the standard Moses raised in the desert: (Numbers 21:9), to let the people of God
contemplate on why they were dying; a symbol of their sin, and one which, through their
appreciation of the truth it signified, brought healing.
Further to that, Jesus as a man, could: (1), experience man’s primordial estrangement from God.
(Mathew 27:46). (2), As man he experiences with God, God’s victimhood. In Jesus, man both reveals
and shares the victimhood of God. (3), Jesus, as the new man, experiences the temptations of fallen
man, but unlike Adam and the rest of mankind, he offers total obedience to God. (4), Jesus fully
appreciates the horror of man’s sin and can experience true and appropriate sorrow on behalf of
man. (Mark 14:34-40). Note that even if man can be forgiven for sin, especially as he is not fully
aware of its horror (because he cannot know the depths of the love he injured), for him to be
united with God fully, he would eventually have to become fully aware of God’s love, and
consequently, the horror of sin. In Jesus, this knowledge and appropriate sorrow is accomplished.
(5), Jesus suffers the consequence of man’s broken relationship with the God of life by dying. By
his resurrection, he gives life to man.
Particularly at the time of his suffering and death, Jesus makes a pure offering of his obedience,
and his victimhood on behalf of mankind as recompense for the sins of mankind. (Mathew 20:28). By
this offering, he would seek and obtain forgiveness for man, (Luke 23:34).
In Jesus, both man and God share the consequences of sin. That is, God experiences the consequences
due to man, along with God’s own victimhood of being rejected, treated with contempt, and abused.
While in the same Jesus,
man experiences the victimhood of God, along with the consequences due to man, namely, estrangement
from God, suffering and death.
The consequence of all this is complete reconciliation of the relationship between God and man. But
strictly speaking, the reconciliation only exists in the person of Jesus. If any other human were
to be reconciled to God, it would have to be through unity with Jesus. At the end of time, the
individual redemption or condemnation of each person would be a consequence of the choice made
regarding God’s offer of forgiveness and reconciliation through Christ.
Being aware of reconciliation through this new man’s suffering, Christians see and use
opportunities to unite themselves with Jesus by (1), their obedience to God; (2), offering their
daily troubles to God without complaint as Christ did; (3), baptism, (Romans 6:4); (4), partaking
in the Eucharist, (John 6:56); and (5), accepting the gift of his mother as their mother. (John
19:26-27, and Revelation 12:17). Christians see that reconciliation through Jesus involves a
process of transformation from the former man into the new man.
Finally, the resurrection of Jesus, (the innocent victim) from the dead, reveals the final truth of
justice. As a consequence of God’s love, those who accept God’s mercy by being in solidarity with
Jesus, will be given a life of even more abundance than they would otherwise deserve. In the final
story of existence, justice would be guaranteed to each and for all. In the end therefore, one
would look back at all history and discover that justice was indeed always about the law of
consequences. Although at any particular time in history, injustice
seemed to be pervasive, it was all part of a process, a journey towards that place where everything
is what it ought to be.
Meditation
Consider redemption as a tug-of-war, with Jesus on one team. He can win the match by his own
strength alone. Without him, the team loses. However, he allows and encourages everyone to pull
with him. The devil and others choose to be on the other team, pulling against his team. The force
on the rope from Jesus’ side is one force, even though it is the combined effort of every
individual. As the team wins, all individual members celebrate as one.
But there a few who position themselves on Jesus’ team, who, instead of pulling with the team, they
push against it. These are the “darnel” Jesus spoke about in Matthew 13:24-30, or those without the
garment of celebration in Matthew 22:12-14.
Dynamics of Spirituality
The definition of spirituality as “the degree to which one willingly serves God” seems irrefutable.
This chapter simply explores aspects of it. Keep in mind that while I am no expert on this or the
other subjects dealt with in this book, as much as possible I try to present Catholic thought from
the context of personal experience. And a notable thing which has helped me, is a growing
appreciation of how different academic knowledge, and spiritual understanding is. Mental knowledge
by itself hardly causes spiritual growth. However, conviction of the heart, which I define as
spiritual knowledge, which may or might not come through mental knowledge is a gift of the Holy
Spirit which moves the disciple onward in the spiritual life.
A personal testimony
I believe that “Interior Castles,” Saint Teresa of Avila’s erudite book on the soul’s ascent in
prayer gives an excellent commentary on the spiritual life. I think it wise to favorably consider
the recommendations of the many advanced souls concerning the seven levels, or castles as the saint
called them. I can only personally attest to the first three, although on infrequent occasions it
seems like The Lord shows me something of the fourth.
I have heard somewhere that the story of the Israelites is like the journey of a typical disciple’s
soul. Perhaps this is true, because at one point in my life, when I prayed psalm 77, I often felt
it was an indictment of my soul, which seemed a microcosm of the foolish, ungrateful, unfaithful
Israelites in the desert. I think
that ingratitude and presumption have always been my principal sins. Like almost all sins, they
were probably born of pride. But what makes them even more egregious is that I am aware of a great
many times God saved me from catastrophes, and other times when he gave me completely undeserved
blessings.
Just one example is a time I needed a highly improbable day’s wage to renew my business’s
insurance. For many reasons including legal ones, it was imperative to get it. Without going into
details, I can compare that day to when Peter made an impossible catch. (Luke 5:1-11). Yes, the
inflow of customers was that dramatic, while the many other similar businesses in the region
experienced their slowest days. But even before this when my wife died, and I with my five young
children were in no small part helped by friends and family, my level of gratitude was subpar.
The loss of my wife prompted me to be more detached from things, which on the surface might sound
like spiritual growth. But there was an element of pride in it. It might have been as much defiance
to God’s will as it was acceptance of God’s will. A notable part of me challenged God to take
everything from me. There was a certain desire in me to be strong enough not to be hurt if God ever
took anything away from me again. Being detached was partly a security mechanism. Then, eighteen
months after, I was injured on my job at the bank where I worked and lost my employment.
Still headstrong and arrogant, I went into my own business. Still thinking I must only depend on
me. Then I acquired the annoying, semi-debilitating disease of torticollis. It was my beautiful
children who assumed much of the tasks which I the father should ideally do. Little by little the
defiance waned, and I began to learn some needed lessons.
I am only now beginning to experience real detachment from all things but Christ. Everything but
Christ seems to be fading more and more into relative irrelevance. I say relative irrelevance
because I still get at least the same amount of pleasure from those ordinary things in life as I
did before. If anything, the beauty of nature and people are more appreciated. But I am less
attached from the pleasure and the only thing I passionately hunger for is Christ. I would feel
little loss without anything but him.
Now, although remnants of my misguided past still exist as a haunt or a cautionary sign, I relate
more with psalm 72, verses 13 to 26 where “the wicked” is my former ungrateful self. The passage
reads:
How useless to keep my heart pure and wash my hands in innocence, when I was stricken all day long,
Suffered punishment day after day.
Then I said: “If I should speak like that, I should betray the race of your sons.”
I strove to fathom this problem,
too hard for my mind to understand, until I pierced the mysteries of God
and understood what becomes of the wicked.
How slippery the paths on which you set them; You make them slide to destruction.
How suddenly they come to their ruin, wiped out, destroyed by terrors.
Like a dream one wakes from, O Lord,
When you wake you dismiss them as phantoms.
And so when my heart grew embittered and when I was cut to the quick,
I was stupid and did not understand, no better than a beast in your sight.
Yet I was always in your presence;
You were holding me by your right hand. You will guide me by your counsel
and so you will bring me to glory.
What else have I in heaven but you? Apart from you I want nothing on earth. My body and my heart
faint for joy; God is my possession forever.
In me now there seems to be an indomitable peace and joy which may wane and increase, but which
never leaves. Though I must also admit that being without the Blessed Sacrament during the
Covid episode was quite discomforting. I was as desolate as a spouse, seeing but unable to touch
her beloved for what seemed an eternity. Okay, perhaps I am being a little over dramatic, but only
a little.
Strange as it sounds, without God’s gift of my debilitating torticollis I might not have known this
freedom. Though the spasms keep my body in a state of restlessness, and my mind is often assessing
circumstances as I try to negotiate what were once routine tasks such as brushing my teeth,
shaving, and even going to sleep, a stillness and joy seems to emanate from somewhere deeper than
my heart. It is probable that this joy is not despite my suffering but because of it. Because after
trying for the last ten years to be like Job of the Old Testament, I am beginning to appreciate his
wisdom.
Because of my experiences, my first advice to a new disciple will only repeat Jesus’s directive in
Matthew 16:24, which is to embrace your cross. I know, it is counterintuitive. It goes against
everything the world tells you, perhaps everything you have known until now. But even though I
sometimes struggle with remnants of internal resistance, I can see now that there is no other path
to God. There is an analytical voice in me which theorizes that purely on a psychological level,
perceiving suffering as a gift and not a curse would have the effect of making anyone emotionally
invincible in some way. Yet it seems to also have the effect of opening one’s heart to fearlessly
love, even with vulnerability. This I believe is more a spiritual thing. Perhaps both psychological
and spiritual effects are connected and are from God.
Humility
Jesus taught that the greatest in God’s kingdom is the one who serves most humbly. It is simple,
yet disciples like me usually find this simple aim, difficult. This could be because of another
thing Jesus said, “He who loses his life would find it.” In other words, the disciple must consider
himself or herself least relevant compared to others, and especially in relation to God. This might
sound absurd. Yet, the smaller one’s ego is, the less one is hurt by social ills, such as insults
greed and envy, which destroy joy. One is also less likely to be dismayed by disappointments. A
type of spiritual freedom comes from this, which allows for a deeper appreciation of everyone and
everything else. It also allows one to appreciate God more, and to be filled with unbounded joy.
Faith
Although there are many great teachers and books that give excellent guidance in the spiritual
life, the most valuable lessons we learn are probably from life itself. On a personal level, a good
case on this point is an experience I had on my honeymoon in Saint Lucia, April 1986. Michele, my
adventurous bride suggested we use the mode of transport of the locals to explore the island.
The day was thoroughly delightful and exciting. Unknown to us however, local transport stopped a
little after 4 pm, and we found ourselves alone in the village of Soufriere after 5 pm. The houses
were all shut, the air silent, and the road devoid of any moving thing. Just before sunset we saw a
lone young girl walking toward the village. She seemed a little amused by our predicament, but
after some thought suggested that we knock at some doors and offer $20 for lodging. “In the morning
you could continue your journey,” she added.
This seemed perfectly acceptable to me. I thought that interacting with a local family, perhaps
sharing a meal with them should be interesting. However, my beautiful bride was not interested and
was strangely unperturbed. In fact, she was smiling. “Well, we could sleep on the beach,” I
suggested. The evening was glorious; the sky was clear and the area, safe. Still smiling, my
darling gently held my hand and led me to sit with her on a small concrete bridge before saying,
“let’s pray.”
Within three minutes, a young American couple in a Jeep pulled up in touching distance of us. The
bright looking young driver looked at us and asked, “Do you know the way to Castries?” Michele
glanced at me and smiled. They seemed as
relieved as I was when I answered, “Yes, that is where we are headed.” On the way, I enquired about
the hotel to where they were going. When he said, “La Toc,” the relief probably showed on my face.
It was the resort where we were staying. Michele just looked at me and grinned.
Michele was not a theologian and never seemed overly religious, although she privately prayed
often. Yet, there were several other instances during the twelve years we spent together, where she
taught me what faith is. It is not just believing in God; it is a trust born out of her
relationship with him. It is similar to the trust she had in me. She knew that she could ask
anything of me within my power and be confident that she would have it. Her faith in God was the
same in type as her faith in me, but different in that everything is in God’s power. I think that
she was one of the “mere children” Jesus spoke about in Matthew 11:25. She would have laughed at
the theological arguments that pit faith against good works as a means for salvation. She would so
naturally do anything for the God who would do anything for her. She taught me that salvation is
about relationship, faith is about relationship, what you do is about relationship.
Most significantly, I think that I gained another insight from my experience of marriage to
Michele. Our relationship may have corresponded somewhat to that relationship Saint Paul wrote
about in Ephesians 5:22-33, between Christ and his Church. It taught me, or she taught me that
heaven is more a relationship with Christ than a place somewhere. It is a relationship where
neither one seeks their own interest, but only that of the other. It is a completely free
relationship, without force. It is a relationship filled with appreciation, gratitude, and love.
And that is the divine beauty of heaven. Not a beauty one perceives primarily
through the senses, but the beauty of the relationship. To be in such a relationship with Christ is
to partake in the beauty of God.
The key to spiritual life
There are those who seek heaven for their own sake. This is good. They shun sin and appreciate that
Christ suffered and died to open the possibility of eternal life for them. But there are those who
shun sin because they love God and hate to offend him. They seek heaven because there they would
find Christ in his infinite beauty.
The aim of the spiritual life is to be in union with God. Genesis 3:4-9 says that Adam and Eve
grasped at the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, to have parity with God. This might seem
reasonable to some people, even if it is direct disobedience to God. Eve and Adam saw something
which was good and went for it. But contrast this with Jesus who is our model for spirituality. He
has parity with God by nature, yet he did not consider parity with God anything to be grasped.
(Philippians 2:6).
The disciple of Christ will not advance in the spiritual life without the realisation that the
perfect relationship with God requires the dynamic where neither God nor man grasps anything from
the other. It is not a dynamic of give and take, but one of offer and receive. Each offers their
all to the other, and each receives with love, whatever the other offers in love.
In John 8:50, Jesus said that he does not seek his own glory, but his glory is his Father’s
prerogative. We are to have the same approach. But how often do we glorify ourselves? We
consistently glorify ourselves by justifying ourselves, and do not wait to receive justification
from our loving God. After sinning, we tell ourselves, “Well, we might have fallen in one aspect of
our lives, but we do so much good otherwise, that God will surely take our soul as being on the
whole, good enough.” Or we say, “I am only human; I sin because of the nature God gave me.” In such
ways and others, we not only reject the justification and glory which God offers, we grasp at a
justification which is illusory.
In Genesis 3:7 we read that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and
evil, “their eyes were opened.” This might indicate that something was wrong or insufficiently
formed with their perceptiveness before they sinned. They were blind to their own selves, and how
they ought to relate with God. The fact that they did sin supports this view. Because if they were
fully aware of their nature, committing any sin would have been improbable. But then, by sinning
their pure souls became impure, which in turn dulled their senses.
Scripture says they hid from God because of their new self-perception. This is in stark contrast to
the blind man in Luke 18:35-43. After requesting and receiving sight from Jesus, the formerly blind
man did not hide from God, but followed God. Perhaps the “forbidden fruit” which man ate was good
for him, but not right for him to grasp. Rather, like the power of perception which Jesus gave to
the blind man, it was a special gift which the first man was supposed to receive from the hand of
God, not his own hand.
Genuine spirituality is something we receive, not something we acquire by our own efforts, even
though to receive we must open our arms and release anything else to which we cling. Is that
considered effort? Jesus said in Matthew 18:3, that “unless you change and become like little
children, you would never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Spirituality requires humility to accept
that we can do no good without God; we can be no good without God; to be completely reliant on God.
And God gives the simplest directions to his children: love God and love one another.
The relationship grows
Fundamentally, spirituality is all about conforming to the will of God. Love for the will of God is
to spiritual growth as water and sunlight is to the growth of a plant. This love is what the Holy
Spirit pours into the hearts of those who desire to grow in relationship with God.
It is good to hunger for union with God, and to gain understanding. But even this hunger must be
offered and received. Then it grows almost imperceptibly, and the disciple does not know how. (Mark
4:27). An analogy can be made between the spiritual life and a small airplane on taking off. It
starts to move very slowly, and for a while its connection of its wheels to the tarmac can be felt.
One can feel the wind trying to lift it while it still is on the ground. But there comes a time
when it is in full flight, yet it is difficult to know exactly when its wheels detached from the
ground. Or we might compare it with a person learning to dance. At
first, they concentrate on their legs, feet, and their whole bodies. But eventually they simply
enjoy the music which moves them.
Consider someone without much faith beginning a life of prayer and almsgiving. At first, prayers
may be recited without much thought and almsgiving might seem somewhat mechanical. Then in time, as
he or she persists in meditating on them, the words of prayer become more relatable to the person,
and relationships with others more meaningful. Gradually, spiritual understanding, which is
difficult to describe in words, evolves. Finally, the person finds himself or herself in a
relationship with God which seems very natural. There is no fuss about it; no apparent effort
needed to sustain it, except the “effort” of simply being open and honest.
Of course, this spiritual movement is hidden from the world, except that other people might find
the disciple more available, peaceful, and loving. However, that would be like seeing the tip of an
iceberg.
It should be noted that the dynamics of growth does not strictly follow defined steps, but rather,
some steps might occur simultaneously. It is just that some steps are more prominent than others at
various times. In other words, the very beginning of the prayer life can also be the beginning of
the purest relationship. In psalm 72:21-24, the psalmist was always close to God who was guiding
him. Yet, in his troubles, the psalmist was unaware of this.
Take the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35 as an example. On their way home they
were discussing the passion of Jesus. They were seeking understanding when Jesus himself joined
them. But they were unaware that he was walking together with them. They thought that he was just
another traveller. Only when they reached their destination and sat with him to eat that they
realized that he was always with them. On self-reflection they realized that their hearts were
speaking of him all the time. He was always speaking to their hearts. (Matthew 25:35-40)
In the Church there have been great mystics who wrote about their experience of being united with
God in a profound way. Many who consider themselves “ordinary Christians,” assume that they cannot
have unity with God without some mystical experiences. Perhaps the saint who best teaches this
subject is Doctor of the Church, Saint Theresa, “The little flower.” From her we learn that the
ordinary could be extraordinary if it involves extraordinary love.
It seems to me that some disciples are so engaged in serving God, so enwrapped in God are they that
the glory of their own soul is of little relevance to them. They concentrate on God and tend to
self-reflect only if they offend God. They might not feel the presence of God. Yet there is always
the joy of God burning in their hearts, as the two on the road to Emmaus. This is not necessarily a
bad thing. There might be danger in judging one’s own sanctity. It is safer to focus on God and not
on oneself.
It should also be remembered that one’s level of sanctity is not a position one possesses. Satan
was the creature closest to God, yet he fell to the lowest state in an instant. The spiritual life
journey may be likened to being carried up a mountain. If a person looks down too much, he or she
might lose focus and fall a bit. Keep eyes on the prize, which means simply attend to God’s will,
and enjoy the journey.
Good is not exactly the opposite of evil
Sin is considered an act of the will, but holiness is the degree to which a being’s relationship
with God is moved by love. The first is in the realm of activity, the second is in the quality of
relationship that is often expressed in activity.
Jesus died and rose from the dead specifically to take away our sins. But perhaps what is not
sufficiently emphasized is that he also gave us the Holy Spirit to start the mission of the Church.
It is this Spirit who guides us in Christian spirituality, that is, to live in proper relationship
with God. To refrain from wilfully doing bad things is not the aim of Christianity, though it is an
important requirement for spiritual advancement.
To think that Christianity is only about not sinning is like a marriage where one thinks the
relationship only requires not offending his or her spouse, instead of considering the many
innovative ways to express love. It can also be compared to someone learning to drive, who believes
that releasing the handbrake of a vehicle is all that is required to drive. But the consummate
driver hardly thinks about the handbrake as he or she enjoys the ride through the beautiful
countryside. Goodness is ultimately about exploring a freedom which is infinite. And consider that
someone who seeks to love more, will likely sin less than someone who only tries to sin less.
We usually speak of spiritual purity in a similar way as we do the purity of distilled water.
However, even if purity in the physical sense means literally, the absence of impurities, spiritual
purity is not just the absence of sin. If it was, then a puppy, or any wild animal would be among
the holiest of creatures. It would be more helpful to the disciple to consider sin as the absence
of purity where purity is a gift from God. Spiritual purity is substantive, positive. It is not a
lack of something.
Persons are not good because they do nothing bad. When giving examples of why people go to hell,
Jesus proposed it was not because they did bad things, but because they did not feed the hungry or
clothe the naked or visit the lonely. The damned rejected grace and guidance from the Holy Spirit.
They were impure because they lacked grace.
In civil society we tend to equate goodness with being law-abiding. And we adopt the same thinking
when it comes to our spiritual life. Like the Jewish people at the time when Jesus preached among
them, we often think that if we do not break the law, then we are “good.” However, even as it is
good to obey just laws, obedience to the law does not make a person good. It is grace which
strengthens us to obey the law and it is grace which makes us good. Both our law-abiding life and
our goodness have one source.
Grace has no opposite
As darkness is not the opposite of light, but its absence, evil is not the opposite of goodness but
its absence. Similarly, bondage to sin is not the opposite of freedom but is the absence of
freedom. Contrary to a popular notion, freedom of will is not freedom to choose whatever one wants.
To say that a person is free to do evil is oxymoronic. Saying that one is free to do evil is like
saying that one is free to prove that one is not free. An analogy can be made with a person who is
not an alcoholic, entering a bar filled with alcoholics. That person who is free from the disease
would be free to enjoy a drink and free not to drink. The others may think they are free to drink,
but are they really?
To Love God
The bible ends in the wedding of God to his bride, which is his Church. Perhaps the best depiction
of the love a disciple should have for God is that of a loving, devoted wife. So, you are not
completely pleased with the house you share with him. Yet you will never live with anyone else,
even if they offer you a palace. Your home is in his heart.
A marriage is not just a one-day event, it is a relationship which grows through good times and
bad. A spouse expresses most profound love through consistent self-giving, selfless acts.
Christians often wish that they could miraculously have no evil temptations; that once baptized,
they should always remain in the romantic mood. But love grows best when experienced through all
seasons, through many years.
Are you sometimes at odds with God; you did something which displeased him? Relax, he is not going
to divorce you. He loves you and he is totally committed to the marriage. He knows your heart. He
wants the best for you. He is not a perfectionist in that he allows you to be yourself as you grow
to know him more as time passes. Just apologize, kiss, and make up. Let him embrace you again.
Things will be even better than before. Your willingness to endure is a most powerful expression of
love, and he greatly appreciates it.
Our Responsibility
God does not impose himself on us but requires us to invite him into our lives, into our world.
Consider Matthew 13:57-58, where Jesus “did not work many miracles there because of their lack of
faith.” One must be open to God in order to receive grace and healing offered by God. Consider also
Luke 1:26-38. God sought acceptance from the Blessed Virgin on behalf of mankind, to enter our
world as a man. He did not compel her to have his child, but he required and waited for a “yes”
from one, who in her whole life was constantly open to him, open to a continuous acceptance of his
grace.
We can meditate on Mary’s role in salvation with the question: “would we accept an invitation from
anyone, knowing that our host would soon regret our coming?” The Son of God would have required not
just a momentary “yes” from Mary, but a continuous openness from her. In her we find the perfect
example of the Christian’s response to God’s love.
Love completely
One might say that to love implies or means “to value highly.” One would respect and care for the
thing or person which one values. One may value another because the other provides some valuable
product or service, or because, for some inexplicable reason, they simply make one happy.
1 John 4:19 states that “We are to love, then, because he loved us first.” Psalm 114:1 state, “I
love the Lord for he heard the cry of my appeal.” In Psalm 21, the Psalmist feels that God has
abandoned him, yet he praises God in confidence that his Lord will not abandon him. In the darkest
hour, through his faith that unity is accomplished.
But love, even though it is inspired by some benefit obtained from the beloved, grows into
something of an existential love, like God himself who needs no other purpose to exist. Love
becomes the nature of the one who loves. Love begins to transcend transactions. The lover then
needs no benefit from what or who is loved and puts no demand on the one loved. Yet, the lover
yearns not only for the good of the beloved but yearns for the beloved himself or herself. Psalm 15
points to this in verse 5 which states, “O Lord, it is you who are my portion and cup; it is you
yourself who are my prize.” Here the Psalmist loves God because he values God above all. From the
common human perspective, the psalmist seems to love God, not because of what God does but because
of who God is. He loves the person not because of any other gifts the person may give. God is the
valued gift.
Having said this, consider that God does nothing half-heartedly. He puts all his love in anything
he does. Perhaps the reason why we see a difference between
what God does and who God is, is because we hardly ever put our whole selves in what we do. We also
often act in ways contrary to our nature. Our actions do not reflect our true selves perfectly. But
as the Holy Spirit liberates our souls, we become more honest, more generous with our selves, more
integrated persons. And more and more, we understand that to thank God for what he does is to thank
and praise him for who he is.
Unity in Love
Sometimes, as with couples who have been married for a long time, there develops a type of unity
between lovers. It is not that they love one another because they have been together for a long
time (many other couples may have lived together for decades without developing such a unity). But
it is as if their hearts have become one. Then they value each other because they love each other
and love each other because they value each other. To love God as we should is perhaps to love God
like that, a unity of hearts.
No one ever gets ecstatic over self-love. People do however get ecstatic while appreciating
(valuing) someone or something outside of themselves. The very etymology of the word “ecstasy” (to
be outside or beyond) indicates a state beyond oneself. Valuing or loving God more than one’s very
self seems to exercise and expand one’s capacity to love. The experience often feels as if one’s
heart would burst and overflow at times with joy or some indescribable sentiment that lifts the
person out of their normal existence. Sometimes there is a passion, a “sweet” pain which
accompanies this heart on fire with love.
Perhaps it is the nature of our heart to expand beyond self-love, to seek a limitless heart and by
unity with that other heart, to be limitless itself. Certainly,
to love God as one should, is to value him more than oneself.
Practice of love
After his resurrection, Jesus impressed upon “Simon, son of John,” that in loving him he must “feed
and look after his sheep,” John 21:15. 1 John 20 tells us that no one can love God and hate his
brother at the same time. In John 14:15 Jesus says, “If you love me you would keep my
commandments.” So, loving God is linked to obedience and to loving each other.
In fact, Jesus summed up the whole Jewish law and all the prophetic messages in two commandments:
first, to love God with all that we are and all that we have. The second is to love our neighbour
as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). But this second commandment might seem more like a humanistic rule
rather than a divine one. After all, wouldn’t this second commandment be problematic if one has an
unhealthy love of oneself?
Imagine an uncle, looking after his brother’s children for a weekend, allowing them to stay up late
to watch violent videos. He might be treating the children in the way he treats himself, but not
the way the children’s father would treat them. Would the uncle be expressing love for the
children’s father by acting in such a way? Would he be respecting the will of the children’s
father?
In John 13:34-35, Jesus lifts the second commandment to a divine level when he said, “Love one
another as I have loved you.” The difference between these two versions of Jesus’ second
commandment may seem mainly academic, but loving others as we love ourselves, as good as it is to
do, might lead to the building of a brotherhood of man without consideration of the fatherhood of
God. Such
would be a natural ethic, but we are not called by God to be natural. We are called to be
supernatural in our love.
Without knowledge of the will of God, without care for the will of God, man could only create his
own understanding of good and bad. If man was perfect in his logic and pure in his heart, this
might not be so bad, but he is neither.
The reason why Jesus gave His first commandment priority over his second is because the second can
only make sense within the context of the first. The cross gives some graphic indication of this
when understanding the horizontal part of it is only held there because it is attached to the
vertical piece; the vertical piece is anchored to the earth but points to the heavens. Here, the
horizontal piece of wood of the cross represents Christ’s love of humanity, but this is supported
by the vertical wooden column representing his love for God the Father.
In Matthew 5:17-48 Jesus explains that perfection is far more demanding than simply obeying the
Mosaic laws, and he ends with a directive for us to be perfect. “Be perfect as our Heavenly Father
is perfect.” “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” he insists. Our love of God
is to be reflected in our indomitable, God-like love of our fellow human beings.
Jesus said that he did not come into the world to be served but to serve. He saw every person as
someone that he is to serve. But we tend not to see others as persons we would serve. We generally
see people in ways not aligned with Jesus’ way. A store owner might see people as means to make
money. A teenager might see a parent as someone who restricts their freedoms, or someone from
whom they might get access to food or cars. Sometimes a young adult might see friends predominantly
as potential spouses. But perhaps as a spiritual practice, we should first and foremost see
everyone we meet, whether strangers or family members or even enemies as persons who we might
assist in some way; someone God has put in our life’s path to serve.
Introspection Suggestions
Here then is a suggestion; perhaps it is a fool proof indicator of how much we do love God.
Consider the person who has hurt us the most, consider the one we love the least, perhaps the one
we hate the most. The quality of love we have for that person indicates the extent of our love for
God.
Another indication of one’s spiritual health is how sincerely one can say, “Lord, I rejoice to do
your will as though all riches were mine.” (Psalm 118:14)
One can also consider the things one weeps over; what upsets you? Ezekiel 9:4- 7 speaks of a vision
of a man in white who was tasked with marking a cross on the foreheads of all who “deplore and
disapprove of all the filth practised in it, (Jerusalem).” Those marked with the cross were spared
death, while those without the mark were slaughtered. Consider that those who love God will love
what he loves and hate what he hates.
Jesus said that his “yoke is easy, and his burden, light.” (Matthew 11:30). But this is apparent
only to those who wholeheartedly love and follow him. Those who try to follow him without
denouncing the follies and illusions of the world would find the journey often difficult, even if
simple in concept.
Some Challenges to spirituality
Spiritual regression might seem easy and simple. Persons can simply do whatever they feel like
doing. If their conscience makes them uncomfortable, they can find reasons to reject former
principles and adopt other principles to suit their desires and lifestyle. They can subscribe to
the philosophy of “situational ethics,” where persons give themselves license to change any
principle to suit whatever action seems pragmatic at any particular time. However, sooner or later,
the complexity of a morally disordered life becomes undeniable, and retrogrades struggle against
Truth itself. Whether in this life or unfortunately in the next, they would find their very
existence arduous and unbearably heavy.
A caution for Christians
Christ calls his Church to perfection. God calls sinners through a process where our evil ways are
rejected in favour of the good, and the good is brought to perfection. There was good in the world
before the perfection of Christ was offered for our salvation. However, any Christian who would
equate the perfection of Christ to a lesser good or choose a lesser good instead of God’s
perfection would be in grave sin. The lesser good would still be good in its context, but choosing
it instead of Christ would be evil. We can assume that the devil works in the opposite way to God.
. He would have us trade perfection for good, then good for evil. I repeat, the perfection of the
Gospel must not be compromised or traded for a lesser good.
Christians must understand that through baptism we are not called to be good but to be perfect as
our heavenly Father is perfect. We do not worship nature gods and are not called to simply be
natural creatures. Instead, we are to live in supernatural grace, striving for perfection in
Christ. So, we must reject all forms of syncretism. As Jesus warned in Luke 9:52, “Once the hand
is laid on the plough, no one who looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
How can and omniscient God not know someone?
Matthew 7:21-23 records Jesus saying that on Judgment Day he would say to some persons, “I have
never known you; away from me, you evil men!” I propose that God loves Truth. Only what is in
Truth, that is, what is in Christ, can have a relationship with God. In the end, if the soul of any
creature is completely false to its God-given nature, that soul will have no place in heaven.
Consequently, the soul which became opposed to what its creator created it to be, may end up in a
place its creator never intended it to be.
Jesus said in John 14:6, and John 8:32, that he is “The Life,” and “The Truth” who would “set us
free.” So, in John 10:10, where Christ said that he came so we may have full life, what else could
he have meant other than he came so that our nature would be completely actualized in him and by
him.
I suspect some philosophers and theologians would debate me on this, but it seems to me that to
answer the question of Hell, we should consider an important aspect of the nature of a soul, and
how it differs from the nature of physical things.
Consider that the nature of a hammer is not only material but inanimate material. Suppose that a
hammer in the toolroom of a house, was used to kill a member of the family living in the house.
Before the crime it was seen as a good and useful tool. Now, when surviving members of the family
think of it, in their minds they ‘see’ a weapon. This is because it actually is a murder weapon. It
was involved in an action contrary to its intended purpose.
Of course, the fact that the hammer is perceived by a few people as a weapon and not just a tool,
does not mean that the nature of the hammer has changed. Its nature was simply used by someone to
perform an evil action. The hammer’s nature is physical and more importantly, it is inanimate. It
can have neither a desire to change nor the power to change itself. This is not the case for the
soul.
Let us indulge in a thought experiment. let us suppose that the hammer somehow has an ability to
desire, and it desired to be used as a murder weapon. In this case it could more objectively be
considered a murder weapon, as it “chose” to be a murder weapon. This desired identity can arguably
be part of its nature. Its material nature agreed with the agent who used it. So even though its
nature would still be something material and inanimate, it could more accurately be called a murder
weapon.
Now, consider an immaterial soul which is made to love and to be loved, but desires its animated
material body to act in opposition to its commission. It becomes false to itself. If the inanimate,
good hammer became a weapon, what
would become of a soul which has a free will, yet acts in opposition to its purpose? Would its
nature still be that which it was when first created? The God- created nature of the soul certainly
would not be actualized in the way God intended. And unlike a material thing like a hammer, the
nature of a soul would not have physical constraints. Instead of physical attributes which it does
not possess, its free will is integral to its nature. In fact, Catholic doctrine tells us the soul
does not only have free will, but it is will, memory, and intellect. So, if the will becomes
corrupt, in some immaterial but real way, the nature of the soul becomes corrupt. And of course,
the material body it animates would also become corrupt. The whole person becomes different from
what God intended the person to be. What then would God see when such a man who chose to be what he
was not meant to be stand before him? What would God do with him?
We all sin but some of us acknowledge this truth while others do not. Even if most of us try to be
honest most of the time, none of us are perfectly honest. That is okay; God can work with that
fraction of our soul which searches for Truth; that part within us which honestly longs for him.
However, if a person chooses only to respect convenient truth and reject vital truths they do not
like, in actuality they would be showing contempt for all truth. They will be acting not because
they love truth but because they love only themselves. They will be replacing truth with their
personal preferences and probably be in a state of mortal sin. This means they would be spiritually
dead.
While the body lives and there is still hope, God pursues that soul like the proverbial shepherd
would pursue the soul of that lost sheep. Or God keeps watch for the soul’s return like the father
of the prodigal son in the gospel. When the beloved son “comes to his senses,” returns and
acknowledges the truth the father declares that his son “was dead and has come to life again.”
(Luke 15:4-7 and 11-32).
But what if the sheep itself never listen to God’s calling, and dies while hiding from the
shepherd? Oh, what horror if persons never even think about the state of their poor souls! There
would be nothing there to redeem at the end of their lives. If we die in such poverty, what part of
ourselves could we present in Truth to God that he would know?
The need for Faith
There is value in being critical and cautious about advice. Christ says in John 10:5, his sheep
“never listen to strangers but run from them.” Adam and Eve believed the words of the serpent
without apparent reason, except perhaps because they secretly wanted to do what the serpent told
them in the first place. The Church encourages one first to seek the Truth of God, whether that
truth is in accordance with one’s secret desires or not.
But as good as being critical is, too much of it could be one’s downfall. For example, it would be
foolish for a person not to believe there is ice at the South Pole, because he or she never saw it
first-hand. In reality, everyone has a type of faith in many things. “Faith” here relates to being
confident of something
which one has no first-hand evidence of; something one infers from testimonies, and or historical
precedence, and or circumstantial evidence. However, we do not spend much time and energy
reflecting on those things we believe, if we do not consider them important to our lives.
The Church proclaims something, which if true, should be most important to anyone. It calls for
faith in a God who created everything and everyone. The Church encourages people to consider the
evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, from the witness of the Church, especially the early Church
of the apostles. However, it teaches that faith in Jesus Christ, that is Christian faith, is a gift
only God can give. The Church can only direct one to that source by its witness.
Consider three aspects of faith. First there is belief, secondly, there is the matter of trust. It
is one thing to believe that God is good, another to trust that he has the capacity and complete
dedication to direct us in the best possible way. Thirdly, there is the value one places on the
belief. This is commensurate with one’s appreciation of, and hunger for things such as truth, the
good of others, peace, and awareness of one’s own faults. Does the person value truth, or the
directives of God more than their personal judgement on a particular subject? A person might be
convinced of all Christian teachings, but that does not necessarily mean he or she values Christ,
or cares whether Christ suffered to win their redemption.
Depth of faith has more to do with appreciation and love of the will of God than simple belief in
God. It is about appreciating the sign of the cross, the sign of God’s love and man’s sinfulness.
It is about what the object of faith, Jesus Christ, means to the Christian. If one considers
himself or herself as being good enough not to require redemption, one will not see faith as having
any value. Consider that the devil knows there is a God but does not value God’s will.
The measure of Man is God
Any parent would agree that to have a good relationship with them, a person cannot hate the
children they love. Any kindness or respect offered to a child is appreciated by the child’s
parent, perhaps to a greater degree than the child might appreciate it. Similarly, a good and
proper relationship with God is dependent on one’s respect for the dignity of the God-given
humanity of a person created by God.
If individual persons were supremely autonomous, we would be incapable of sinning against God by
illtreating another person. Man would be the measure of man; man would be the only judge of
himself. No person or state would have a moral right to judge the morality of any action of a
person, only the person would have that right. If a state assumes such a right over individuals,
the question of whether the state is supremely autonomous presents itself, unless the individual
has no right to judge and criticize the state. The Church teaches that neither the individual nor
the state is supremely autonomous and that the measure of both is God. Both have the benefit and
joy of existing and acting within the care of a wise and loving God. This is why it is incorrect to
claim that
sin is only about displeasing other beings, or that acting in a way which other people do not
oppose cannot be sinful.
Sin
Moral theology, and indeed all theology could be considered as a study of relationships.
Spirituality is about relationships between the creature and God, but in the context of this
relationship, everything else find their proper forms and functions. This is important to
understand as we engage in relationships with food, money, family members, pets, truth, news media,
friends, strangers, enemies, and our own bodies; just to name a few of the countless number of
relationships in which humans are engaged.
Everything God creates is good. Evil can generally be defined as the disorder of good things. For
example, a hungry person having some wine with a meal would be good, while overindulging in food or
drink would be bad. However, there are sins where the most important good is considered to be bad
or a particularly bad thing is considered to be good. These are particularly evil sins. An example
of these would be for anyone, and especially a bishop to say that to proselytize anyone is wrong.
After all, Jesus commanded that we should preach the Gospel to everyone. Another particularly evil
class of sin is to actively promote destruction of the principles of man’s own nature. An example
of this is bestiality, where a person promotes the nature of human sexuality in a sub- natural,
degrading way. What can we say about those who preach that humans have no more dignity than germs
or any other forms of biological life?
Any perversion of God’s good order is intrinsically evil. Sin is most appropriately defined in the
negative; it is any movement contrary to the will of God. While God reveals Truth, the devil works
to distort it. So, the genesis of any sin is a misperception of reality, a misconception of truth.
It fosters actions or inactions that are not in keeping with various relationships that we are
meant to have with God and with one another. The devil seeks to destroy whatever integrity there is
within man and within his relationship with others by deceptions and obfuscations.
So, what is the truth that God reveals? There seems to be a spectrum regarding the importance of
truths. There are truths that could be the death of anyone who disregards them. And there are
trivial truths. Examples of the first type are the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, and
that sleeping on an active railway track is a bad idea. All are very relevant to life, whether
eternal or temporal. Among the most important truths however would be the truth or degree of
honesty of our relationships with God and other human beings.
And there are also truths which might not be vital to life, yet useful for life. It is important to
properly assess these from vital truths. For example, in Luke 10:42, Martha thought that serving
her guest was the most appropriate thing to do. Jesus disagreed but did not think Martha was doing
anything wrong. The fact that he called Mary’s choice of silently listening to him, “better,”
indicates that Martha’s choice was also good.
In contrast, Matthew 22:1-14 gives a scenario where the King gave invitations to certain guests to
attend his son’s wedding banquet, but those invited chose other activities rather than attend.
Here, the King (who represents God) takes their choices as the greatest sin. Now, the activities
the invited guests chose to do instead of attending the King’s banquet, on any other day, might
have been good. The activities became sin because they were chosen in direct opposition to the will
of the King.
We can deduce that while God is always calling us to a better relationship with him, (Mark 10:24),
many of the choices we make, while perhaps not the best, are not in opposition to God, and
therefore not sinful. However, choices we make which are in opposition to the will of God are sins
and can be very grave sins, according to the importance of the truth they oppose, and their known
possible consequences. If we want to be perfectly aligned to the will of God, doing what is best
and not only what is good, perhaps we need to monitor our value systems, our hierarchy of values.
Consider consequences
Unperceivable consequences of an action would have no effect on the morality of an action. Such
consequences certainly would not be the will of the one doing the action. But not considering the
possible consequences of any action would be a sin of omission. So, we should always consider the
consequences of things,
—whether they would be an overall advantage or disadvantage. For sure, the devil would work to
blind us from certain consequences. He would make serious situations seem trivial, and exaggerate
the dangers of minor things, to have us
fighting shadows and neglect real spiritual dangers. If the devil has a universal plan of attack,
it will probably involve having us focus on dealing with matters of the physical world in a purely
human way, without consulting God, to the extent that we pay least attention to our spiritual
needs.
Consider a member of a soccer team choosing not to be too strict on his or herself in training. It
might even be good for the body of the member of the team not to be stressed from the strict
training. The member might even choose to do some other noble tasks on many training days. But his
or her ability to perform on the field might be diminished as a consequence.
Similarly, a person may regularly neglect prayer and perform other activities for reasons they
consider more important. However, when evil temptations come their way, they might not be able to
resist. Nor may they be able to assist others in the ways of God, including their own children and
those God will place in their life’s path. So, the devil will probably not mind at all if people
consistently choose things which are not bad, but not the best choice in God’s eyes.
Wishing evil on others
“To mock the poor is to insult his creator; he who laughs at distress shall not go unpunished.”
(Proverbs 17:5)
Matthew 25:41 tells us that Hell was made for “the devil and his angels.”
Christians know that God desires all persons to be redeemed and to enjoy his
glory in Heaven. Yet, how many Christians have a sense of satisfaction thinking that those such as
Joseph Stalin, Leopold II of Belgium, and other presumably evil persons are punished in Hell. We
should instead hope that they somehow received the grace to repent before they died. If not, what
does that say about our love of the Will of God? If we wish anyone to go to hell, whether or not we
judge a person evil, are we not hoping for the devil’s victory?
Re-living past sins
Ironically, many, especially older people who think of themselves morally advanced compared to
their former youthful selves, recall with pride, sinful actions they themselves did long ago. They
boast about winning some battle that ought not to have been fought in the first place. Or they
gleefully recall some shameful exploits of a sexual nature. How many of us get pleasure in simply
thinking about illicit and immoral things we did in the past. By reminiscing sin without shame, but
especially, in a way, enjoying the memory of it with pride, is in one sense, to repeat the sin.
This is an often-discounted obstacle in the spiritual journey.
Exploiting the Crosses of Others
In 2 Kings 5:1-27, Naaman, an army commander of Aram was healed of leprosy by the prophet, Elisha.
In gratitude, Naaman offered the prophet a large sum of money, but Elisha refused to accept it.
Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, pursued Naaman as the commander travelled away. Gehazi thought that it
was only right for Naaman to pay for his healing, and if the prophet refused it, he would accept
it. When Gehazi returned to Prophet Elisha, the prophet admonished him for
taking onto himself, payment for something of which he had no part. From then on, Gehazi became a
leper.
There is a dimension of empathy in divine healing. Ultimately, it is God who heals, God who takes
the illness away, and to God should be given gratitude. Did not Jesus take upon himself, punishment
for the sins, the spiritual illnesses of man? Is it justice then that the one who takes payment for
the healing (the one who in a sense, takes credit for the healing) also takes the illness on
himself; the illness which, in a sense he thought to buy? To “take away our sins” Jesus took our
debt and death upon himself.
Consider the moral implications in the following scenario:
Cynthia found out that she urgently needed surgery. The operation would cost much more than she
could acquire in time. It would be fatal if she did not get it done in a few days. She contacted
Vanessa, her best friend. Vanessa was wealthy enough to fund the medical procedure, but she always
wanted a certain property of Cynthia’s. So, she made a deal with Cynthia to sell her the property
for her paying the medical expenses. The property was valued twice the medical costs, and Cynthia
would not have otherwise sold it for that price. However, due to her circumstances, she agreed. The
surgery was successful, and Cynthia was grateful to her friend for making her healing possible.
Exposing the nakedness of others, instead of clothing them
Consider a politician who, when he was much younger lived an immoral life. But he had long ago
repented of his sins, and now lives a virtuous life. Another politician who was vying for his post
was delighted to find out about the first politician’s past immoral life. He spread the news of his
opponent’s past sins in
order to gain voters at his opponent’s cost.
If the first politician’s sins were forgiven, and the second politician sought to gain from the
illness of sin of the first, would the consequences of the sins now fall on the second politician?
It may be good if a person wishes that another’s sins be exposed, if the other person persists in
the sin, and it seems that exposure might be the only way to convince him or her to amend their
ways. But can exposing the failings of someone be a way of exacting justice or vengeance on the
sinner? If so, the one who is exacting such justice should consider the words of Jesus in John 8:7
when a crowd wanted to stone an adulterous woman to death: “He who is without sin, let him cast the
first stone.”
Consider 1 Corinthians 13:6, and Psalm 68:27: “For they persecute one whom you struck: they
increased the pain of him you wounded.”
Counterfeits
One ploy of the devil is to present a counterfeit of something which a person prays for or desires.
For example, a person might pray for an expensive item, and a short time later, get an opportunity
to buy one at an unreasonably low price. The thought that the item might be stolen may pass through
the person’s mind, but any urge to investigate that possibility might be quashed in the mind. The
person may justify their neglect of ethical responsibility by telling themselves, “One should not
look a gift horse in the mouth.”
Another example might be someone looking for a partner to marry. The person might find the ideal
partner, were it not for the fact that the proposed partner is already married. Yet the person
might find some way to justify a relationship with the desired one.
Conflation
Quite often the devil attacks the disciple by obfuscating their self-image. The evil one seeks to
conflate the disciple’s former sin-filled life with their new life in Christ. The aim of satan here
is to discourage the disciple. To counter this, the disciple should understand that everyone has a
past, but no one is chained to it. Or, as a popular saying goes, “I have a past, but I do not live
there anymore.”
It is also good to note that ruminating too much on one’s past good works could also impair
spiritual growth. The disciple should live in the present moment, considering the most important
issue being the question, “what does God want of me now?” (Philippians 3:13-14).
The conflation of an unborn child with the mother’s body and identity is one of the evilest
examples of conflation. This is used to promote the killing of the child.
An example of conflation, and one which is aligned with popular hedonism, is the conflation of sex
with mutual masturbation. This allows couples whose genders preclude them from performing the
marital act, to consider their relationship a “marriage.” The analysis of this issue seems to be so
influenced
by emotion and biases that it may be difficult to accept the pertinent truths about it.
We must first acknowledge that although sensual pleasure can be obtained by both masturbation and
by having sex −which is the marital act−, the actions themselves are physiologically different.
Within relationships between persons who possess noncomplimentary sexual parts, the marriage act
cannot be performed; the proposed marriage cannot be consummated; the sexual faculties of the
couples cannot fulfil their biological purpose.
If, unlike sex, mutual masturbation is used solely to express love for each other and foster
intimacy, then it is like many other activities humans perform with each other. What would foster
intimacy is itself something relative to the couple; it is certainly not objective. For example, a
relationship based on the practice of mutual masturbation might be less intimate than the love
relationship between persons who fight battles together and depend on each other for personal
survival. So too may the relationship between those who always hunt for food together, or persons
who pleasure each other through culinary arts or humour, or engaging in some game which fosters
intimacy, or practically anything else the individuals fancy.
Further to this, we must also note that like many other shared activities, both mutual masturbation
and sex can be selfishly performed, making a person feel used and abused. Therefore, both can
possibly be done at the expense of intimacy. So, the question of what makes sexual pleasure, sexual
love or sexual
intimacy special is most relevant here. If it is not its part in the fostering of new life, what is
it? And how is a “marriage” between noncomplimentary sexes different from a recreational club with
two (or more) members which is ultimately inconsequential to the wider society, and which can be
dissolved at the whim of a member?
This conflation is particularly noteworthy because it devalues the type of human relationship which
most closely corresponds to that of Christ and his Church. And of course, it disregards marriage’s
practical and social function as the means of generational rebirth, which after all, was the reason
states historically gave privileges and concessions to married couples. These concessions were
never simply for a sterile, impotent relationship, nor the intimacy of the couple, nor the pleasure
of individuals.
But perhaps the most common example of evil conflation is between the sinner and the sin. How often
do we judge a person to be evil, based on our judging their actions as evil? While we must have an
understanding as to the morality of certain actions, we have no authority and at best, questionable
ability to judge the person performing their actions. The other side of this conflation is even
worse. That is, when we judge a person to be good, and assume that since they are good, none of
their actions can be bad. For example, a son or daughter, aware that their father is selling
illegal drugs, surmise that selling illicit drugs could not be so bad. Perhaps part of their
motivation to arrive at this conclusion is that the only other option in their mind is to conclude
that their father is not good, and that thought comes with emotional discomfort. In this way, one’s
conscience and ability to know right from wrong can be compromised.
This dynamic of believing that someone or something is good, and for that reason, judging that
actions done by them must also be good plays out in many ways. It might happen with regard to
political figures and their followers, or between prevailing cultures and peoples of those
cultures. It might occur even between nature and mankind in general. Thus, there is the concept
that because nature is good, following natural inclinations is always good. And this inevitably
leads to hedonism.
Evil pretends to be good
After God created everything in the book of Genesis, he saw that everything was “very good.” Yet,
in Mark 18:10, Jesus says “no one is Good but God alone.” This is because being good is a
characteristic product of serving God. And as the psalmist says to God in psalm 119: 91, “all
things serve you.” Of course, any creature with a free will can choose to serve some other thing
instead of God. This might make them bad. However, the fact that nothing but God is intrinsically
good does not automatically mean that a thing or a person is intrinsically bad.
Whatever is good, is good because it serves God. Nothing else is intrinsically good. This even
includes angels and things considered sacred such as human life. This also includes the best good
of all creation, The Most Holy Blessed Virgin. She is especially and uniquely good because she
serves God in a special and unique way; she reflects God’s goodness immaculately, but she is not
intrinsically good on her own account. Her nature is redeemed by the goodness
of God. Her perfect goodness flows from God. That is why she is to be honoured but not to be
worshiped.
The first commandment which prohibits idolatry is perhaps the one which is not only most broken,
but the one most insidiously broken. Considering anything as being good in itself is idolatry, and
we do this practically all the time.
Vigilance should be taken against idolatry of things which might seem particularly sacred. Today
there is a type of humanism for example, which openly or covertly treats nature as intrinsically
good. Many humanists also treat human life as good in itself. But at the same time, the same
philosophy treats human life as a commodity. It treats human life as if one life is of lesser value
than two, or that some lives are more important than others. So, the thing they consider having no
need of a god to be good, the thing which they consider something of a god itself, they also judge.
Which in a way, promotes themselves as greater gods.
Many people see the killing of unborn persons to use their body parts for medical purposes as being
good. They might rationalise that even If one unborn life is sacred, it is for the “greater good”
to kill it and use its body parts to save many others. But they ignore the immutable principle,
that the end never justifies the means used to attain the end. One cannot abuse a god to serve him
better.
A second way evil pretends to be good is by corrupting the precept of “loving the sinner and hating
the sin.” Many take the first part, that of loving the sinner, to exclude anything which might make
the sinner uncomfortable. They also display a half-hearted hatred for the sin. They understate the
horror of any sin the sinner has done, so as not to upset them. Or they justify the sin by blaming
human nature for the offence against God, and so, take the place of God as the one who justifies
the sinner. In reality then, they neither show true love for the sinner nor true hatred for the
sin.
As an example, a father might show no displeasure at his child’s extramarital affair, afraid it
would strain their parent/child relationship. This subtle deceit is tremendously dangerous
especially as the full acknowledgment of one’s guilt, and the accepting of personal responsibility
is vital to spiritual growth. Even if the Truth is uncomfortable, it must never be dishonoured.
This is not to say that bringing up any upsetting subject should be done without sensitivity for
the feelings of others. Timing and method are important considerations in loving others, but Truth
is of necessity, and it is the very nature of love. After all, we are to serve the God of Truth and
Love.
Another, but similar example of evil pretending to be good can be in neglecting one’s
responsibility to make judgments. This is commonly seen in political parties where members would
pretend not to notice grave corruption among their friends, and refrain from calling them to
account.
We also refrain to make judgments concerning the friends we would confide in, or those we would put
in positions of prominence. If presented with someone we like but who has certain character flaws,
we might say “who am I to judge?” which seems a rather humble and holy position to take. However,
if someone is obligated to assess another, the statement may be a façade hiding cowardice. If
someone is obligated to assess another, that means it is God’s will that the person assesses the
other. And God’s will is the only thing which is intrinsically and ultimately good.
Consider Galatians 1:7-9, that commands the disciple to judge even their leaders, and not only to
judge them but to condemn them if necessary. It must be noted that implicit in the command is that
the disciple is educated about the original and only gospel. So, if someone feels unworthy to make
such judgment due to their lack of knowledge, it could indicate a dereliction of duty to be
educated.
Evil redefines things
The devil would have us redefine things, either officially or by having us subtly change our
understanding of them. The most common attack strategy seems to be blinding mankind to God’s most
important truths. For example, God’s plan for marriage and family life. The true meaning of
marriage and family life might be skewed in the heart and mind of the adulterer. Adultery,
fornication, theft, dishonouring parents, and all other sin comes from a state of blindness, either
a wilful blindness or simple ignorance. It is a blindness to what it means to be in relationships,
whether the relationship is between family members, business
partners, any other human relationship, or with nature, or with God. Because the truth of what is
appropriate in any relationship reflects the truth of God, all sin is a skewed understanding of how
God relates to us, and how we ought to relate to Him.
Evil redefines God’s Truth to the detriment of those who accept evil’s redefinitions. Consider the
chess game. Imagine just one type of piece is allowed to move in a different way. For example, if a
pawn can move diagonally. Or imagine that the object of the game has changed. It is no longer to
capture the king but to capture the castles. Then the whole game changes fundamentally. Someone who
glances without thought at a chess board where such a game is being played might be unaware that
the game is quite different from chess.
Now, consider how many things in recent generations have been redefined in the minds of human
societies. Personal responsibility has been redefined; if someone does wrong, we blame the person’s
environmental upbringing. Money has been redefined. We can now create it at will in the scheme
called “fractional reserve lending.” This is where a bank “lends” to customers, much more than it
actually possesses in reserve. So, banks lend “money” they do not have, and demand interest on it.
Operationally, they simply enter whatever amount they desire in a computerized ledger. This is
orders of magnitude worse than usury.
The concept of a just war has been redefined. Without any serious attempt at prior diplomacy, one
nation can now justly wage war on another, because at
some undefined later time the other nation might threaten it. God given human rights have been
reclassified as government issued privileges. Today, the definitions of gender, sex, parenting, and
much more has also been changed. Are we not presently trying to redefine what it means to even be
human?
Morality used to be judged according to the adherence to popularly accepted principles. Today
morality is more and more defined in relativistic terms, where principles themselves are taken not
as generally accepted things, but whatever the individual defines them as. In effect, because
principles are personalized, what was once called a principle is almost extinct. Are we now playing
a different “game” than the one designed by God, or even one with coherent rules?
Principles as historically defined was like a rock, an immovable rigid stone upon which societies
were built. Speaking ostensibly about the destruction of the physical city of Jerusalem in Matthew
24:2, Jesus said that “not a single stone here will be left on another: everything will be
destroyed.” Perhaps these words are also prophetic for our time, where the “stones” represent moral
principles and good societal structures.
Meditation
Consider all sin as feeding one beast which has many heads and many mouths. Some persons think that
they are not as bad as another because the other commits much greater sins. This attitude is very
dangerous and most likely inaccurate. One cannot know the culpability of another for various
reasons. (Luke 12:47-48). So, consider the adulterer as feeding one head, the thief
feeding another head, the murderer, a third head, and so on. Even though all sins are not equally
egregious, by sinning we all feed the same beast, the deceiver who works against God. To a greater
or lesser extent, when we sin, we all cooperate with the beast in warring against God.
This contrasts with the positive, comforting passage of 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Here Saint Paul
explains that all the varied good works we do, are done to and for the same God. That one God
through the Holy Spirit gives each one of us, varied holy gifts, which makes it possible to glorify
God in abundant ways. As always, it is up to each of us to choose who we would serve.
Jesus The Christ
To understand Jesus and his significance, we should understand that more than anyone, he reveals
foundational and most significant truths. These truths are not hidden, but they are hardly ever
seen by us because of the blindness of our fallen human nature. The incident on the sea where he
was asleep, and the disciples were afraid of the storm which seemed to threaten their lives gives
some indication of this. They woke him, frantically thinking they were all going to drown. He was
surprised that they were afraid; they were surprised that he was not. After commanding the storm to
settle he rebuked them for their lack of faith.
The incident showed that although he was physically asleep and they were not, he was aware of a
reality which they were not conscious of. The metaphysical reality which is the greater truth was
that they were the ones asleep, and he was the one awake.
Often, what we perceive is like a mirror’s reflection where what seems right is actually left, and
what seems left is right. Jesus often seems to contradict our perceptions. His sayings like
“the meek shall inherit the earth;” “anyone who wants to save his life shall lose it; anyone
who loses his life for my sake will find it,” and, “the first shall be the last and the last
first,” attest to this. Jesus is completely aware of the metaphysical realities even through
physical creation. He was born to reveal such realities, and to rectify what was needed to be
rectified. With the foundational problem rectified, the whole of man, spirit
and body would have a chance of redemption. In this chapter, see the human Jesus, but also see
beyond.
The sign which will be rejected
Jesus often did not play by the rules of fallen creation. He did not submit to many societal norms
such as hating enemies, or societal understandings as with marriage and divorce, just to name two.
Flawed man was destined to misunderstand him and reject his way. In Luke2:34, Simeon prophesied
that Jesus would be a sign that is rejected. In Luke 9:22 Jesus confirmed that the leaders in
Israel will reject him. If Jesus’ understanding of truth was limited to that of mankind, he would
have never defeated the evil which plagued mankind, the evil of untruth, of blindness.
We humans usually think that power means force or threats of force. We see power as something a
government might have through control of the police or military. But apparently that is not how God
understands power. He does not see power as the ability to impose anything on anyone. To him, power
and strength is the ability to retain integrity during the trials of life. It is the ability to perceive and oppose
that which would impose its deleterious perspectives on the person. To empower people is to have
reveal to them through the light of the Holy Spirit, the way which frees their hearts and souls.
But we myopically identify evil with evil people. We think that to defeat evil we must destroy evil
people, which is like destroying the common cold by killing all who show symptoms of the illness.
We are all infected with evil. One significant drawback with the questionable logic of promoting
goodness by force, is that those more proficient in killing or forcing others to obey them, might tend
to be rulers of societies. Their authority tends to be derived from fear more than anything. And fear is
arguably one of the greatest evils. This type of control through violence might help keep order but not
necessarily justice or goodness. This way of fighting evil often leads to injustices, for example, like
crucifying a just man.
In addition to this, no matter how pedantic we might be, we judge others without full knowledge of
their moral culpability. We cannot know every aspect of their mental capacity, their personal
history, or the state of their conscience. For all we know, the moral culpability of someone who
commits what we consider to be a serious crime, might be less than our moral culpability in
committing what might seem to others, a lesser crime.
But compared to God in his perfect goodness, we are all evil in one way or another. Some evils are
obvious to all, while most evil is hidden behind a façade of decency and civility we promote. If
some think that God should have simply killed Hitler before he started his reign of terror, or not
allow any terrorist to ever be born, they might also ask why God allowed them to do any evil.
Perhaps God might have stopped them from taking a bribe, or from being unfaithful to their spouse.
Perhaps God could have stopped any of the thousands of evil things they did by force. But God is
wiser than us. God came not to destroy evil people but to save us from evil. He came to save us by
destroying the evil which exerts control over us.
Some consider Jesus as an unfortunate man who local leaders contrived to kill. Perhaps almost all
those at the time of his crucifixion might have thought that. But something happened on the third
day after his ordeal, which gave many people a different perspective. They saw a man whose very
mission was to suffer and die, and through the success of that mission, the whole of creation
changed in a fundamental way. By his sacrifice he fulfilled the requirements of Justice, receiving
in his own human body, the consequence of evil done by all humanity. From another perspective, or,
another consequence of the same self-offering, he negated all evil in anyone who would unite with
him. Anyone who live according to the Spirit that moved him through the cross would overcome evil
and have new, everlasting life.
Those who witnessed his resurrected, living body, and others who believed in his resurrection
through the witnesses’ testimony, understand why there might be ambiguity about who Jesus is. They
appreciate that without the resurrection, they might have had a different understanding about the
meaning of Jesus’ life and death. And it is only because of Christ’s resurrection could they come
to the realization of the metaphysical realities which played out at his crucifixion.
Christ and conscience
There is a pervasive belief that one way in which God communicates to us is through our
consciences. If we treat Jesus like how we treat our consciences, then perhaps it is a sign that
Jesus was right, and he did come to bear witness to our true relationship with God, —the God who
speaks to our consciences. Jesus’ life and death may very well be the important part of God’s message.
How he treated us and how we treated him, being at least as important as his preaching.
Do we always follow our conscience, or do we sometimes ignore it, or silence it? Do some of us even
kill it? How does this compare to individuals in the crowds who condemned Jesus? A prominent aspect
of our fallen nature is that the urge to follow a crowd tends to overwhelm and stifle our
conscience. This seemed to happen to most in the crowd which condemned Jesus. It would have been
uncomfortable for anyone in the crowd, to go against that crowd. It was surely easier for them to
ignore their conscience.
Mankind has ill-treated conscience in so many ways. Think of that part of the consciences slave
owners kill within themselves, the part of their conscience which would have them uncomfortable. If
they accepted the truth of the humanity of the slaves completely, their consciences would have
required them to free their slaves. They may have had to convince themselves, to force themselves
to see their slaves as less than human, in order to keep them as property.
Murderers, adulterers, thieves, fraudsters, and those of us who have the means, but simply refuse
to help others less fortunate, may have that tendency to rationalize evil actions. We rationalize
that which we would condemn if done by others. We often treat this “God” which speaks to us through
our conscience with contempt. If some aspect of our life is constantly at odds with this God who
communicates through our conscience, we can, and often do kill it.
As a tool of self-knowledge, it may be helpful to regularly ask ourselves “which do I treasure
more: truth, or a false peace?” And “can there be lasting peace without truth?” And about Jesus,
consider how a God who generally speaks through consciences would be treated in this world. If He
comes to reveal not the extent of his power, but the extent of his love, how would this be revealed
in his life among us? And what will we reveal about ourselves by how we would treat him? If he came
to reveal how he relates to us, and in reality, how we relate to him. Would he be welcomed, or
would he be killed?
The Truth of the Cross
When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, Jesus affirmed that he was indeed a king, but one
who came to bear witness to the Truth. In his life, Jesus revealed how God relates to us, and we,
knowingly or not, revealed the truth of how we relate to God by how we treated him. Our crowning Jesus
for example, reveals not Christ’s glorious kingship but the character of mankind as his subjects. It reveals
the truth about how we Have always treated The King of Kings, who still accepts to be our king. Indeed,
the Truth is especially Revealed during Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. He came to bear witness
to the Truth, and this he did. And we, perhaps without knowing, revealed the truth of who we are.
Perhaps the execution of Jesus had to be personal. Rather than being beheaded, thrown off a cliff
or some other similarly quick execution, man’s personal willing hand in his death tells a truer
story. There were those who scourged him, probably using all their might. And Christ, not resisting
nor cursing them, quietly forgave them. Then Truth itself was openly mocked as we crowned him with
thorns. He was mocked for his very identity as our true King. In that way, man acknowledged him as
King, and at the same time, portrayed our broken relationship to our King. He was made to bear the
cross which we ourselves created. He carried the cross which we made for him without resentment.
To better appreciate what happened in Jesus’ execution, one could liken it to the execution of
Muammar Gaddafi, where the executioners did not simply want to kill him, but to dehumanize him and
humiliate him in the most grotesque way. But all the while Jesus loved them and forgave them. He
thought of us, not himself. (Luke 23:28). He kept his integrity. We showed that we lost ours.
On that day, the full force of evil came crashing down upon the rock of Truth. The greatest war was
being waged. The champion of death warring against the source of life. But evil was never a match
for goodness; darkness could never defeat light; illusion must give way to Truth. Death thought it was
winning. Death was mistaken; death was wrong. Because from the stillness of the body of Christ, the
seed of eternal life sprung. Through Jesus our champion, death is no more. Now, anyone who aligns
themselves with him has eternal life. The greatest victory was won for us.
There was probably no neutral onlooker in his ordeal. People in the crowd were either cheering his
demise or cut to the heart and suffering silently in solidarity with him. God, who is Truth is
either accepted, or rejected. On the cross, he was stripped naked, and as his naked body hung for
all to see, so too his love was not hidden, but how many saw it? How many understood that Truth was
being revealed before their very eyes.
To the casual onlooker it would have seemed that nailed to the cross, Jesus was powerless and
unable to do anything. Yet, he could forgive, he could offer his life and death as a gift to God
the Father, he could love. His heart was totally free. Most of all, by allowing himself to be
sacrificed he could reveal the Truth of God and accomplish what God desired. His actions did what
no words could accomplish.
He defeated evil not through the power of bodily force but of the Spirit. This fact is emphasized
in John 10:18, where, speaking about his life he states, “No one takes it from me; I lay it down of
my own free will, and as it is in my power to lay it down, so it is in my power to take it up
again.” In the end he did take it up again. In the end, it is the evil one who will be bound and
powerless in the eternal death of Hell.
From our perspective two thousand years after, knowing that the Jewish scriptures foretold Jesus’
death in remarkable detail long before it happened, we might ask one question. Why could the people
at that time not see that he was the prophesied Messiah who would suffer and die? Isaiah 53 is
amazingly clear that he would die a painful and humiliating death. Even the psalms contain many
prophecies on this battle. Here are two examples: “They tear holes in my hands and my feet,” Psalm
21:17; “they divided my clothing among them, they cast lots for my robe.” Psalm 21:18. Why is it
that even today, this would not be obvious to the Jews? But as Jesus himself prophesized, “Many who
are first will be last, and the last first.” (Mark 10:31). In Romans chapter 11, Saint Paul also
hinted that the Jews will be the last to convert to Christianity.
In God’s time
Long before Abraham ever lived and in many ancient civilizations, there were proverbs which pointed
to truths which in vague ways were prophetic. Proverbs which indicated that peace resides in the
heart, or that evil begins in the heart. An ancient Chinese proverb states that the ocean which
allows the ship to puncture its surface, would eventually engulf it. The ship here represents evil,
and the ocean, God. Another notes that a tree which bends in the storm, endures, and others which
stand strong and proud, break. This teaches that those who remain faithful to their roots or their
nature amidst the onslaught of the enemy, would be victorious, even as they ‘roll with the punches’ as a
boxing dictum says.
Believers in the very ancient Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang might relate to the Christian
concept. They might agree that to negate the wrongs of weak sinful man who is marked to die, the
opposite must occur. A spiritually powerful, innocent man would have to suffer and die.
Buddhism and Hinduism speak of “moha,” which corresponds to delusion or illusion. Evil is seen as a
type of blindness to full reality, due mainly to attachments and obsessions of an unbalanced soul.
The international success of the movie “The Matrix,” indicate that even today, there is a sense
that there is more to life than we perceive through our senses; there is a reality which is truer.
And of course, the general idea that sacrifice was necessary for spiritual advancement has been
pervasive in almost all cultures.
Such proverbs and cultural understandings might have vaguely pointed to truths, but they were not
necessarily prophetic in the sense of speaking about specific things which would occur in the
future. Or the liberating power in accepting the Truth of Christ. It would be unwise though for anyone in
the world to remain in a cultural belief that does not lead to the fullness of truth. Knowledge of the whole
Truth who is Christ, and to whom all manifestations of truth point, should be the desire of every person.
From Abrahamic times, prophecy became more pointed toward future events. The prophecies within the
psalms is particularly so. Then there came the characters we define as actual prophets, who saw
current and future events in the context of God’s plan for mankind.
Many wonder about God’s timing and choice of culture in which to become manifest. But although we
are subject to God, God is not subject to our expectation and desires. It seems that in all human
history, God only consulted with, and waited for man’s approval twice. The first is when he waited
for the approval of a young virgin to bear his Eternal Word in her womb. The second was the
concurrence of that Word, Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Some titles of Jesus
Jesus is the central figure of Holy Scripture. His coming is prophesized in the books of the Old
Testament directly. For example, he is prophesized as the King who will reign forever. (Micah 4:7,
Daniel 4:34 and 6:26). His Kingship is also featured numerously in the psalms. Jesus is the Prophet
“like Moses” to whom the people must listen. (Deuteronomy 18:15). He is the Great Shepheard who
will guide his people (Ezekiel 34:13, Isaiah 40:11, Jeremiah 31:10). Again, numerous psalms speak
of this. Jesus is also called the Suffering Servant of Isaiah chapter 53, the one who will bear the
punishment for the sins of all mankind.
Jesus, the redeemer
From the early history of Judaism, the concept of the existence of only one infinitely powerful and
just God was held. This God created every person and was interested in the welfare of every person.
He was nevertheless thought of as having a favourite people, who were the descendants of Abraham,
who was a moral and just man. These “descendants of Abraham” understood that their wrong doings
were displeasing to their one God, and they needed to have some way to do reparations for the said
wrongs. The reparations always involved an offering of some kind or another, according to the
severity of the wrong, of the sin. Early in the history of this Abrahamic religion, there was also a
growing belief that God was going to send a special “redeemer” who would make reparations for their
sins, both collective sins of the group of believers, and the individual sins of each person.
The Book of Genesis proposes many truths. Among these are: 1, that humans were “very good” when
made by God; 2, man put more trust in a created being than he did in God; 3, man’s conscience
became active the moment man did something wrong; 4, the first effect of man’s sin was a perversion
of his self- image, he saw himself as shameful; 5, humans are all descendants of a murderer,
indicating that we are now naturally flawed; 6, we are marked by God as special; and 7, God
promised that at some time, we (one of man’s descendants) would fight and conquer evil.
God’s promise of someone crushing the head of the serpent, —that symbol of the devil—, is the first
prophecy of a coming redeemer. It is important to note that the prophecy is not about the coming of
a political character who would cure all social ills or cure all medical problems of man. It is
about someone who would triumph and conquer the one who deceived man, the one who obscured the
truth. It should also be noted that prophecy for Christians is not limited to expressions of named
prophets. Prophecy could be displayed through characters and events of the past, which prefigure
characters and events to come. For example, Moses striking the rock in the desert to give his
followers vital water, Exodus 17 6-7, is seen as prophecy pointing to Jesus’ side being pierced as
he hung on the cross in John 19:34-35. Then, the redeemer’s blood and water, which was to save
mankind from sin, flowed. The study of this type of “mirroring” or prefiguring is called typology.
The earlier character or event is a type of the character or event which is to come.
But this type of “mirroring” prophecy often portrays characters or events in the past with a
significant difference. For example, Adam, the first man is a type of Jesus who is the second and
new man. But while Adam made clothes to hide his perceived shame from God, Jesus offered himself to
God, and died while his body hung naked on a cross.
Often, this type of prophecy is not necessarily meaningful from what is said, but because of what
is portrayed. Perhaps the most telling prophecy of Jesus in this form is that of Exodus 12:1-14.
This describes how God, through Moses, saved the Hebrews from the tenth plague of death by the
blood of sacrificed lambs. This resulted also in their freedom from slavery. Mirroring this is
Jesus’ blood being shed on Calvary. There, Jesus’ blood freed all mankind from the slavery to
sin and opened eternal life to all. This is especially remarkable as he died during the time when
Jews commemorate the sacrifice which freed them in the time of Moses. His sacrifice is seen as
fulfilment of the greatest prophecy. Confirming this is John 1:29, where the Baptist identified
Jesus as the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”
In the Book of Exodus 18:15 Moses prophesied “Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet, like
myself from among yourselves, from your own brothers; to him you must listen.” Note that the
prophecy describes a leader like Moses. Even though Moses commissioned Joshua to fight the
Amalekites, Moses did not fight with physical force. He stood on a hill and prayed without ceasing
for victory. Moses is known, not as a man who led armies, but one who drew from the oppressed
slaves of Egypt, and subsequently, through the trials in the desert, a faithful people. He also fed
and sustained them by following the commands of God. Most of all, he instructed them on how they
were to relate to God. The words, “a prophet like myself” therefore did not indicate a conqueror of
nations but one who would save them and guide them in the ways of God. And one who would feed
them “bread from heaven” (John chapter 6).
The prophet Isaiah spoke about a Virgin who will give birth to a son with a title meaning “God is
with us,” and later describes someone who will take the sins away from the people and restore them
to proper relationship with God. Perhaps the most detailed description of the Redeemer of prophecy
could be found in Isaiah 52:13, to the end of chapter 53. Here, written over seven hundred years
before Christ, the redeemer is described as one among them who would be treated very cruelly and
eventually killed. And one who would be brought back to eternal life. In this prophecy which was
made more than five hundred years before Jesus, he offers his life in atonement for our sins, and
thus restores the relationship between man and God. In this, he redeems us from the power of the
serpent in Genesis.
In the coming of Jesus, many in the Abrahamic tradition may see the fulfilment of the ancient
promise of a redeemer. The one who would bring God’s forgiveness and create out of all mankind, a
chosen race of all who seek redemption. He would recreate a just and holy people; a people who in
turn will always remain faithful to the promptings of God.
The Beauty of God
John Keats made an interesting statement in his poem, “Ode to a Grecian urn,” in the lines, “Truth
is beauty, beauty, truth.” Jesus is said to be seen “without beauty” by those who took no account
of him in Isaiah 53:1-3. Isaiah seems to imply that the servant of God who dies to redeem them is
beautiful, but they were blind to his beauty. Jesus himself, who is that prophesied suffering
servant, claimed to be the truth, and was sent to reveal the truth to mankind. I am not sure
whether Keats had Jesus in mind when he wrote the verse about truth and beauty, but as a lover of
Christ, it is almost scriptural to me.
There is a factor in the person of Christ more powerful than ordinary moral beauty, a factor beyond
things such as being simply just and of moral character. There is mercy. To a condemned man, the
one who saves him from death, even from a justified execution may seem extraordinarily good. More
so if the redeemer takes upon himself the punishment of the condemned man. The redeemed man may
perceive a transcendent beauty in his redeemer.
A person who grew up in a war-torn country would more greatly appreciate the “beauty” of peace in
another country he or she migrated to. Luke 7:36-50 gives an account of a woman of ill repute who,
having been forgiven and tasted a converted life, wept on the feet of Jesus with great devotion.
She perceived beauty in him. I must confess that of all biblical characters, I feel a kinship with
her the most.
To understand who Jesus is, it is important to understand the beauty of God. Those who understand
him as saviour, who are familiar with their sinful nature, those who long for that type of beauty
to be within their own hearts, would fall in love with this God of transcendent beauty.
But sometimes the person senses that the beauty of Christ is calling him or her to an experience so
deep that it frightens them. It frightens them even though they know it is a call to a deeper love.
This happens to many Christians who prefer to remain at a shallow spirituality. It is as though
they say to their soul, “I cannot continue to look at this beauty, it is too intense,” and they
force themselves to look away. This cowardice is probably one reason why more Catholics do not
become priests or religious.
There are many titles given to Jesus: Prince of Peace, Son of God, Almighty God, Divine Wisdom,
Word of God, Light of the World, Truth and Life of the World, among others. But perhaps for many,
the title “Beauty of God” might be a good point of reference as we aspire to know him better.