Traditional, pre-Vatican II catechesis, was clear: you are in a state of grace or a state of sin. A hard binary: no gray areas, no spectrum or scale. Grace is friendship with God. Mortal sin (deliberate, free act that is gravely evil) breaks that relationship and places you in the state of sin. We would refer to someone "living in sin" which meant sleeping with someone outside of marriage. Likewise, missing mass on Sunday without good reason was grave and had to be confessed before one could receive communion. Someone with a mortal sin, unconfessed and unpardoned, would add additional sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion. Any number of venial sins would not destroy the state of grace. But venial sins would eventually lead to mortal sin if not repented.
This crystal clear model disappeared from mainstream Catholic catechesis after the Council. It was part of the ecclesial collapse into confusion after 1965. The papacy of John Paul and the Catholic Catechism of 1994 marked the beginning of recovery.
This moral clarity and simplicity presents a problem! In 1965 75% of Catholics went to mass on Sunday; today that figure may be as low as 20%. Most of our Catholic friends and family are not there Sunday. Do we say they all are "in the state of mortal sin?"
Well...not exactly. Here we have to distinguish objective from subjective evil.
The act or condition itself can be objectively evil: a Catholic missing mass or sleeping with his girlfriend or advocating legal abortion. We can and must make that objective judgement. But we cannot judge the subjective culpability of the person doing the act. We cannot read the heart and intellect of someone else: we do not know their intent, or their knowledge, or the psychological forces (fear, insecurity, anxiety, trauma, etc.) that may be at work.
A person can be objectively in a state of sin but not culpable subjectively due to a defective, ignorant intellect or a will weakened by psychological damage. Imagine a young woman who has been neglected and abused and surrenders herself sexually to the first man who show affection for her. Objectively this is grave, but her intention may be relatively innocent, her deliberation and discretion compromised, her consent not fully free. And so, only God can look into her heart and measure her culpability.
We do well to retain our Catholic objectivity while we see the immense psychological depth, complexity and mystery of human subjectivity. We can and must judge objectively the good/evil of an act. But we cannot look into the heart of another and judge that. The "triumph of the therapeutic" which gripped our culture and Church after 1965 is not all bad. We can draw the good out of it in our pastoral sensitivity to the inner drama of the human heart as we keep our Catholic sense of the moral order, the battle between the kingdoms of darkness and light.
Imagine two doctors. One has given himself over to generous, sacrificial service of the very poor. He has also fallen into love and adultery and stopped going to mass. The second is successful and prosperous, proudly in mass every week with his impressive family before he goes to the country club. He cares not for the poor as he enjoys a superficial, satisfying life. Which of the two is in the state of grace? As we ponder this we of course think of Ceasar Chavez, Martin Luther King and others!
Happily, we do not have to judge. We leave that to God. But we can pray for both civil rights leaders. And we might invite the country club guy to give a day to serve the poor in the city. And invite the adulterer to come to a penance service with us.
Lord, let your mercy be upon us as we place our trust in you.!
No comments:
Post a Comment