The Power of Love: St. Julia of Corsica

“St. Julia” by Gabriel Von Max, 1866

The Power of Love 

     The power of love is one of the most powerful gifts that Christ shares with his followers.

Now, it’s true that it’s hard to live as a Christian publicly these days.  And, yes, it’s likely to get worse.  The lives of the martyrs remind us that there have been Christians (and still are in many parts of the world) who suffer much, much worse things than we do today in the United States.

     Today’s saint, St. Julia of Corsica (also known as St. Julia of Carthage), is a good example.  St. Julia was a 5th century martyr who refused to be seduced by personal gain or cowed by the threat of torture and death.  I published my first post about St. Julia eight years ago. It became one of the most popular pages on my original blog, a testimony to the timelessness (and the timeliness) of this saint.  A testimony, in other words, to the power of love.

     St. Julia’s story throws an interesting light on the situation in which we find ourselves today. Her story starts in Carthage in the 5th century, where she was born into a noble family.  When the Vandals captured and sacked that ancient city, Julia fell into the hands of slave traders. A Syrian merchant named Eusebius purchased her.  Despite the hardships and humiliations of her servile state she remained content. More than that, she was cheerful because of her piety and her deep love of Christ.  These same qualities greatly endeared her to her master.

Love for the Lord

    On one occasion, when Julia was on a journey with her master, he stopped at the island of Corsica where the locals were celebrating a pagan festival. Eusebius joined in the revelry; Julia, needless to say, stayed away. Her refusal to participate greatly annoyed the local governor, a man called Felix. According to the account in Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Felix

asked who this woman was who dared to insult the gods. Eusebius informed him that she was a Christian, and that all his authority over her was too weak to prevail with her to renounce her religion, but that he found her so diligent and faithful he could not part with her.

    This governor, however, was not one to take no for an answer.  First, he offered Eusebius four of his own female slaves in exchange for the one Julia. Eusebius, however, emphatically refused to surrender her.  Next, after her master had fallen asleep, the governor approached Julia directly, offering to free her if only she would sacrifice to the pagan gods.  She answered that she was “as free as she desired to be as long as she was allowed to serve Jesus Christ.”  Felix fell into a rage at this answer, and then he tortured and crucified her. Neither the bribes nor the threats of the governor could overcome Julia’s love for her Lord.

“The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

-Tertullian

The Seed of the Church 

     Needless to say, St. Julia paid a much higher price for her faith than mere cancellation from social media. Let’s look at a few points that stand out from the account of her life.  First and foremost, Julia’s devotion to Christ and her courage in the face of unspeakable suffering is an inspiration to us.  Maybe I’ll remember that the next time I’m feel the temptation to “go along with the crowd.” Maybe when I’m afraid of the disapproval or verbal abuse of others, I’ll take some strength from Julia’s fortitude in the face of much, much worse persecution.

  Julia also shows us the power of example.  Clearly, her character and virtue made a large impression on her master Eusebius. It’s true that her diligence and fidelity alone were not enough to win him over to the faith, at least not right away. On the other hand, they did give him the courage to stand up to the governor Felix.  In fact, the virtues she gained from her faith convinced him not to give her up for, literally, any price.  

None of the accounts I have seen, unfortunately, tell us anything about what eventually happened to Eusebius.  One wonders whether the example of her heroic martyrdom was finally enough to make him a Christian.  We do know that the witness of the martyrs was crucial to the conversion of very many people. The fruitfulness of that witness inspired Tertullian to say: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

 A Saint for Our Time 

  Julia’s story also tells us something about the nature of sin.  It brings to mind Father Richard John Neuhaus’ aphorism:  “When orthodoxy becomes optional, sooner or later it will become proscribed”.  Simply doing the right thing, in other words, looks like a rebuke to those who are doing the wrong thing.  Look at Julia: she wasn’t interfering with the pagan festival, she was simply staying away.  The governor, however, couldn’t tolerate anyone who was not actively endorsing his activities.  

   How often have we seen this same attitude today. We can see that the advocates of a “New Orthodoxy” will certainly try to destroy the reputation and livelihood of anyone who does not publicly cheer for their moral and societal innovations. Of course, at least in the United States, nobody is literally suffering crucifixion.

Nevertheless, the consequences of trying to live a Gospel life are real. The list of people runs from celebrities on down to ordinary people including school counselors and college professors and students. They have been “cancelled” merely for stating their adherence to things that were considered to be common sense up until the day before yesterday.  We all know about the weak-kneed corporations giving into leftist bullying. Within the last couple of years we have seen communications monopolies such as Twitter, Facebook, and the rest become bolder than ever in their attempts to shut down speech that doesn’t adhere to the politically correct point of view.

 Newspeak vs. The Eternal Word 

     Regarding which situation, look at the stances that draw the most fire from the Woke Cancellation Mob. They are not only things that virtually everyone has traditionally taken for granted. They are also matters of clear Catholic teaching.  Consider the following questions from then Senator, now Vice President (!) Kamala Harris directed toward judicial nominee Brian C. Buescher. Mr. Buescher, it seems, belonged to what Senator Harris and Senator Mazie Hirono characterized as an “extremist” organization:

“Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?  . . .  Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

     Of course, in the Orwellian language of the left, “a woman’s right to choose” means unfettered legal abortion.  Likewise , “marriage equality” is newspeak for redefining marriage to include same sex couples.  The senators, therefore, were berating Buescher for the simple fact of adhering to Catholic doctrine.

The Dogma Lives Loudly

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is sworn in at her nomination hearing.

     This was not an isolated incident. A year earlier, Senator Dianne Feinstein in a similar way confronted judicial nominee (and eventual Supreme Court Justice) Amy Coney Bryant. Bryant is also a Catholic. Feinstein disapprovingly pronounced, “the dogma lives loudly within you.”  In other words, if you’re a believing Catholic, you’re not fit to be a federal judge. The year after Harris’s grilling of Buescher, Senator Cory Booker followed the same script. He demanded of Neomi Rao, another nominee for a federal judgeship (and in her case a convert to Judaism) “whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married?”  

      The Constitution’s explicit ban on “religious tests” for office did nothing to deter these prominent politicians. Likewise, no fear of electoral backlash restrained their overt shows of anti-religious bigotry. Tellingly, at the time two of them were actively seeking the presidency.

Wrong at the Roots 

     Given that, it should come as no surprise that the administration in which former Senator Harris now serves has promulgated a rule denying conscience protection to Catholic and other doctors morally opposed to “gender reassignment” surgery. Likewise, it is promoting the so-called “Equality Act,” which would force pro-life doctors to perform abortions.

     We should not conclude from the examples above that this is primarily a political problem: as we have seen before (here and here, for instance), politics is an outgrowth of things going on at deeper levels in society, in the culture and, more fundamentally still, on the religious level.  Politics reflects changes that have already taken place on those deeper levels, and if major national politicians believe that they can get away with such overtly anti-Christian behavior (and why shouldn’t they? It’s worked so far), something has already gone very wrong at the roots.

 An Alternate Religion 

     In fact, aggressive secularism has not only taken over the culture, but has also taken on the the role of an alternate religion. It is now fighting traditional Christian belief for possession of the deepest foundations of our society. The secularists can draw on their cultural influence to acquire political power, and then in turn use their political gains to protect what they have won on the other levels.  As Austin Ruse said in an essay published on the Crisis website last year:

Catholics and other Christians must understand that we are not merely up against a new faith but a new faith that is an established Church backed by the power of the federal, state, and local governments.

Like St. Julia, simply by believing in orthodox Christianity and following its precepts, we are seen as a threat by that rival faith.

More Precious Than Gold Tested By Fire 

     But, of course, that’s not the end of the story.  Christ sent the Holy Spirit down on his Church at Pentecost, the Church against which, he had promised Peter, the “Gates of Hell” would not prevail (Matthew 16:17) . . . but he had also promised persecution (Matthew 5:11).  The Persecution was not long in coming.  The same Peter who boldly addresses the wondering crowds on Pentecost will soon be writing to the early Christians:

In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.(1 Peter 1:6-7)

     Granted, the sort of harassment Christians face in the secular West does not come close to that faced by the Early Church or by martyrs like St. Julia . . . yet. We can’t say the same for much of the Islamic world, where Christians face tremendous violence or, increasingly, in communist China. We are kidding ourselves if we think it can’t happen here. At the same time, throughout the history of the Church we have seen that even the most zealous persecutors can sometimes experience conversion.  From St. Paul himself through the Nazi death-camp guards who were awed by the martyrdom of St. Maximilian Kolbe, the faith and Christ-like serenity of their victims can win apparent enemies for Christ.  

 Sharing in Christ’s Sufferings

      The ancient accounts don’t tell us, but St. Julia’s master Eusebius, or even the governor Felix, might well have been among these converts.  Whether or not St. Julia’s martyrdom moved them in this way, we can be sure that she did move many of the other pagan witnesses.  

    Finally, the times are dark, but be of good cheer. The example of St. Julia of Corsica is a reminder that, although there will always be defeats along the way, Christ wins in the end.  If we can put our Hope in His promise and rely on the support of the Holy Spirit, as Julia did, we can persevere. As St. Peter said: “Rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 13).

Sacred Music: Allegri’s Adoremus in Aeternum

Sacred Music in the Heart of the Church

Sacred music is a topic near and dear to my hear. More importantly, it is dear to the heart of the Church. Consider what the Second Vatican Council had to say:

The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.  (Sacrosanctam Concilium, 112)

You may not be surprised to know that my tastes in liturgical music tend toward the more traditional.  I’m not disparaging contemporary religious music, in and of itself.  Honestly, I even like some of it. For instance, I have been known to play John Michael Talbot’s “Table of Plenty.” Not only that, I also have an abiding fondness for Dana Scallon’s “We Are One Body.  Really. These and many other songs are fine as expressions of religious devotion. Are they truly appropriate, though, for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Do they really capture the sacredness of the Miracle of the Holy Eucharist?

“The Most Beautiful Music I’ve Ever Heard”

      I was once discussing sacred music (specifically the work of Palestrina and Allegri) with a co-worker. This man was a very talented non-Catholic music teacher. “It’s some of the most beautiful music I’ve ever heard,” he said.  “I can’t believe they got rid of it in the liturgy.  I mean, I guess they had to, but It’s hard to believe.”  It’s understandable that he might think this. In fact, many Catholics do, too.  But as it happens, the Church itself says otherwise. For example, In the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium we read:

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.  (Sacrosanctam Concilium, 116)

Set Aside For God

     The word sacred means “set aside”, as in set aside for God.  Sacred music, therefore, should be very special indeed.  The clip below, for instance, offers a sterling example, Gregorio Allegri’s “Adoremus in Aeternum.” Like his more well-known setting for the “Miserere,” it employs both Gregorian Chant and Polyphony. Nothing less could adequately express the beauty and wonder of Christ present in the Eucharist.

 

To read Sacrosanctum Concilium’s full discussion of sacred music, see HERE.

Sacred Music in Latin and English:

Adoremus in Aeternum   

Adoremus in aeternum Sanctissimum Sacramentum.

Laudate Dominum Omnes Gentes

Laudate Eum Omnes Populi

Quoniam confirmata est super nos misericordia eius

Et veritas Domini manet in aeternum.

Gloria Patri Et Filio et Spiritui Sancto

Sicut erat in Principio et Nunc et Semper

et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Adoremus in aeternum Sanctissimum Sacramentum.

 Let Us Adore for Eternity   

“Let us adore for eternity the most holy Sacrament.

Praise the Lord, all you nations:

praise Him all you peoples.

Because his mercy is confirmed over us:

and the truth of the Lord remains into eternity.

Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,

world without end. Amen.

We will adore for eternity the most holy Sacrament.

The Church’s First Decision: St. Matthias

The Church’s First Decision

The Church’s first decision (of consequence, anyway) concerned the first successor to the Apostles. That would be the choice of today’s saint, St. Matthias, whom the Apostles designated to take the vacant place of Judas among the twelve. How the Apostles came to their decision gives us an enlightening look at the first days of the Church.

It’s interesting, by the way, that our scriptural sources actually tell us very little about St. Mathias himself.  The only place his name appears is in the passage in the Acts of the Apostles that describes his election:

St. Matthias Church's first decision
St. Matthias

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.  For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’  So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)

The Holy Spirit Guides

Notice that we have very little personal information about St. Mathias himself. Aside from the fact of his election, all we know is that he had follwed Jesus since the beginning of his ministry. That’s all. Now, as an Apostle Mathias was ipso facto an important person. And yes, there are various traditions identifying him with other names that come up in the New Testament, and about his ministry and martyrdom. The passage above, however,  is the only canonical information we have.  Which is to say that whatever importance he had in his own time, his significance for us lies in the very fact and manner of his selection.

So, what do we see in this passage?  We see Peter taking the initiative: he presides and authoritatively interprets Scripture.  Everyone understands that the Apostles hold an office that someone must fill when another relinquishes it. They all acknowledge that the Holy Spirit guides their choice. We also have concrete confirmation that Jesus’ mission didn’t pass from the world when he ascended into Heaven. Now his followers wo

uld carry it forward in his place.

The Early Church is Catholic

This passage and others like it were very important to me at the time of my reversion to the Church after my exile among the secular humanists. One of the first things I did following my own initial conversion experience was to read through the New Testament. I could see that the Church in this passage not just the Early Church. This was the Catholic Church with Pope and Bishops already in place just a few days after the Ascension. 

 Not only that, it’s clear that they were already exercising magisterial authority, with the help of the Third Person of the Trinity. And this is before the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit a few days later at Pentacost.  It confirmed for me that if I wanted to set aside my disordered life and follow Jesus, I also needed to submit to the authority of the Church that He had established from the beginning.

That’s not to say that we owe unthinking obedience to all pronouncements from persons holding positions of authority in the Church. I discuss this topic at length in “What Do We Do When Our Priest Is A Communist?” Part I & Part II).  Let’s remember that the passage from the Acts of the Apostles above tells us chiefly about the need to fill a vacant office. It doesn’t much concern itself about the personal qualities of the new Apostle Mathias. The holders of office come and go, but the office itself remains. Furthermore, it retains the authority it has received from none other than Jesus Christ himself.

“As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”  (John 20:21)

“The Great Commission” by Szymon Czechowicz, 1758

The Great Commission

   That is in fact one of the salient themes of the Feast of the Ascension as well. Jesus is withdrawing his direct, human presence so that his followers can take over the leadership of his mission. It is clear that the authority they are to exercise is his, not their own. They are acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  For instance, in John’s Gospel we read:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”  (John 20:21-23)

and also in Matthew’s Gospel:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Ecce Ecclesia

So, yes, today’s feast honors one of the first Apostles and, in fact the very first successor to the Apostles.  It is also a timely reminder that malfeasance on the part of an office holder doesn’t undo that essential office. Not even evil on the scale of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus himself can do that. Most of all, it shows us the Church in action. We see, in its infancy, the same Church we have today.

Concluding Prayer from today’s Liturgy of the Hours:

O God,

Who assigned St. Mathias

a place in the college of Apostles,

grant us, through his intercession, that,

rejoicing at how your love has been allotted to us,

we may merit to be numbered among the elect.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ. Your Son,

Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

One God, for ever and ever,

–          Amen.

Feed My Sheep spesindomino.org

Feed My Sheep: Love, Forgiveness, and Grace

 

“Christ’s Charge to Peter” by Raphael, 1515

 

Feed My Sheep 

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”    (John 21:15-17)

 

 It’s Greek To Me 

You’re probably familiar with the beautiful passage above, which is from the end of John’s Gospel.  As he sits with the Risen Christ at a charcoal fire on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, Peter has the opportunity to redeem himself for what he did the last time we saw him at a charcoal fire.  On the night of Holy Thursday, when Our Lord had been arrested, the apostle had denied Jesus three times. Here, Jesus invites Peter three times to tell his Lord, face to face, that he loves Him.

St. John the Evangelist, from the St. Thomas altarpiece
Berruguete, Pedro (c.1450-1504) Convent of St. Tomas, Avila, Spain

    I wrote an earlier version of this post as one of my first excursions into bloggery.  There was something about the language in this passage that caught my attention: I was intrigued by the fact that the original Greek text uses two different words for “love.” I’m not familiar with any English translations that reflect this difference in wording.  The difference is pretty clear, however, in the original language. The first two times Jesus asks, “do you love me?” he uses one Greek verb for “love”: ἀγαπᾷς (agapais). When Peter answers  “I love you” he employs a different word, φιλῶ (philo); the third time Jesus switches to φιλῶ as well.   Now, knowing that, among Christians, the verb ἀγαπῶ came to mean all-embracing divine love, whereas φιλῶ referred to ordinary human affection, I thought I had stumbled onto Something Big. What was the deeper meaning of this passage?

 

 Love is Love 

As it happens, contrary to my dreams of achieving scholarly glory through my linguistic discovery, many others before me had also noticed the difference in the Greek verbs. In fact, I soon learned that quite a few commentators had previously written on this very topic (who would have guessed?).  I was disappointed to learn that the consensus of the scripture scholars was that we shouldn’t attach too much significance to the difference in the verbs.  It appears that at the time John wrote his Gospel Greek speakers used the two verbs more or less interchangeably. φιλῶ was much more common, but there was no substantial difference in meaning.  John, the scholars tell us, was probably doing no more than making his language more interesting by avoiding redundancy.

 More Than Words 

But is that really all there is to it? I’m not one to pick a fight with the experts on their own turf, but I can’t help but think the Evangelist has more on his plate here than simply avoiding redundancy.  After all, we know that John is a careful and subtle writer, and if he were that concerned with varying his vocabulary for purely stylistic reasons the prologue to his Gospel would read rather differently, wouldn’t it?  In any case, even if we can’t find a Big Linguistic/Theological Significance here, I can’t help but think that John is nonetheless using his selection of verbs to draw us deeper into the events of his Gospel.

    Let’s take another look at what’s happening in this passage. First of all, it immediately follows a passage where Peter is fishing. The apostle does not at first recognize the figure on the shore as Jesus.  When Peter, who has caught nothing, follows the unknown person’s advice, he immediately hauls in “a hundred and fifty-three [fish]; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.” (John 21:6)  It’s then that the Apostles, first John himself, then Peter, recognize Jesus.  They return to shore with their fish, where Jesus, who has built a charcoal fire, invites them to cook some of their catch.  This, the Evangelist tells us, “was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.” (John 21:14)

On the night of Holy Thursday, when Our Lord had been arrested, Peter denied Jesus three times . . .

“The Denial of St. Peter” by Caravaggio, 1610

 “Do You Love Me?” 

It’s after this meal that Jesus addresses Peter directly. He asks, “do you love (ἀγαπᾷς) me?”  Peter answers affirmatively using what appears to be a synonym, φιλῶ, after which Jesus says in reply, “feed my lambs.”  Jesus repeats his question using the same verb he used before, and Peter returns his prior response, to which Jesus answers, “Tend my sheep.” Finally, Peter grows visibly distressed by the repeated questioning. No doubt, he knows all too well why it needs repeating. Nonetheless, the Lord asks a third time . . . only this time He uses Peter’s preferred word, φιλεῖς,  as if to say, “All right, Peter, you love me, but do you love me?”   At this point, Peter replies “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus completes the series of questions by combining his two previous responses into one:  “Feed my sheep.”

  I look at this passage as a reflection of how Grace works in our life.  Just as Grace always starts with God, Christ comes to Peter, who does not at first recognize Him. After Peter realizes with whom he’s conversing, Christ invites him to express his love.  In so doing, he gives Peter an opportunity to repudiate his earlier sin.  Peter, the man Jesus named “The Rock,” is willing, but can’t quite bring himself to use the same word that Jesus uses.  Instead, he replies with a (possibly more humble) synonym.  After the same thing happens a second time Jesus moves a little closer. Then, He moves closer yet, echoing Peter’s own word back to him. He “meets him where he is”, as we like to say.  And every time Peter proclaims his love, Christ calls on him to share that love with others (“feed my sheep”).  

 

The Word Becomes Flesh 


     Just so, God is always the initiator, inviting us to share His Grace. He often comes to us in a tangible form (the Incarnation, the Eucharist, his ordained ministers acting In Persona Christi).  Our Creator calls on us to act out the love we proclaim.  Isn’t that the purpose of audible confession, acts of mercy, evangelization, living our lives so that we are that beacon on a hill, and so on? And He’s always willing to move a little closer, if it will bring us closer to Him . . . even to the point of becoming one of us, “taking the form of a slave” (Phillipians 2:7).

     Christ is always asking us, “Do you love Me?”  Can we answer, along with Peter, φιλῶ?

Featured image top of page: “Christ’s Charge to Peter” by Raphael, 1515

You might also like:

Truth is “a Thing” – St. Athanasius in the 21st Century

St. Athanasius, Otto Bitschnau, 1883

 Truth is a Thing 

     Truth is “a thing,” to use the current jargon.  Today’s memorial of St. Athanasius, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, commemorates a man who suffered greatly to safeguard the Truth of Jesus Christ. The 4th century theologian and Bishop of Alexandria dedicated his life to fighting the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ. The Arians were tenacious and unforgiving in their attacks on Athanasius. He “was banished five times and spent 17 years of his life in exile for the defense of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity” (St. Athanasius, catholic.org). At times he was opposed by a wide array of bishops, as well as the Roman emperor himself.  He appeared to be standing alone in defense of orthodox Chrstian belief. His lonely stance earned him the nickname Athanasius Contra Mundum (Athanasius Against the World).

 

     The battle for Truth continues today.  The modern day descendants of the Arians are still with us.  There are still those, even bishops, who would turn the Church of Jesus Christ into something more worldly.  We still need Catholic Christians to stand up and proclaim, as St. Athanasius did, that Truth is a Thing.

 A Grim Trajectory 

   In honor of today’s Memorial of St. Athanasius I’m revisiting a piece I first published on November 21st, 2014.  Much has changed since then: I no longer teach in a Catholic school, for instance.  Anthony Esolen likewise no longer teaches in the nominally Catholic college he has sometimes referred to as “St. Eustaby” (pronounced “Saint Used-To-Be”, as in used to be Catholic). By all reports he’s finding the environment and student body at Magdalen College in Warner, NH, much more attuned to the traditional Catholic understanding of God and His universe.

     In the world outside, however, things have travelled even further along the same grim trajectory.  Just as ecclesiastical and temporal  powers joined forces against Athanasius, powerful institutions of our day are uniting to impose an alternative “truth.”  Today, they deny even such basic natural truths as the difference between the two sexes. Read on to see why, more than ever, we need to assert that Truth is a Thing.

 Athanasius Against the World 

St. Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers with the Nicene Creed

   Let’s go back in time to the fall of 2014.  I’ll share just a couple of the highlights, or better yet lowlights.  There was the Sunday when I found myself berated from the pulpit.  Not me personally, but me and people like me.  We were bad Catholics because we expected Catholic clergy to speak out in support of the Church’s moral teaching on issues such as abortion, marriage, serial adultery, etc.  We were told we should be more like the Pope, welcoming everyone with a wink and nod. We should just stick to talking about Jesus (too bad Pope Francis didn’t get the memo: see here).

       Then there was a Friday afternoon. This time I found myself trying to explain the Church’s teaching on human sexuality to a classroom full of fourteen-year-olds. My young theology students found my assertion that one need not indulge any and every sexual desire to be novel and inexplicably bizarre. I began to feel a little bit like Athanasius Contra Mundum.  Shouldn’t these kids have heard this somewhere before, or from someone, anyone, beyond their 9th grade religion teacher?  Even students from church-going families seemed unfamiliar with the idea that there is a real alternative to the self-righteous libertinism of the popular culture.  This particular group was not unique. I had been seeing it more and more over the years.

The Good Professor Says His Piece 

     Coincidentally (perhaps?), when I arrived home that same day my lovely bride wanted to share an article with me. Anthony Esolen had just published a piece in Crisis (“Who Will Rescue the Lost Sheep of the Lonely Revolution?”).  Apparently, Dr. Esolen was also getting rather frustrated with trying to reach students who have grown up immersed in the grim propaganda of the sexual revolution. In his article he addressed himself, not to the students themselves, but to the adults responsible for their moral formation:

Let me speak up for the young people who see the beauty of the moral law and the teachings of the Church, and who are blessed with noble aspirations, but who are given no help, none, from their listless parents, their listless churches, their crude and cynical classmates, their corrupted schools.

      These youths and maidens in a healthier time would be youths and maidens indeed, and when they married they would become the heart of any parish. Do we expect heroic sanctity from them? Their very friendliness will work against them. They will fall. Do you care? Many of these will eventually “shack up,” and some will leave dead children in the wake of their friendliness.

     Where are you? You say that they should not kill the children they have begotten, and you are right about that. So why are you shrugging and turning aside from the very habits that bring children into the world outside of the haven of marriage?

 The Self-Help Guy Agrees 

Esolen makes a number of important points. First, that our culture is toxic. Next, that its moral corruption has very real material consequences. Finally, and most damning, that we have largely abandoned our young people to it.  

     Some years ago the late self-help author Stephen Covey made a similar argument:

In the past, it was easier to successfully raise a family ‘out-side-in’ because society was an ally, a resource.  People were surrounded by role models, examples, media reinforcement, and family-friendly laws and support systems that sustained marriage and helped create strong families. Even when there were problems within the family, there was still this powerful reinforcement of the whole idea of successful marriage and family life . . . (Stephen Covey, The7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, p. 15). 

 After the Revolution 

That is no longer the case. In fact, society now actively subverts parents’ efforts to raise their children: it is, as Covey puts it, “family-fatal”. He marshals an impressive array of statistics (he cites sources for all of these in his book) to support his assertion:  

  • Illegitimate birth rates have increased more than 400 percent.
  • The percentage of families headed by a single parent has more than tripled.
  • The divorce rate has more than doubled. Many project that about half of all new marriages will end in divorce.
  • Teenage suicide has increased almost 300 percent.
  • Scholastic Aptitude Test scores among all students have dropped 73 points.
  • The number one health problem for American women today is domestic violence, four million women are beaten each year by their partners.
  • One fourth of all adolescents contract a sexually transmitted disease before they graduate from high school.
  • Since 1940 the top disciplinary problems in public schools have changed from chewing gum and running in the halls to teen pregnancy, rape, and assault. (Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, p. 16)

     Covey’s book was published in 1997. I guarantee that these statistics have not changed for the better in the intervening 25 years.  And these are only some of the more obvious bad consequences of what Esolen calls the “Lonely Revolution.”

 Who Needs Those Goofy Rules Anyway? 

     But don’t take my word for it. Almost two decades later, the Catholic News Agency brought us “Agree to Disagree: Why Young Catholics Pose a Unique Challenge For the Church.”  The U.S. bishops had commissioned a study of young Catholics. Even those who considered themselves devout felt free to ignore “’goofy’ rules” that they did’t like:

If any Church teachings conflict with their own perceptions, young people simply “tune out” the teachings.

“They agree to disagree with the Church,” [Archbishop Thomas Wenski] said.

Furthermore, young Catholics are sensitive to language that could imply judgment. “For them, language like ‘hate the sin love the sinner’ means ‘hate the sinner’,” Archbishop Wenski said.

     The last sentence gives the game away, even if the article does not explicitly say which particular “goofy” rules are at issue. The conflation of the sin with the sinner is a preferred tactic that the storm troopers of the Sexual Revolution. They often employ it in conjunction with the damning charge of “judgmentalism” to lead good Christians into error. Truth is not a thing for the revolutionaries.

 Qui Bene Distinguit, Bene Docet 

The Church, on the other hand, follows the old legal maxim Qui bene distinguit, bene docet. In English, “he who distinguishes well, teaches well.” She has always understood that “hating the sin” is not the same as “hating the sinner.” In fact, if we love the sinner we must hate the sin, because sin poisons the soul of the sinner. Notice, by the way, the Latin word docet, “teach.” It comes from the same root as doctrine. Doctrine is the sacred teaching of the Church.  

     If those responsible for teaching doctrine don’t teach, then those under their tutelage will be left to the teaching of the World.  We have seen that the World “does not distinguish,” non distinguit.  In fact, it intentionally fails to do so, in order to deceive. Is it any wonder, then, that our young people also non distinguunt? The Church is supposed to be a Sign of Contradiction (Luke 2:34). If all she offers in the face of sin is a Nod and a Wink, however, what is she teaching? How is any distinction possible between her teaching and what the Conventional Wisdom has on offer?  Do we not then give tacit assent?

Where’s That in The Bible? 

     The underlying problem is not a new one.  Let’s go back a little further into the past, to the Book of the Prophet Ezekial:

If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.  (Ezekial 3:18-19)

But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.  (Ezekial 3:18-19)

Ezekial, by Michelangelo, 1508-1512

 A Prophetic Office 

All of us baptized Christians have a prophetic office, and the warning addressed to Ezekial above applies to all of us, as the Letter of James tells us:

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

When it comes to guiding the young, our Lord himself puts the matter even more starkly:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)

Avoiding unpleasant truths, it seems, is not an option.

 The Truth That is The Thing

     Let’s return briefly to the scolding homilist I mentioned above. He’s correct that we need to model the love of Jesus. We do that, however, when we speak the Truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).  When we distinguish between the sin and the sinner, we can show that we hate the sin because of our love for the sinner, because we understand the harm it is doing him.  

     I once heard a Catholic radio host wrap up his show with a nice summation of this truth.  “The worst thing you can do for somebody” he said, “is to allow him to wallow in sin.”  That’s exactly right. It is more loving to warn a person about sin, with all its painful consequences, than to leave them ignorant of something that’s destroying them.  That’s the truth, and truth is indeed a thing. Yes, we should talk about Jesus, by all means. And didn’t he suffer and die for the express purpose of saving us from sin?

 Go and Sin No More 

     I’m not saying we should be mean, or accusatory, or call people names.  We do, however,  need to recognize, as Anthony Esolen points out, that the currently popular sexual sins are not simply harmless “peccadilloes.” Sexual sin destroys families and ruins lives. It puts people in danger of being lost . . . forever.  Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery from stoning, but he also told her: “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11).  We all, and particularly those of us who are parents, teachers, and leaders, should be prepared to say the same.