People have this fantasy that punishment for sin is something other than separation from God and that separation from God is done to us by God and not inflicted on us by ourselves. Here’s how it really works:
I particularly enjoy the whiny language of “disenfranchisement”, as though freely choosing to spit on the gospel and walk away from Christ is not entirely on them but is actually something Leo forces these rebellious thugs and lovers of cruelty to do.
It’s no different than this scene:
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. (Jn 6:53–66)
The MAGA Cult, like all apostates, are not driven away by Christ. Christ strives to teach them and pull their own fingers out of their deaf ears. They reject him simply for being who he is. He seeks them no matter how much they hate him. And then they blame him for “disenfranchising” them even as they spit in his face and do their best to punish and torment him, present in the Least of These.
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. (2 Ti 4:3–5)
It is for people such as these that we are commanded to pray for “those most in need of thy mercy”–and to remember that we would be no different apart from grace we can neither earn nor deserve.
Advertisement
5 Responses
If you visit right wing Catholic websites, you will see articles and comments that really attack immigrants. Many of those who leave comments seem to express joy and delight at immigrants getting roughed up, family separation, immigrants forced to sleep on concrete floors,etc. Some of these “good Catholics” seem to express a hope that immigrants trying to escape “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida, would be eaten by alligators. They actually seem to want fellow human beings to be eaten by alligators.
The incredible thing is that these MAGA Catholics regard themselves as “Good Christians.
…and why would they not regard themselves as “Good Christians” when those in the pulpits offer no challenge to that regard? I know so many priests who are good, moral men but who would not dare to call their parishioners to a Christianity that isn’t performative and culturally tamed because they would quickly be called to answer to the Bishop, who, even if he might agree in his own heart, needs to make the annual collection appeal goal. The Church long ago decided to be chaplain to Empire rather than prophet of the Gospel.
I note Matthew mentioned “law abiding” in his reply. That’s key, in my experience, following the laws (or maybe maintaining the appearance thereof)… is very important to these folks, even if we’re talking a misdemeanor. ( I think misdemeanor applies to illegal immigration?). Nevermind that they likely break the law by misdemeanors all the time.
It’s the “elder brother” in the prodigal son parable, or the Pharasees, or the Neo-Pelagianists in modern times (man, did that term ever trigger these folks when Pope Francis mentioned it….).
Ah, yes, the parable of the elder brother, where the story of the prodigal son and the merciful father is only a backdrop to how we the faithful perceive mercy.
Yep, mercy is great. It’s great because we’re all sinners. But _my_ sins are _better_ than _your_ sins and so _I_ deserve to have my sins _excused_, whereas _you_ need to work to get yourself absolved. You don’t deserve to get absolved just like that. You have to jump through hoops for the entertainment of others.
That’s because _your_ sins are worse than mine and they need special treatment.
In my opinion, this is the main thing that the parable teaches. Our attitude towards others being absolved of their sins. As if you’re more deserving of absolution than others because you’re closer to the Church, you haven’t stepped away, and you don’t consider your own sins as being particularly bad because *reasons*. You feel you deserve special treatment, or at least the worse sinner deserves special mistreatment.
In a way, it should serve as an excellent example of how people being close to God, close to the Church, those who haven’t transgressed — how those people sin. By denying others access to the Grace because they had to labor hard for that Grace and had to keep faithful, while those outsiders get granted Grace just like that, without putting in the work.
The Early Church was harsh in treatment of those who strayed, those who were baptized, but then lapsed in the face of persecutions. Originally, most in the Church were against admitting them back, but this attitude later changed and allowed them to be admitted again (and again, and again) with at least some sort of penance. But yes, it was the easy way for many in the Church to consider those who lapsed as being irredeemable.
—
In a way, it’s the flip side of what the parable of the unforgiving servant teaches. In it, the servant was absolved of a great debt towards the lord. But would not forgive a small debt towards himself. So despite receiving absolution for great misdeeds, we’re still inclined to treat small misdeeds against us as being worse. It’s one of the ways in which the scripture speaks against personal honor.
—
As for the other thing that the parable of the elder son teaches, I’ll add a next comment.
The other thing that the parable teaches: That we’re cruel and punishing towards ourselves, from which stem some extreme forms of penitential practices.
“You’re always with me, everything I have is yours.”
The elder son protested that his father never gave him a young goat to make a feast with his friends. And the father rebukes him saying that he is free to partake in everything that is in the household. It was only his choice to not take a goat and prepare a feast.
That’s the attitude of many _law-abiding_ Christians. We won’t partake in Grace, we won’t allow any interpretation of a law or a commandment, because that might be too liberal and it might be leaning into the world rather than standing against it. And that it’s bad because we’re allowing our consciences to go soft on ourselves when we should be admonishing ourselves for our sins and taking penance at all times.
And it’s just awesome because then we can go around being all gloomy and brooding and we can compete on who has it more tough because the Church forbids this or that and it only applies to us and it’s us who have it tough.
It’s the Four Yorkshire Men sketch all over. I’m tempted to make a Four Yorkshire Catholics sketch, but it doesn’t have the same cultural background in Poland and I don’t have three other people to do the sketch in English.
Oh, and there’s a wee matter of not having a script, but that’s probably the easiest bit to do.
The end result is that we’re going around saying how we’re not allowed to have fun, but it’s worth it because we’ll get Heaven in the end (with the implication that if we went softer on ourselves, we’d be condemned instead).
And there’s air of smug superiority that as long as we’re sufficiently penitent, we’re going to earn Heaven through those means.
Not only is that completely against all Scripture and Tradition, but it cuts deeper. Instead of pulling people towards God and the Church, it repels.
It’s as if God is somehow glorified if we’re strict towards ourselves.
Tertullian remarked that the first Christians converted others by the witness of their own life and of love to each other. “See How They Love One Another!”
Jesus said: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (John 13:35)
Whenever the Church realizes that the teaching is out of touch with the times and tries to find a way to better fit with the current language, two voices will reliably arise:
– “We have always taught this and that and we can’t change the teaching because that would go against the Faith!”
– “We have to go with the times and find a way to make the teaching compatible with what the world wants in order to get people to want to approach us!”
And whenever the Church speaks, both groups will claim without skipping a beat:
– “The Church strayed by trying to cater to people.”
– “The Church will repel people by being a stickler to the old ways.”
I’m absolutely not arguing that explicitly going against the deposit of the Faith is in any way acceptable, but I also don’t get how this strictness towards ourselves and towards others is showing to anyone how we love each other and how God loves us and all of mankind.