phe 616 authentic virtue / christian personalism … 616 authentic virtue / christian personalism...

1

PHE 616 Authentic Virtue / Christian Personalism

Term: Fall 2016

Professor

Dr. Donald DeMarco

[email protected]

1. COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course will explore the difference between an authentic or true virtue and the counterfeit variety that is all too common in our contemporary secular world through the personalist contributions of Socrates, Kierkegaard, Buber, Tillich, Marcel, Maritain, Berdyaev, John Paul II, and others.

2. ENVISIONED LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students will demonstrate an ability to distinguish between an authentic or true virtue and the counterfeit variety.

Students will demonstrate an ability to engage in conversation the integral nature of personhood, love and virtue in contrast with unregulated freedom.

3. COURSE SCHEDULE

The basis for a true virtue is love, which is the heart of virtue. Counterfeit virtues, on the other hand, are often rooted in immediacy, expediency, and simplicity, if not in the 7 deadly sins. Love is also at the heart of human personality. By cultivating virtues that are based on love, one develops his personhood. The authentic person, therefore, is one who has cultivated authentic or true virtues so that he is able to love easily, effectively, and joyfully.

Personhood is real; it is who we are. The first act of a person is to love. Virtues give concrete expression to love. Personhood, love, and virtue are integral. Without personhood, love has no basis, and consequently, authentic virtue has no root. The secular world’s obsession with unregulated freedom is often at odds with the obligation to be a person. Freedom, therefore, is contextual and operates within real limits. We are not free to be gods.

While love is a universal capability, the notion of what it means to be a person has been developed in the modern world largely by Christian thinkers. This is no doubt due to the fact that Christianity regards the human being as a person whose most fundamental act is to love. By person, we understand the human being (in both a philosophical and Christian sense) as a dynamic unity between unique individuality and communal responsibility.

Week 1

Suggested reading assignment:

2

Read course commentaries at your leisure

Read one book from the suggested reading list On Virtue

Week 2




Week 3




Week 4




Week 5 – FIRST WRITING ASSINGMENT DUE

Due date of your first writing assignment is February 19th before 12 midnight.




Week 6




Week 7




Week 8



Read one book from the suggested reading list On Personalism

Week 9



3


Week 10 – SECOND WRITING ASSIGNMENT DUE

Due date of your second writing assignment is March 25 before 12 midnight.




Week 11




Week 12




Week 13




Week 14 – THIRD WRITING ASSIGNMENT DUE

Due date of your third writing assignment is April 22nd before 12 midnight.




Week 15




4. COURSE ASSIGNMENTS

There is no final exam in this course. 100% of the student’s final grade is based on 3 assignments. Each of these assignments is an essay that is between 7-9 pages (double-spaced, font 12). Each essay should have footnotes and a bibliography.

Assignment 1:

Elaborate on how a particular authentic virtue (one you choose) contrasts favorably against a counterfeit form that is popular in contemporary society.

4

A few examples of this contrast: Does compassion justify abortion? Prudence – cleverness? Mercy – euthanasia? Courage – infidelity? And so on. Make sure you document both sides of the debate.

Assignment 2:

Select a personalist thinker and discuss his approach and understanding of any particular virtue.

A few examples: Marcel – fidelity; Tillich – courage; the Von Hildebrands – reverence; Kierkegaard – faith; Wojtyla – love; and so on.

Assignment 3:

Show how a realistic anthropology is necessary in order to understand the authentic meaning of virtue.

Accordingly, Josef Pieper has written: “Virtue is the utmost of what a man can be; it is the realization of the human capacity for being.”

It is suggested that the student space work on the assignments so that they are completed and submitted, respectively, 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through the course, and at the end of the course.

5. COURSE READING MATERIALS

Required Reading:

1) DeMarco, Donald, The Heart of Virtue: Lessons from Life and Literature Illustrating the Beauty

and Value of Moral Character (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1996).

2) Pieper, Josef, The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance (New

York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965).

Suggested Reading:

On Virtue:

1. Augustine, Confessions, Ch. VII. 2. Aquinas, On Charity (De Caritate), tr. by Lottie H. Kendzienski (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette

Univ. Press, 1994). 3. Bennett, William J., The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories (New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster, 1993). 4. Centore, F. F., Two Views of Virtue: Absolute Relativism and Relative Absolutism (Westport,

CT: Greenwood Press, 2000). 5. DeMarco, Donald, The Many Faces of Virtue (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishers,

2000). 6. DeMarco, Donald, Virtue’s Alphabet from Amiability to Zeal (St. Louis, MO: Central Bureau,

2003). 7. Hemrick, Eugene F., The Promise of Virtue (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1999). 8. Meyers, Robin R., The Virtue in the Vice (Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.,

2004). 9. Kreeft, Peter, Back to Virtue (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1992). 10. Pieper, Josef, A Brief Reader on the Virtues of the Heart. tr. by Paul C. Duggan (San

Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1991). 11. Rowe, Dorothy, The Courage to Live (HarperCollins: London, GB, 1989). 12. May, William F., A Catalogue of Sins: A Contemporary Examination of Christian Conscience

(New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967). 13. Shalit, Wendy, A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue (New York, NY: Free Press,

1999).

5

14. Sommers, Christina & Sommers, Fred (eds.), Introductory Readings in Vice & Virtue (Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc., 2001).

15. Von Hildebrand, Dietrich, In Defense of Purity (New York, NY: Sheed & Ward Inc., 1935). 16. Von Hildebrand, Dietrich and Alice, The Art of Living (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press,

1965). 17. Wilson, James Q., The Moral Sense (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1993). 18. “What is Virtue?”, Newsweek , June 13, 1994.

On Personalism:

1. Blackham, H. J. (ed.), Reality, Man and Existence: Essential Works of Existentialism (New York, NY: Bantam Books, Inc., 1965).

2. Brandt, Frithiof, Sören Kierkegaard, tr. by Ann R. Born (Copenhagen, Denmark: Det dansk Selskab, 1963).

3. Buber, Martin, I and Thou, tr. by Ronald Gregor Smith (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958).

4. Collins, James, The Existentialists: A Critical Study (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery, Co., 1952). 5. Berdyaev, Nicholas, Dostoevsky, tr. by Donald Attwater (Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing

Co., 1966). 6. Berdyaev, Nikolai, Slavery and Freedom, tr. by R. M. French (New York, NY: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1944). 7. Berdyaev, Nicolas, The Destiny of Man, tr. by Natalie Duddington (New York: NY: Harper &

Row, 1960). 8. Marcel, Gabriel, Creative Fidelity, tr. by Robert Rosthal (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and

Giroux, 1964). 9. Marcel, Gabriel, Mystery of Being (in 2 volumes), tr. by G. S. Fraser (Chicago, IL: Henry

Regnery Co., 1969). 10. Maritain, Jacques, Existence and the Existent, tr. by Lewis Galantiere and Gerald B. Phelan

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1948). 11. Maritain, Jacques, The Person and the Common Good, tr. by John J. Fitzgerald (Notre Dame,

IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966). 12. Tillich, Paul, The Courage To Be (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952). 13. Wojtyla, Karol, The Acting Person, tr. by Andrzej Potocki (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel

Publishing Company, 1979). 14. Woznicki, Andrew N., Karol Wojtyla’s Existential Personalism (New Britain, CT: Mariel

Publications, 1980).

6. ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION POLICY

Acceptable File Format:

The preferred file format for your papers is Microsoft Word, but any format that will get through to Dr. Demarco is acceptable.

Assignment Feedback:

Students can expect feedback from Dr. DeMarco within a few days after submission.

Citation Style

Students can use any citation style, as long as it is clear and consistent. As a reminder, Holy Apostles College and Seminary uses the Turabian Citation Style. Please refer to the HACS

6

Thesis Guidelines document located in BlackBoard (starting on page 12 of the document) if you choose to utilize the Turabian format for your paper.

7. EMAIL POLICY

Clarification

If you have a question related to course content, feedback from graded papers, and/or a private issue for discussion within the instructor-student relationship, email Dr. DeMarco at: [email protected] (unless otherwise alerted by Dr. DeMarco to use a different email address).

Response Time

Emails sent to Dr. DeMarco will usually be answered the same day. Note: If you have not heard back from Dr. DeMarco within two business days, it is recommended that you resend the email.

8. DISCUSSION FORUMS

Participation in discussion forums is currently optional for the students, but highly encouraged!

It is highly encouraged to read the posts of your peers and respond to them.

Participation in discussion forums has no ramifications to the students’ grade.

Dr. DeMarco may visit discussion forums to interact with students. However, if a student has a pressing question for Dr. DeMarco, it is recommended to send Dr. Demarco an email.

9. DISABILITIES ACCOMMODATIONS POLICY

Holy Apostles College & Seminary is committed to the goal of achieving equal educational opportunities and full participation in higher education for persons with disabilities who qualify for admission to the College. Students enrolled in online courses who have documented disabilities requiring special accommodations should contact Bob Mish, the Director of Online Student Affairs, at [email protected] or 860-632-3015. In all cases, reasonable accommodations will be made to ensure that all students with disabilities have access to course materials in a mode in which they can receive them. Students who have technological limitations (e.g., slow Internet connection speeds in convents) are asked to notify their instructors the first week of class for alternative means of delivery.

10. ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY

Students at Holy Apostles College & Seminary are expected to practice academic honesty.

Avoiding Plagiarism

In its broadest sense, plagiarism is using someone else's work or ideas, presented or claimed as your own. At this stage in your academic career, you should be fully conscious of what it means to plagiarize. This is an inherently unethical activity because it entails the uncredited use of someone else's expression of ideas for another's personal advancement; that is, it entails the use of a person merely as a means to another person’s ends.

Students, where applicable:

Should identify the title, author, page number/webpage address, and publication date of works when directly quoting small portions of texts, articles, interviews, or websites.

Students should not copy more than two paragraphs from any source as a major component of papers or projects.

mailto:[email protected]

tel:/860-632-3015

7

Should appropriately identify the source of information when paraphrasing (restating) ideas from texts, interviews, articles, or websites.

Should follow the Holy Apostles College & Seminary Stylesheet (available on the Online Writing Lab’s website at http://www.holyapostles.edu/owl/resources).

Consequences of Academic Dishonesty:

Because of the nature of this class, academic dishonesty is taken very seriously. Students participating in academic dishonesty may be removed from the course and from the program.

11. ATTENDANCE POLICY

Even though you are not required to be logged in at any precise time or day, you are expected to login several times during each week. Because this class is being taught entirely in a technology-mediated forum, it is important to actively participate each week in the course. In a traditional classroom setting for a 3-credit course, students would be required to be in class 3 hours a week and prepare for class discussions 4.5 hours a week. Expect to devote at least 7 quality hours a week to this course. A failure on the student’s part to actively participate in the life of the course may result in a reduction of the final grade.

12. INCOMPLETE POLICY

An Incomplete is a temporary grade assigned at the discretion of the faculty member. It is typically allowed in situations in which the student has satisfactorily completed major components of the course and has the ability to finish the remaining work without re-enrolling, but has encountered extenuating circumstances, such as illness, that prevent his or her doing so prior to the last day of class.

To request an incomplete, distance-learning students must first download a copy of the Incomplete Request Form. This document is located within the Shared folder of the Files tab in Populi. Secondly, students must fill in any necessary information directly within the PDF document. Lastly, students must send their form to their professor via email for approval. “Approval” should be understood as the professor responding to the student’s email in favor of granting the “Incomplete” status of the student.

Students receiving an Incomplete must submit the missing course work by the end of the sixth week following the semester in which they were enrolled. An incomplete grade (I) automatically turns into the grade of “F” if the course work is not completed.

Students who have completed little or no work are ineligible for an incomplete. Students who feel they are in danger of failing the course due to an inability to complete course assignments should withdraw from the course.

A “W” (Withdrawal) will appear on the student’s permanent record for any course dropped after the end of the first week of a semester to the end of the third week. A “WF” (Withdrawal/Fail) will appear on the student’s permanent record for any course dropped after the end of the third week of a semester and on or before the Friday before the last week of the semester.

13. ABOUT YOUR PROFESSOR

Visit Integrated Catholic Life website for more information about Dr. Donald DeMarco.

http://www.holyapostles.edu/owl/resources

http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/author/ddemarco/

8

THE COURSE COMMENTARY by Dr. D. DeMarco

The Importance of Virtue

Virtue is understated, underappreciated, under-valuated, and misunderstood. This is a sad litany for something as important as virtue. And how important, then, is virtue? It is as important to the moral life as money is to the economy. They both operate as a vital medium of exchange. The economy keeps money in circulation; morality keeps love in circulation. The importance of money to the economy, however, is not questioned. Virtue, as its opponents have said, is its own punishment.

“Hell is other people,” Jean-Paul Sartre famously stated. His cynical image, however, is apt, but only for a gathering of unvirtuous people who, as is their wont, prey upon each other. A community of virtuous people, on the other hand, who love each other, is at least a foretaste of paradise. Sartre found life absurd because he did not find love at all. Where there is no virtue, love remains unexpressed. Hell is not only the place where there is no love, but also the place where there is no virtue.

Gas is vital for the operation of a car. But gas does not get into the fuel tank directly; it requires a hose that serves as a conduit. Likewise, love does not flow directly from one person into another; it requires virtue that serves as a mode of transmission. We express love to each other not directly, but through virtue. Virtue is our moral medium of exchange. Without it, we are spiritually bankrupt.

Only God can transmit his love directly. Nonetheless, He chose Mary, the Mother of God, to serve as the Mediatrix of all grace. Nathaniel Hawthorne, though not a Catholic, revealed a fine understanding of Mary’s role in this regard when he made the following statement: “I have always envied the Catholics their faith in that sweet, sacred, Virgin Mother who stands between them and the Deity, intercepting somewhat His awful splendor, but permitting His love to stream on the worshipper more intelligently to human comprehension through the medium of a woman’s tenderness.” Mary’s tenderness is her virtuous way of directing God’s love into our hearts.

Each of us comes into the world with a certain capital of love. It is ours to spend. And the remarkable thing about spending love (unlike spending money) is that the more we spend, the more our supply is increased. With love as our currency, we can go on a lifelong spending spree and never go broke. But we cannot spend a dollop of our love unless we channel it through some virtue. A simple act of kindness, for example, can brighten a person’s day. Kindness is love’s low voltage way of expressing itself to complete strangers without fear of embarrassment or threat of obligation. Kindness is a natural way of affirming the inherent goodness of others and of stirring up their own supply of love. Kindness begets kindness. It can even prepare the way to friendship where additional virtues such as fidelity, patience, and courage come into play. Kindness, which demands so little of us, can open the door to a flood of subsequent virtues.

In Psalm 118 we read: “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his kindness endures forever.” Here, God is telling us not only that His virtue is constant and everlasting, but also that His virtue is more powerful than our sin. In addition, He is telling us that if we want to be more Godlike, we, too, must be virtuous. But as we become more Godlike, we do not become less human-like. In fact, because we are created by a God who loves us, the more Godlike we become, the more human we become, which is to say, the more we become ourselves, the person God intended us to be.

As Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik states in his book, The Hidden Powers of Kindness, “Kind words have converted more sinners than zeal, eloquence, or learning.” “He who is kind is free, even if he is a slave,” wrote St. Augustine; “he who is evil is a slave, even if he is king.” The power of this seemingly modest virtue is inestimable. And it is good to know that such a power is always readily available to us.

9

We often complain about how much unkindness there is in the world. But this amount of unkindness, however much it may be, exists only because of the lack of kindness practiced by individuals who live in it. The supply of kindness is available; all that is needed is its expression. Expressing love through kindness allows us to stop complaining and begin building a culture of joy. Then we will understand and properly appreciate why virtue is our most important medium of exchange, giving practicality to love and bringing conviviality to life.

The Root of Authentic Virtue

Many eons ago, when I was in Junior High, a colleague won an oratorical contest by expatiating on the theme, “A Bomb of Peace.” If there can be a bomb that destroys, he reasoned, why can’t there be a bomb that showers people with peace? His philosophy may have been weak, but his rhetoric was irresistible, especially at a time when “fear of the bomb” was a national anxiety.

Junior High School students, even champions of oratory, can be forgiven their naïveté. It may seem to be a hard truth, but it is incomparably easier to destroy than to create. A child spends considerable time and effort erecting a tower of blocks, only to witness his mischievous sibling knock it down by a single blow. The young builder’s tears proclaim the fundamental unfairness of life. Why should it be so much easier to be a vandal than an engineer? This is not only unfair, it is unjust!

We will view life as unfair as long as we omit an essential factor from the equation. That factor is, to put it simply, work. It is only through hard work that we can offset the discrepancy that exists between the powerful force of gravity against the seemingly weaker force of grace. Work that follows the line of grace is not only essential to counterbalance the force of gravity, but also to give our lives a sense of meaning.

If peace came to us as conveniently as packets are dropped to us from a plane (that fall, of course, due to the force of gravity), an important part of our life’s meaning would be withheld from us. We need challenges to awaken and mobilize us so that we get to work and build something that bears the stamp of our personality. We need this discrepancy between the ease with which things can be destroyed and the difficulty with which they can be produced so that we see our own identity in the picture. Life is not a luxury hotel where there is little or no rift between desire and satisfaction. It is more like a wilderness that we are asked to cultivate into a garden.

The specific kind of work needed to bring about peace is essentially moral. No one is born virtuous; virtue must be acquired, and through considerable effort. The Greek moralist and biographer, Plutarch, said that “five great enemies to peace inhabit within us: viz., avarice, ambition, envy, anger and pride.” “If these enemies were to be banished,” he went on to say, “we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace.”

How difficult is it to banish pride and other exemplifications of the Deadly Sins? The answer is attested, with both intellectual realism and poetic grace by John Henry Cardinal Newman: “Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk,” he wrote in The Idea of a University. “Then you may hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and pride of man.”

Cardinal Newman offers a sober realism and a challenge. It is naïve to think that peace will be the automatic product of any educational curriculum or the necessary aftermath of a peace treaty. The British social reformer, John Ruskin, who, like Newman, left the world in the first year of the Twentieth Century, shared the Cardinal’s view concerning the moral work that is demanded of us. “No peace was ever won from fate by subterfuge or agreement; no peace is ever in store for any of us, but that which we shall win by victory over shame or sin, - victory over sin that oppresses, as well as over that which corrupts.”

10

If we take an impersonal look at the world, we should be horrified at the enormous gap that exists between the formidable powers of destruction and the delicate powers of construction. Then, we either despair or take refuge in a fantasy, perhaps hoping for a “bomb of peace.” But if we insinuate ourselves into the situation and work to overcome our own faults, then we may expect a harvest of good things, including peace. At the same time, we should not forget that we also need God’s guiding hand.

As we confront life, we are all acutely aware that we are handicapped. The great excitement in being alive, however, comes when we begin to realize what can come about when we are willing to work for it in the proper way. Peace is the result of victory over sin. The quest for peace and the difficulty of its attainment, then, give us our working orders for a lifetime. And this is enough to fill our hearts.

Authentic vs. Counterfeit Virtues

Stephanie Templeton is 8 years of age and a third grade student at a Toronto elementary school. For her tender age, she exhibits a remarkable and most admirable sensitivity to the needs of others. During a can good drive conducted over the past Christmas Season at her school, Stephanie was most eager, in her father’s words, “to help people who are suffering without food.”

Unfortunately, Stephanie’s empathy and generosity clashed with her teacher’s brand of political correctness. When Stephanie brought in an additional load of six cans, her teacher sent her back home with them because the third grader’s largesse was allegedly “making other students feel bad.”

We should not want to make anyone “feel bad.” But sometimes people feel bad without justification, such as when a student feels bad that a colleague received an A+ on an essay. Virtue should be admired, not used as an occasion for envy. And we should understand that envy is sadness over another’s good fortune. Little Stephanie is indeed fortunate that she has an abundance of virtue, but it should not be the cause of sadness in her classmates.

The excessive concern about not making others feel bad (although in this story, it is somehow politically correct to make Stephanie feel bad) can discourage a person from being good. But uniform mediocrity can hardly be a moral ideal. Stephanie’s case exemplifies a pernicious attitude that is becoming more prevalent in today’s society: that excellence should not be achieved if it makes others envious. As a result, envy, long known as the second most virulent of the Deadly Sins, is given the power to suppress virtue.

In some sectors of education, so that the A student does not make the B student feel bad, everyone passes with the unenviable grade of “Pass.” In sports, so that winners do not make losers feel bad, a policy is emerging to award everyone a medal. It is simply assumed that those who come in second best can never admire those who surpass them, but will inevitable be locked in a dark mood of bitter envy. Thus, the strategy is developed to avoid envy by forbidding the celebration of excellence.

Reality teaches us that we have varying abilities. Some of us are obviously more musical, or more athletic, or more intelligent, or even more virtuous than others. Education should teach people to admire those who, in certain ways, outperform us. In this way, students would be given a crucial lesson in character education. It takes character to admire those who can outshine us. No character is required to feel glum over another’s accomplishments.

It is most commendable that students be encouraged to cultivate the virtues of empathy and generosity. But those virtues will be under assault unless a third virtue, humility, is not similarly encouraged. The humble person will be able to admire the superior talents or more generous giving of others. The proud person, on the other hand, the one who lacks humility, will be envious and allow himself to be saddened by not being number one in everything. The humble person rejoices in the achievements of others; the proud person is saddened by them. Humility stands on guard to honor and reinforce the virtues of empathy and generosity.

11

Perhaps Stephanie’s teacher, instead of humiliating her and creating an embarrassing incident for herself and her school, should have said the following to her impressionable third graders: “Dear boys and girls, isn’t it wonderful that our Stephanie was able to be so helpful to the people who are hungry? Not all of you are in a position to be equally helpful, but I am sure that all your hearts are in the right place. I believe the day will come for each and everyone of you, when you will be able to do good things that others might not be able to as well or to the same degree. We should always admire excellence. In this way, we are more likely to imitate it. The only time you should feel bad is when you are not doing as much as you should. So please don’t let the excellence of others ever make you feel bad. Your day will surely arrive when your own excellence will shine for others to see and put into practice.”

Virtue vs. Inaction

Our secular society is not so bold as to tell people what to do. It lacks the forthrightness of Christianity that commands people to love, be good, and seek the truth. But it does not hesitate to tell people what they can not do. High on the list of its negative imperatives are the following: 1) Do not bully anyone; 2) Refrain from expressions of hatred; 3) Avoid offending anyone.

It is important to emphasize that each of this trio of prohibitions represents an inaction. What remains undecided, in our secular world, is exactly what people should do. The consequences of not knowing what to do (but only what not to do) is a hesitation to do anything, sometimes to the point of moral paralysis, for fear that one will unintentionally violate one of these interdictions. The matter becomes all the more perplexing because bullying, hate literature, and offensiveness are incoherently promulgated.

Bullying:

The opposition to bullying, in itself, is unassailable. Bullying is antisocial, unjust, and reprehensible. The antithesis of the bully is the gentleman who, in Blessed John Henry Newman’s celebrated description, “is one who never inflicts pain”. Clearly, a society of gentlemen is preferable to one of bullies.

The problem, however, is the unevenness in which bullying is understood. The bully attacks someone who is not likely to retaliate. But what could be a more glaring example of bullying than abortion, in which the unborn child is utterly incapable of defending itself. The permissiveness of abortion in secular culture makes a mockery of any attempt to abolish bullying. In fact, it is fair to say that bullying, as in abortion, is not only legal, but widely encouraged. The national program against bullying will truly get underway only when every form of bullying is opposed.

In addition, denouncing anyone who objects to homosexual acts as “homophobic” is also a form of approved bullying. It is an attempt to reduce those who have reasoned objections to homosexual behavior to people who are “phobic,” which is to say, suffering from some kind of mental disorder. In this way, the “strong” supposedly prevail over the “weak”.

Hate Literature:

“Hate literature” is so ill-defined and so highly prone to subjective interpretation that it can be applied even to a gesture of friendship. A middle school teacher in Apex, North Carolina, for example, complained that Christian students subjected her to a “hate crime” by leaving a Bible on her desk. She vowed not to allow this incident to go unpunished.

Hatred has been unofficially redefined as any act that does not meet with another person’s approval. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that such acts of “hatred” can occasion legal action. It is a small wonder that a wall of alienation has been erected between people. Who wants an innocent remark or gesture to be misinterpreted as “hatred” and then become a target for litigation?

12

The program against hate literature is counterproductive because it incites hateful reactions. Furthermore, it allows hatred to be re-interpreted according to one’s particular ideology. Thus, the Bible can qualify as hate literature because it challenges certain ideological viewpoints. But in defining hatred so broadly, reasonable dialogue is also attacked, even discussions as to what hatred really is.

Offensiveness:

Samuel Johnson defined the “modest man” as one who attempts to “please principally by not offending”. His definition is an amusing euphemism. The less palatable and perhaps offensive truth is that such a “modest man” is the personification of timidity.

The dictum “Thou shall not offend” has made it easy for people to find something offensive in virtually everything. Thus, it encourages both timidity on the one hand and vindictiveness on the other.

High school students in New Haven, Connecticut received their 2010 diplomas with the phrase “year of our Lord” expunged from the document. The superintendent said that the phrase was removed so as not to offend anyone. Not surprisingly, the gesture infuriated people. In the world of political correctness, however, it is permissible to infuriate people as long as one does not offend them. Another way of putting it is that it is acceptable to offend certain people but not others.

For many, truth itself is offensive. Those who seek truth and dare to talk about it run the risk of being offensive and duly punished.

The positive mandate to love is a natural antidote against bullying. Promoting good behavior counteracts hatred. Recognizing the importance of truth should offset frivolous charges of being offended. The secular world, however, in pursuing laudable goods, has not only neglected to promote love, goodness, and truth, but it contradicts them by encouraging the very attitudes it denounces.

The politically correct brigade is losing its battle against bullying, hatred, and offensiveness, because, as someone has remarked, it is using a Yugo to overtake a Lamborghini.

The Need for Virtue in Democracy

The primary function of the State is to ensure justice for all. This noble idea resonates nicely through the particularities of the fair wage, anti-discrimination policies, affordable housing, universal health care, and social justice.

Justice, however, is a virtue. Moreover, it is, in its essence, not bureaucratic, but personal. Politicians, nonetheless, who love to talk about justice, rarely understand this. In general, they assume that justice is imposed on people by a liberal government, forgetting, somehow, that a society is nothing without its constitutive people. If there are no virtuous people, there is no social justice.

Pope John Paul II understood this. In an address to the United Nations during one of his Papal Visits, he told the countries of the world that, “democracy needs wisdom. Democracy needs virtue, if it is not to turn against everything that it is meant to defend and encourage. Democracy stands or falls with the truths and values which it embodies and promotes.”

The distinguished Harvard social psychologist, Gordon Allport, conveyed the same message to the world back in 1954 when he pointed out that, “the mature democratic person must possess subtle virtues.”

While the State should be concerned about justice, it is not in the business of cultivating moral virtues. The latter is more the work of religious institutions, especially those of a Christian nature. In his recent book, Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, Archbishop Charles Chaput sheds most important light on the relationship between the Church

13

and democracy: “By forming people in virtues the world cannot, the church provides a vital service, especially in a democracy.”

The Church both transcends democracy and is at its service. By encouraging, teaching, and cultivating personal virtues (and justice, not to mention wisdom, is but one), She is providing something that is not only “vital,” but also essential for a true democracy. For democracy without virtue is a sham. It is politics bereft of a soul, society devoid of guiding principles.

If separation of Church and State meant that all Her teachings should be separated from political activities, then democracy would lose its lifeblood.

In 1962, Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans, excommunicated three prominent Catholics for publicly defying the teaching of their Church by opposing desegregation. The good bishop’s action won high praise from the secular establishment. The New York Times (April 19, 1962), for example, stated that “men of all faiths must admire [Rummel’s] unwavering courage” since he “set an example founded in religious principle and is responsive to the social conscience of our time.”

The Times did not castigate the New Orleans bishop for imposing his religious values on the secular world, or acting like a bully in excommunicating three of his own fellow Catholics. It was a situation in which justice was recognized by the Church and the State as having the same meaning.

The abortion situation is an entirely difference story. Justice does not change, but politics certainly does. The Church holds that justice should apply to the unborn. The secular world does not. But this disagreement should not alienate Catholics from the democratic process. The disagreement, in essence, has nothing to do with Church and State. It is a disagreement about justice, a virtue that is almost always better understood by the Church than by the State.

The State should be separated from the Church so that the Church can be Herself without government intrusion. But the Church should not be separated from the State because She is in the business of supplying the virtue that the State needs in order to be itself.

As Pope Benedict XVI stated in Deus Caritas Est: “The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics”. How far politicians have strayed from the view of America’s second president who insisted that the American Constitution “was made for a moral and religious people.”

Doing Justice to Virtue

We usually think of justice as rendering what is due to another (“Justitia est ad alterum,” in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas). In this sense, we see justice as a virtue that has an interpersonal nature. It is also possible to view justice as rendering what is due to something that is not a person. In this sense, a singer, for example, can “do justice” to a musical selection, or a reviewer can do justice to the book he is reviewing. We can also do justice to an idea. We do justice to the notion of virtue when we speak of it properly in the fullness of its meaning.

Doing justice to the notion of virtue is important not only because of the critical importance of virtue in the moral life, but also to distinguish true virtue from the many counterfeit and aberrant notions of virtue that are rampant in culture. For many people, virtue is like a kaleidoscope which, as it is turned, displays an intriguing array of variations on the theme of virtue, but not virtue itself in its undiluted and undistorted truth. Doing justice to virtue, then, is doing justice to truth.

Virtue as Harmful:

Friedrich Nietzsche dedicated a good portion of his life to railing against Christian virtues, especially those he thought were feminine, such as chastity, modesty, meekness, and pity. Such virtues, for Nietzsche, were actually harmful since they prevented the emergence of the “Superman” (übermensch).

14

In The Will to Power, Nietzsche argues that the pity by which a person is moved to assist someone who is weak or suffering, is “more dangerous than any vice”. “Virtue is our greatest misunderstanding,” he writes. In his view, “One should respect fatality – that fatality that says to the weak: perish!”

Nietzsche, despite his patent misanthropy, has never lacked for admirers and imitators in the modern world. Ayn Rand is a good example of a thoroughly Nietzschean devotee. In declaring that “Altruism is the root of all evil,” and that “Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue,” she is professing her philosophical kinship with Nietzschean morality.

Someone who at least comes close to saying that money is the root of all good is the cinematic character played by Michael Douglas in the move Wall Street. Gordon Gecko is a Wall Street bandit who addresses an assembly of stockholders. His solution for their company, Teldar Paper, is to “save” it by “downsizing it”. In a style that is truly mesmerizing, Gecko pontificates as follows:

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms—greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked the upward surge, and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Gecko’s panegyric to greed, on the other side of the coin, is his denunciation of generosity. Virtue, in the traditional sense, reaches out to the weak; greed, formerly a Deadly Sin, is now a source of life. “Woe to him who mistakes vice for virtue,” warned Confucius (and vice versa we might add). At the end of the move, Gordon Gecko becomes in inmate in a Federal Prison, which seems to be the logical and inevitable result of his dubious thinking and double-dealing. Wall Street, therefore, is a morality play that reveals, slowly but convincingly, what Dostoevsky showed in Crime and Punishment, namely, that the wages of sin are not higher wages, but either death or personal disintegration.

Virtue as Uncool:

“I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.” This phrase is attributed to Mae West. Whether it was her own brainchild or that of one of her many writers, is beside the point. The phrase captured her lifestyle. Ms. West was, as they say, a woman of “easy virtue”. If something is too easy, it usually does not exemplify what it is supposed to be. Wine that ages for a month is not a vintage wine. “Character”, as Goethe once said, “is formed in the stormy billows of the world”. The shortcut is the quickest route to nowhere. Neither virtue nor life itself is easy.

Mae West’s depiction of herself is not only amusing, but engaging. She makes sexual promiscuity appear “cool”, and, by contrast, makes chastity seem “uncool”. “Chastity is its own punishment”, it is said. Alex Comfort, who made a fortune selling licentiousness, (his hastily-written 1972 book The Joy of Sex earned him worldwide fame and $3 million), was more forthright and less amusing when he said, “We might as well make up our minds that chastity is no more a virtue than malnutrition.”

It is considered “uncool” to be chaste. When football star Tim Tebow declared that he was saving himself for marriage, he provoked a tidal wave of ridicule. While many supported him, many of Tebow’s peers thought it was just too “uncool” to be celibate before marriage. Many of Tebow’s critics find a lot of other virtues to be “uncool”, such as patience, modesty, meekness, graciousness, and courtesy.

Being “cool” is not being virtuous. It is a curious substitute for virtue. It is largely an attitude, one that fears being pretentious, avoids hard work, and craves the approval of others. It is catering to the IN crowd and distancing oneself from the “old fogeys” of the world. But it is the stance of the immature person. The distinctions between what is “cool” and what is “uncool”, between what is “hot” and what is not, between what is IN and what is OUT are grossly inadequate replacements for “right” and

15

“wrong”, “good and “evil”. Real virtue is more concerned about loving others than being admired by them. Elvis Presley was cool, but his inner life was in turmoil.

James Bond, 007, is super-cool. He is detached, imperturbable, supremely confident, and emotionally unavailable. He has been a role model for those who find it easier to be aloof than to be in love. The cool person, presumably, never gets emotionally scarred. But if this is true, it is only because he does not truly care about anyone other than himself. He is never truly in love. Consider the following words of C. S. Lewis: “There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love

anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it

intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little

luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket —

safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable,

irredeemable.” It is not cool to be passionate, but it is not redeemable to be cool.

Virtue as Unnecessary:

“All you need is love,” sang the Beatles. It was an appealing notion, because it excused people from the arduous and time-consuming task of cultivating virtues. Psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim (1903-1990) offered a more realistic view of love in his book, Love is Not Enough (1950),. Though this noted psychiatrist had his own problems, his notion that love is a practical concern rather than just some amorphous good feeling, is eternally valid.

Love may represent good intentions, but as Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood has confessed, “My good intentions are completely lethal”. We know that Hell is paved with good intentions, though this does not imply that Heaven is paved with bad intentions. Love is practical concern. It is deed. It is the will to do good. But love does not cross over into doing good for someone in the absence of virtue.

A fire department analogy may be of help at this point. Water puts out fire. Water represents a supply of love; the fire represents someone in distress who needs love. But there must be an intermediary to bring the water to the fire (or love to where it is needed). This, of course, is the hose. Virtue is the hose, so to speak, or the conduit that brings love to the person loved. It is the connective that transmits love in a practical and beneficial way. If a man declares his love for a woman, but lacks chastity, temperance, patience, and other important virtues, he is a pathetic soap opera character whose love, if it is there at all, is stillborn. The unvirtuous suitor does not need a woman as much as he needs a character makeover. Virtue is necessary if love is to be delivered. When unvirtuous people prey upon each other, tragedy is the inevitable outcome. The shallow soap operas may be entertaining, but they are seldom instructive. Jean-Paul Sartre’s celebrated phrase, “Hell is other people,” is an accurate description, but applies only to an assemblage of unvirtuous people.

Love without virtue is sentimentality. Love focuses on the other person; sentimentality focuses on the feeling in the self. Love is a tendency toward reality, but needs virtue to get there. Love is the power, virtue is the delivery system. Virtue is as necessary to love as musical instruments are to music. Tolstoy tells of aristocratic ladies who would shed tears over the troubles that theater actors portray on the stage, while serenely oblivious to their coachmen who are waiting for them outside in the freezing cold.

Virtue as a Mask:

In Book II of his Republic, Plato tells the story of the Ring of Gyges which gives its possessor the power to be invisible. In the dialogue, Plato has Socrates and Glaucon engaged in a dispute concerning virtue. Socrates contends that virtue is truly personal and does not depend on what others may think or on a fear of being caught. Glaucon disagrees with Socrates and insists that people act morally only because they fear reprisals. If someone had the Ring of Gyges, which

16

rendered him invisible, he would see no need of being virtuous and would enjoy a very profitable immoral life. Hence, Glaucon believes that virtue is just a mask of social respectability.

A recent survey posted on the Internet asked husbands and wives if they would cheat on each other if they were assured of not being caught. 30% of the men and 16% of the women responded in the affirmative. These potential cheaters take the position of Glaucon. But their willingness to engage in infidelity (if the price was right) does not call into question the virtue of the majority of men and women whose commitment to fidelity is truly personal and irrevocable. Vice does not cast virtue in doubt. Rather, as Francois La Rochefoucauld famously said, “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.”

The often heard moral maxim, “Crime does not pay” represents the Socratic position that committing a crime, even though one is not caught, poisons the soul of the criminal. Virtue is good for others as a way in which love is expressed, but it is also good for the virtuous person inasmuch as it strengthens his own soul and helps him to achieve authenticity as a moral person. The person who practices unvirtuous acts is faced with the tribunal of himself. He cannot escape his own realization of the iniquity of his actions.

St. Ambrose, in his commentary on the Ring of Gyges rejects the cynical position of Glaucon and affirms that even “if an upright man could hide himself, yet he would avoid sin just as though he could not conceal himself; and that he would not hide his person by putting on a ring, but his life by putting on Christ.” We cannot escape getting caught by our own conscience whenever we commit an unvirtuous act. St. Ambrose concludes that we should therefore not let expediency get the better of virtue, but, like the “upright man”, regard virtue as superior to expediency.

Maintaining a mask of virtue is not easy. “Do you not know,” Kierkegaard asks, “that there comes a midnight hour when everyone has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked?” Nathaniel Hawthorne would have agreed with the Danish existentialist: “No man can, for any considerable time, wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which is the true one.”

Virtue as Proof of Being a Self:

In the Preface of the book version of his immensely successful play, A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt, asks himself why he chose St. Thomas More to be his subject: “Why do I take for my hero a man who brings about his own death because he can’t put his hand on an old black book and tell an ordinary lie?” Samuel Johnson had said of Thomas More that “he was the person of the greatest virtue these islands ever produced.” Bolt greatly admired More for the virtue he exemplified as a genuine expression of who he is. He was “a man”, writes Bolt, “with an adamantine sense of his own self.”

When a person makes a vow, he declares who he is. He binds himself through his word to a certain virtuous conduct. It is all too common for people to take vows lightly, to break them when they prove demanding or ignore them whenever it is convenient. A man makes a vow, writes Robert Bolt, “when he wants to make an identity between the truth of it and his own virtue; he offers himself as a guarantee.” In the play, More refuses to give in to the king, to perjure himself and betray his Church. “I will not give in because I oppose it – I do – not my pride, nor my spleen, nor any other of my appetites but I do – I.” There is no dissociation between More’s being and his life.” Dostoevsky appropriately named the main character in his Crime and Punishment “Raskolnikov” because raskol, in Russian, means “divided”.

Only a person of integrity, which is to say, of virtue, is capable of making a genuine vow. He must have the moral strength, as well as the freedom, to ensure that his solemn word is not a frivolity but a steel cable that binds himself irrevocably with his actions. True virtue is evidence of a whole person. It is a person’s identity, his commitment to be himself.

17

Cynics may take virtue lightly because they take vows even more lightly. They view virtue not as the soul’s possession, but as an advantageous social ornament. The vow, however, should be taken as seriously as the self and should be prized as much as virtue. This is how the inimitable G. K. Chesterton expresses it:

The vow is to the man what the song is to the bird . . . It is not easy to mention anything on which the enormous apparatus of human life can be said to depend. But if it depends on anything, it is on this frail cord, flung from the forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of tomorrow.

Vows not only unite the person with his life, but generations with generations. Virtue, therefore, which the vow presupposes, unites persons, people, nations, and generations. Virtue is, indeed, the property of the soul. But even more than that, virtue is at the core of social justice.

Virtue as an Expression of Love:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “love is not only a virtue, but the most powerful of virtues.” Indeed, for the Angelic Doctor, love is “the form of all virtues” (De Caritate a. 3; Sum. Theol. II-II, q. 23, a. 8). Each virtue, therefore, derives its virtuousness by virtue of its relationship with love. Love, then, acts as an efficient cause, thereby directing all virtues. For this reason, Aquinas refers to love as “the mother of the other virtues.”

It may seem that any act which produces a good may be called virtuous, but as Aquinas maintains, “no strictly true virtue is possible without charity.” Aquinas, as well as St. Augustine (cf. Contra Julian iv, 3) were careful to distinguish between true virtues, rooted in love, and counterfeit virtues that did not spring from love. “The prudence of the miser,” Aquinas states, “is no true prudence; nor the miser’s justice whereby he scorns the property of another through fear of severe punishment; nor the miser’s temperance, whereby he curbs his desire for expensive pleisures” (Summa. Theol. Q. 23, a 7).

Conclusion:

True virtue is the expression of a loving person, directed toward some benefit for another person. It is at once, loving and personal. It is not, as we have tried to show, something that is harmful, something that is controlled by fashion, a superfluity, an arbitrary social amenity, or a mask we are forced to adopt in order to save face. When we do justice to the notion of virtue, we see it precisely as it is in its truth: a salutary power that is rooted in love and expressed through the person for the benefit of other human beings. Moreover, it is twice blessed and lies at the core of social justice.

Do Virtues Ever Clash with Each Other?

In Philippians 4:8, St. Paul offers us some important fraternal advice: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

As we know only too well, the Media has not adopted these words as its living motto. For the Media, what it deems worthy of reporting is whatever is scandalous, whatever is slanderous, whatever is criminal, whatever is outrageous, and whatever is disastrous. One unhappy result of this inversion of values is to give more prominence to vice than to virtue. As a consequence, dubious media characters are lionized, while good people, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI are fed to the lions. Shakespeare’s sad words in Henry VIII come to mind: “Men’s evil manners live in brass, their virtues we write in water.”

“It is sad not to see the good in goodness,” said the Russian novelist, Nikolai Gogol. While the secular media thrives on dishing out negative news items, the responsibility of the Catholic media becomes ever more important in presenting the good in goodness, and the Good in the Gospel’s Good News.

18

We human beings have a natural disposition to rejoice in the presence of virtuous acts. Given the barrage of bad news that the Media provides on a daily basis, we may even find ourselves starving for displays of virtue.

Let me offer an example that, I believe, St. Paul would find most gratifying. It is the kind of story we need in order to have our hearts lifted. Bad news gets us down; good news lifts us up.

The world renowned pianist, Arthur Rubinstein was not keen on signing autographs after a concert. His strenuous performances usually left his hands somewhat tired. After one of his concerts, a 12-year-old girl approached him and courteously requested his autograph. “I know your hands must be tired after such a wonderful performance, Mr. Rubinstein, but so are mine from clapping.” How could he refuse her?

This anecdote represents a confluence of many virtues. There is the compassion the young girl has for Rubinstein’s tired hands, as well as her courage and determination in approaching him. She also displayed gratitude by her prolonged applause. Rubinstein was generous in his performances and often played encores. He did not let difference in age or social status prevent him from giving his young admirer his autograph, thereby exhibiting both graciousness and humility. Ultimately, her trust in the pianist’s magnanimity was justified.

I like to thing that the pianist and the young girl then shook each other’s tired hands, thereby revivifying them. Kindness has a way of healing the small bumps and bruises of life.

On the other hand, I recall reading about a major league pitcher who was having a woeful year and had not garnished a single victory for his team, though he was in the starting rotation. A young boy recognized him just outside the ballpark and approached him for an autograph. The pitcher’s response was both mercenary and reptilian: “That’ll be three bucks, kid.” At the time, this pitcher was earning $2 million per season. Needless to say, no transaction took place. But in the young lad’s heart, an icon—a major league ballplayer, no matter what his record was—had fallen.

This story does not lift the heart. In fact, it inclines one to lose faith in humanity. Virtuous exchanges are far more uplifting than are those of a monetary kind.

“Learn of me,” Christ said, “for I am meek and humble of heart” (Matt. 11:29). Virtues never lose their splendor. They may be ignored, unsung, neglected, or misunderstood. But when they are expressed, person to person, as acts of loving kindness, their splendor is immediately recognized and lifts our often sagging spirits.

Enemies of Virtue – The Seven Deadly Sins

Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, who occupies the second highest place in the Vatican’s “Apostolic Penitentiary,” may be wondering what the appropriate penance is that the Media should pay for turning his comments about confession into an international burlesque. In a March, 2008 interview with L’Osservatore Romano, the good bishop bemoaned the fact that, according to a study by Milan’s Catholic University, 60% of Italian Catholics have stopped going to confession. He also expressed concern that, according to the study, 30% of the same Catholics do not believe there is a need for a priest to be an intermediary.

When asked what he believed today’s “new sins” are, he referred to the violations of human rights that are going on through stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion. He also made reference to “ecological” offenses, such as pollution. To this somewhat off-hand catalogue of four, he added drug-taking, the accumulation of excessive wealth, and causing poverty.

Vesting Girotti with powers he does not nor pretends to have, the Media credited him with the remarkable achievement of replacing the classical Seven Deadly Sins with a new septet. The United Kingdom’s Daily Telegraph, for example, ran an article entitled. “Recycle or Go To Hell,” in which it

19

reported that the new list of sins “replaces the list originally drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century.” The FOXNews statement, “Vatican Adds Seven New Deadly Sins,” was echoed in various parts of the world: Boston – “Vatican Lists Pollution as New Sin”; Chicago – “Vatican Modernizes 7 Deadly Sins”; Tampa Bay – “Pope Identifies New Sins”; Associated Press – “Vatican Updates Its Thou-Shalt-Not List”; Australia – “Polluters’ souls in danger”; London – “Avoid Recycling, go to hell;” Turkey – “Seven deadly sins doubled”; India – “Vatican’s New Seven Deadly Sins Include Being Filthy Rich”.

It should be noted that the “Seven Deadly Sins” are not really sins, exactly, but dispositions toward them. Their origin goes back to the First Letter of St. John the Evangelist (15-16) where the Gospel writer refers to the “lust of the flesh,” “lust of the eyes,” and the “pride of life”. According to St. Augustine, lust gluttony, and sloth exemplify the “lust of the flesh,” while greed is synonymous with “lust of the eyes,” and pride, envy, and anger are identified with the “pride of life”.

A penitent does not confess “pride” but only the transgressions or the specific sins that flow from it. Conversely, by rooting out the so-called “Deadly” or “Capitol” Sins, one is taking a decisive step in removing the basis for committing specific sins.

Another important point that the Media failed to report is that sin, in the primary sense of the term, is an offense against God. “Sin is a rejection of relationality,” writes Cardinal Ratzinger in his 1986 opus, In the Beginning . . .A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. One does not sin, strictly speaking, against the environment. The environment has no capacity to care what we do to it. After all, it was once a fiery ball of gas. Nevertheless, the future Benedict XVI was at some pains to emphasize that God’s directive expressed in Genesis 2:15 “to till it and keep it” means that humankind is “supposed to look after the world as God’s creation in accordance with the rhythm and the logic of creation.” In other words, with respect to the environment, God has commanded us to be responsible stewards. Ecological recklessness, then, is a sin against God. It is in no way a “new” sin.

Misunderstanding is one thing. Misrepresentation is another. The second is less excusable than the first. But mockery can be venal, especially when it is levelled against a Church that is trying to offer light for a world plunged in darkness. At the same time, mockery is hardly a new sin. How much damage control, one may ask, can the Catholic Media provide against the tidal wave of mockery that routinely gushes forth from the Major Media?

This writer was asked to offer his own comments on the Girotti affair by ABC News in New York. I obliged, though I do not know if they were taken with more than a grain of salt. Perhaps we should see each treachery as an opportunity to teach. Educated Catholics, then, should be tireless teachers, as well as indefatigable learners.

Dr. Peter Kreeft, who teaches philosophy at Boston College, in contrast to a deceptive Media, is a reliable and ingenious teacher. In his book, Back to Virtue, he helps us to deepen our appreciation and understanding of the “Seven Deadly Sins” by relating them to the “Seven Beatitudes”. In Matthew 5:1-11, Christ calls those “blessed” who are: 1) poor in spirit; 2) merciful; 3) in mourning; 4) meek; 5) hungering and thirsting for righteousness; 6) pure of heart; 7) persecuted. Kreeft explains how these beatitudes are antidotes or correctives for 1) pride; 2) avarice; 3) envy; 4) wrath; 5) sloth; 6) lust; 7) gluttony. These seven correlations may not fit perfectly, but they certainly provide a rich and potentially fruitful meditation.

Mahatma Gandhi showed considerable insight and ingenuity when he came up with his “Seven Sins of the Modern World”: 1) Wealth without Work; 2) Pleisure without Conscience; 3) Knowledge without Character; 4) Commerce without Morality; 5) Science without Humility; 6) Worship without Sacrifice; 7) Politics without Principle.

20

St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine’s teachings on the “Seven Deadly Sins,” but also detailed how they affect the human will either by drawing it to an apparent good or by turning it away from an apparent evil. In the former group we find pride as an inordinate desire for praise, gluttony as an inordinate desire for self-preservation, lust as an inordinate desire for preserving the human race, and avarice as an inordinate desire for external things. In the latter group we find sloth as an attempt to avoid effort, envy as the loss of prestige, and anger as an apparent loss of good.

The Catholic Church is a treasure house of inspirational and edifying material concerning the “Seven Deadly Sins”. The world is as much in love with sinning as the Media is in spinning. But the Church is dedicated to the truth and Her education is unswervingly directed to truths that make men free.

phe 616 authentic virtue / christian personalism … 616 authentic virtue / christian personalism...

Documents