Videos

2021 Lenten Series: Week 4

Added Apr 16, 2021 •

Copy this URL:
Embed code:	<iframe class="edlio-embed-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="//www.church.ihom.org/apps/embed/?v=315491" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Change dimensions

Show Transcript

good evening welcome back to our Lenten series focusing on a new-look on the Ten Commandments were so pleased to be able to have doctor cracraft walk us through these step-by-step today's session is going to be going over the fifth commandment the seventh commandment in the tenth commandment and he entitled this talk all Justice is social justice dr. Ken thank you Donna it's nice to be back here with you for the 4th what time flies doesn't it on the 4th I like sure just one more to go next week and next week we will as I've already said a couple of times and has Donna just mentioned I'm taking them somewhere. order I am considering tonight the 5th the 7th and the 10th now I want to start at the I called tonight's lecture and all Justice is social justice so before we look at the specific Commandments that we're looking at today want to talk a little bit about the term social justice and the term Justice and try to set the context for thinking about these Commandments which will give us a firmer foundation for try and understand what the purpose and meaning of these Commandments and how we incorporate them into the entirety of our moral lives one of the things that we need to understand is Catholics and I'll end tonight's lecture by revisiting this point is that the primary focus for our moral eyes is not based upon what we do or don't do but what kind of people we are in other words even those Commandments in the Ten Commandments their purpose is not that they are not the end in themselves the purpose of the Ten Commandments is not that we keep the Commandments the purpose of the Ten Commandment is to form us into a kind of people who love God willingly as a matter of course in other words that make us into people of virtue and again I'll revisit that at the end of the night but it's important to set the context here when we talk about issues like justice or social justice some of us have an understandable reluctance to use the term social justice and indeed the reason that we typically that some of us have discomfort with using the term social justice or when we hear the term social justice is that the term has largely been hijacked in modern American public Life by those who mean something about whom in something by it are different from what we mean by Justice as Catholics when we talked about Justice and did the term social justice has become sort of the of the flag of what we might probably call the secular left in the u.s. in the u.s. today and so when we hear the term social justice we have this tendency to be dismissive of whatever follows because we have this notion that the term is being used not to defend principles of cap moral theology but to defend or put forward principles of secular left ideologies or morality if you want to call it that and so we blanch at the term unfortunate another reason that some of us and this next reason is a little less legitimate than the first one another reason this some of us Flinch at the term social justice is that we have a strong commit to the soap did the life issues such as abortion and euthanasia and contraception and we tend to think because those are the the has the big as the Bishops have called abortion the the primary moral concern because those are so important and because those are so unexceptional that we tend to Discount those aspects of Catholic moral life that fall under the that legitimate fall under the term social justice and so we find ourselves even reluctant to use the term social justice when used by our fellow Catholics because we we tend to have a jaundiced nose in about what that means so another words often times what happens is those of us who are very strongly devoted to the church's teaching on abortion and contraception for example have a notion to those people those other Catholics who talked about social justice really care about abortion and contraception and often times that's correct that is to say they don't emphasize abortion and contraception and perhaps euthanasia to the extent that it should be emphasized because of the weight the more way said it has over our lives and indeed they tend we tweet we rightly see that they tend to do things like perhaps immigration or welfare policy your health care policy has 11 equal or even greater weight than life issues like abortion and euthanasia and once again to the extent if that's true we from my perspective we are rightly suspicious of the use of social justice if it's used for the purpose of not simply embracing the importance of these other social issues that are sometimes open to Prudential judgment but when when even Catholics use the term social justice not so much to talk about how important it is to take care of the poor and immigrant and the end the end the sick and the Prisoner but rather to denigrate or minimize the importance of abortion then we are right to be suspicious of that what I want to do tonight is to say a curse on both those houses and talk about why we need to affirm the term social justice and here's the simplest reason it's the title of the talk all Justice is social justice indeed the very phrase social justice is is redundant and here's what I mean by that most of us are aware of the four cardinal virtues of temperance fortitude Justice and Prudence of the four cardinal virtues one virtue is by its very notion always in every application concerned with someone else and that's Justice indeed there isn't any possibility of talking about Justice and we're talking about at least two people and usually when we talk about Justice we're talkin about far more than just two people Justice is classically Define by as early as Saint Augustine in the 5th Century to render to another his or her due to render to another what is due to another in other words as we see the V definition the most basic simple definition of justice always and everywhere refers to another person it is in other words and inherently in the only in hair currently social virtue of the cardinal virtues in other words all Justice is social justice there's no ability we have no ability to talk about Justice if we aren't about something having to do with someone owing someone else something or someone someone having a debt to someone else or someone being do something now when we talk about Justice traditionally we Divine Justice in three categories what we call commutative Justice which is justice that governs contracts and the relationship between two persons so commutative justice has to do with if you enter into a on track with me then commutative Justice is that virtue by which you keep that contract even if something happens to make the terms go sour from your perspective so you don't break that contract if you exercise the virtue of justice but you rather keep it even if the contract turns out not to favor you the way that you thought it would I'm not as interested in commutative justice as I am the two other kinds of Justice which will talk about tonight that's all I'll say about commuter to Justice the second kind of justice that we often consider is called Legal or retributive or sometimes General Justice and I mention that secondly because that's the first kind of justice that we're going to consider when we look at the fifth commandment when we talked about justice as general Justice or legal justice or retributive Justice this is justice that has to do with protecting Society now know what I note carefully what I said just kind of justice is Austin correctly associated with a Criminal system set of laws that have to do with dealing with crime and criminals but note the way that I Define retributive or legal or general Justice it has to do with the protection of society not the punishment of the evildoer the distinction is important because when we talk about what is due to another person in terms of general or legal a retributive Justice interactive terms for the same for the same we aren't talking about giving the wrong door what he deserves we're talkin about protecting this protecting Society in the way that it deserves and other words Society is due a certain order and structure the evildoer is not due punishment we punish the evildoer in order to achieve the Justice which is the protection of society this is a crucially important for us to understand as Catholics because we need to move away from a model of justice that looks to retributive justice as as punishing the wrongdoer and rather a firm return justice as protecting society that standpoint that way of phrasing what retributive Justice is has a profound way a profound impact on the way we think about things like criminal justice and our penal system and sentencing and all of those things that have to do with dealing with those who harm Society retributive Justice is about what is due to society not what about is due to the criminal of course we have laws and we must have laws that relate to what we do with a criminal in order to protect Society but it has to be it should be and we have to embrace the idea that the purpose of whatever it is we decide to do with the criminal has to do with giving Society it's too of being protected from the criminal and not in inflicting a retribution or harm on the criminal and I'll say more got that as we look at the fifth commandment in a few minutes the Third Kind of justice and I actually took them a little bit out of order were used to that now right typically when we talked about Justice the way that the list is commutative then distributed which I'll talk about now and then I general which I just been talking about treating them out of order because the fifth commandment has more to do with illegal Justice and the nice are the one of my doing the 7th has more to do with so-called distributive justice forgot which commands I was talking to which commandment I was talking about tonight distributive justice to Define distributive justice I'll just quote from a document from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops called economic justice for all and this is the way that the Bishops the American Bishops to find distributive justice distributive justice requires that the allocation of income wealth and power in society evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material knees are on net the second Vatican Council stated the right to have a share of Earthly Goods sufficient for oneself and one space belongs to everyone the fathers and doctors of the church held this view teaching that we are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of our Superfluous good minimum material resources are an absolute necessity for human life now how come back to this when we look at the seventh commandment Thou shalt not steal because the seventh commandment Sara Lee has an implication if we are forbidden to steal then the implication is some kind of legitimate understanding of private or personal property and if we have an understanding that the church legitimate private or personal property which is implied in the command not to steal we have to situate that legitimacy of private or personal property within the broader context of distributive justice and I'll talk more in more detail about that when we get to it so let's look at the fifth commandment V when is simple and short you shall not kill and in fact the way that we can understand the fifth commandment is stated in the congregation for the doctrine of the face very important in very important teaching donum Vitae according from donum Vitae human life is sacred from its beginning involve it involves the creative act of God and it remains forever and a special relationship with the Creator who is its soul in title loan is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end no one can under any circumstances claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent I'm being now I want it I want to read that again because first of all because I messed up messed it up a little bit in the send tax but secondly because I want to emphasize the last part human life is sacred because promise begin it involves the creative action of God and remains forever a special relationship with the Creator who was its soul in that is human life God Alone is the Lord of life from the beginning until 10 and this I want to take a special attention to no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being I want to Garden that last statement a little bit to suggest this the fifth commandment based upon God as being the author of life and therefore God alone as having the authority to give or take life the fifth commandment Acts handy and I believe should be read as this you shall never form the intention to take a human life you shall never form the intention to take a human life no I dropped the word innocent in my broad name of the prescription you shall never form the intention. vacation light now I don't drop innocent arbitrarily I drop it from the broader context of Catholic Social teaching about human life and mostly most importantly about the sovereignty of God As a matter of fact when we think about what life is and the authority that anyone has to take life if it occurs to me that it's a much better way to think about the defensive life in terms of the sovereignty of God over life than to think about the why did anyone has two life for example will get to abortion in more detail in a few minutes but let me just use it for shahnaz example most of us who are strongly and and firmly within the church's teaching what's an affirmation of the church's teaching on abortion refer to the right to life of the child and I'm not here just to condemn that or to criticize it what I am here to do to do is to suggest a better way of thinking a defense of unborn life is not the right of the child to live but the sovereignty of God over all life and there are reasons that I won't go into here that would take a semester to explain the reason that I don't like the term right so anything's but even leaving aside that deeper explanation a firmer Foundation because it encompasses more than just abortion to talkin about the right to life while I don't deny that of course to talk about God's sovereignty over all life from beginning to end or as we say from conception to Natural death thinking about the defense of life in terms of God absolute sovereignty over all life gives us a better context for understanding why we may never form the intention to take a human life now here's what I did not say and I've given this our similar talk and other contacts and the first question I get is I can't believe you said that is always wrong to kill what about self-defense what about War I didn't say that it's always wrong to kill I said it's always wrong to form the intention to take a human life there may be cases in which it is necessary in forming the intention to do something else in which it's a foreseeable consequence that human life might be taken that is to say when we formed the intention for example to defend our own lives it may be a 60 of a consequence and some circumstances that the life of the person who threatens us will be taken but even in that case it cannot if we are to exercise the fifth commandment it cannot be Our intention deform the intention to kill that person rather Our intention must solely be to protect our own lies or to protect the common good soda Foundation of V command is not anyone right to life but rather the foundation is the sovereignty of God over all life and therefore the prohibition of anyone else forming the intention of taking a human life let me explain a little bit more what I mean about forming the intention in the context of legitimate defense if I'm going to bake a cake my intention is to bake a cake I form the intention to bake a cake when I am getting in the process of baking that cake I'm going to do some certain things I'm going to crack some eggs and maybe with them up I don't know how to bake a cake I'm going to soften some butter I'm going to system flower I'm going to measure sugar I'm going to to do I'm going to turn on the oven and every single step that I take that is consistent with my intention to bake the cake I'm not intending to break eggs just to break a I'm not intending to sift flour just to sift flour I'm not intending to melt butter or soften it I'm not intending to 2 to turn on the oven if I were intending any one of those things I would just break the eggs and leave there or soften the butter and leave it or turn off turn on the oven and leave the house none of those things are my intention my intention is to bake the cake I have to do certain things in order to fulfill that intention but those things are not my intention this leads us to an understanding what we mean by legitimate defense weather me Weatherby legitimate self-defense and the context of two people in a relationship and a hostile relationship or whether it means a broader defense Society we don't form the intention to take a human life even if we can foresee that human life is going to be taken rather we take the adequate steps that are necessary in order to defend ourselves or or in order to defend society and we take the steps that are minimally necessary to accomplish that we take the steps that are minimally necessary to protect Society or to put it another way we can list apps that are minimally necessary to render to society what Society is do namely not to be harmed by an evil do or rather that's the society is just me or my household for the broader society in which we live therefore the Commandment requires even when it is the case that's something that we must do results in the foreseeable death of another person that we cannot in and that death and indeed the intent and tending the death is a violation of the fifth commandment not let me talk again about how thinking that way shifts the way we think about our moral eyes because when we that way we have to understand that since we may not intend to take the life of the to take another human life we may not form the intention to take another human life then it necessarily requires us to draw back and consider the ways that we can protect Society or ourselves that do not involve taking another human life because if we can protect ourselves or Society without taking another human life what is the taking of that human life other than intending to do it because there's nothing left if we can protect Society without taking the human life but we take the human life anyway aren't are we not intending to take that human life that we may not do and therefore if we think that way it tempers the way we think both about self defense the way we think about the legitimacy of killing in a war the legitimacy of even have capital punishment and even the legitimacy of other kinds of punishment default that falls short of the death of the wrongdoer in other words Val shalt not kill is a mandate to consider the range of possibilities when were put into a situation in which it is possible to defend life or defense Society without taking the life of the person who threatens on the life or society when we think about self-defence therefore we're thinking about not simply we're not think we're thinking not simply about disarming the criminal show me think about punishment we're not thinking simply about inflicting harm on the criminal rather were thinking about one of those four pillars of Catholic Social doctrine that I talked about on the first we're talking about common good common good requires that we consider the full range of the possibilities of ways that we can protect Society sort of killing the person who threatened Society for the common good part of the reason for that is something that I revisit at the that I will revisit tonight at the very end of my lecture and that is the harm that we do to our own Souls when we Flex harm on another that is not required we have S Catholic Christians we have to take seriously what we do to our own souls and therefore what we do even to our own prospects of salvation when we harm another especially when we harm another in a way that is disproportionate to the threat that the other poses to our own lies or to the lies of our fathers therefore, good man that we are circumspect and the way that we think about protecting ourselves protecting society and doing something with that person who inflict harm on society in this context let me talk about a very specific issue the issue of capital punishment pause my place here in a minute hang with me just a second here I in in August of up 2018 Pope Francis announced the significant change or revision to the catechism of the Catholic church and the change that he implemented specifically has to do with Section 20 267 2267 2267 of the catechism of the Catholic Church which is the provision speaking about capital punishment now it caused a great deal of concern among moral theologians and others who are concerned about the consistency of the Church of teaching over time and I'm certainly not going to solve that tonight in fact I'm not even going to talk much about how that fits into an understanding of the development of Doctrine as a matter of fact in a few weeks I'm starting a one-hour course 1 academic hour so it'll be over five weeks at the seminary in the evening which is not too late to register it's a it's an evening class. Mostly tour play people in the lay pastoral Ministry programmer or the other programs for lightness or sit in any event it's a 5-week course we're going to only treat two topics in the five weeks gender problems of gender ideologies transgender identity and gender identity and transgender issues and capital punishment so two issues over five weeks so we're going to spend a lot of time talking about how the change in the catechism speaks to the problem of to the problem of the drought my doctor and I'm not going to do that tonight what I want to do however is talk about the changes that there's a revision in the focus of section 2267 and how it relates to what I've been talking about about not forming the intention kill and therefore using the needs that are minimally necessary to protect Society from the wrongdoer obviously when we think about capital punishment or should we drinking usually about the most heinous crimes murder obviously is one example but there are other crimes in some States capital punishment is generally a as most criminal law is generally regulated by state legislatures there are federal laws that allow for capita punishment I indeed we saw that we saw a disturbing number of executions in the last few months of the presidency of Donald Trump but most capital punishment on the state level and Dean many states in the United States have outlawed capital punishment of a limited capital punishment capital punishment the new section new section 2267 of the catechism probably in fact almost certainly call Catholics at least to recognize that there's virtually no situation capital punishment can be a legitimate form of self-defense that is society defending itself again there's debate about whether or not it at absolutely proscribed capital punishment as a intrinsically evil I'm going to leave that debate to the side because I don't think that we need to do that in order to steal to reach the conclusion that there's no demand at least in the United States that there's no imaginable situation in which we Good carry out capital punishment in the revisions to the catechism explained that and freeways first the new version emphasizes a growing awareness of the inviolable city of the human person now that's a staple of Catholic Social Doctrine as I've already talked about that's one of the four pillars of Catholic Social Doctrine but the revisions to the catechism emphasizes A Renewed and deeper understand an appreciation of and indeed even an emphasis on the Dignity of the human person what that means is that dignity is inherent and intrinsic in the human person by being created in the image of God can never be taken away regardless of how heinous the crime the Dignity of the human person can never be taken away it's given by God as Creator as Sovereign Creator and therefore it can never be Sacra even in the most heinous criminal so we can take we can take we can take the most you know the worst example AAA mass murder Hitler or or or Stalin or Pol Pot or the person with 15 items in the 10-item grocery line we can take all the we can take all of those as examples of people who do awful horrible evil things but they still have dignity by being created image of God as difficult as I as we might even choke on saying it it can't be denied and therefore we begin with that dignity and thinking about the custody of punishment for the purpose of protecting Society II the catechism explains that we have a new understanding of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state and other the new section 2267 of the catechism on capital punishment says that we are we need to assert and have become more sensitive to yielding power especially the power to kill to state of course the church has no say over what the state does but the church certainly can judge approve or disapprove of what the state does and  with the new line go Section 2267 says that we have a growing awareness of our need to judge the actions of the state especially when it comes to its penal system and therefore we have to have a more chastened view of the legitimacy of the state killing or Taking Lives and finally the new provision Echoes the rationale that actually was already in the cyclical are in the catechism before the revision that Pope Francis made and that is we need to ensure that we use the most effective and then and be consistent with the minimally acquired measures to punish wrongdoing or to put it in the language of the catechism more is more effective systems of detention have been developed which ensure the do protection of citizens but at the same time do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption what does that mean it means that we have the ability both through Legend Jason and through the technological means to protect Society from the evildoer to do just that without having to kill that person if we kill someone we take away that person's possibility being redeemed of being reformed now I'm not some kind of pollyannish Theologian up here you know who who has some you know wishfull notion of The Rehabilitation hardened criminals recidivism rate of criminals is very high we understand we know that and we know that reforming criminals is a very difficult task but difficult doesn't mean impossible and moreover if we don't have to take away the possibility of redemption then we have a mandate not to take away the possibility of redemption so let me just put it this way in the context of what I've been saying tonight without worrying right now about whether or not that the catechism says that absolutely prohibited tooth to use capital punishment any case I'm leaving that question aside that's open to debate what I want to suggest is that given the ability that we have as a society to protect Society from the evil Duos putting him to death therefore we have a mandate not to put him to death why because it is a violation of the fifth commandment intentionally dumps right to form the intention to take a human life if we can protect Society without taking that human life and we take the human life anyway then Our intention must be to take the human life because we can fulfill the intention of protection Society without taking that life a similar analysis a similar analysis applies to things like for example just War when we think about when we the church has a tradition of just War thinking that goes back to Saint Augustine and for an example in order for a war to be considered to be a just War certain things have to obtain first of all all possible means other than violence have to have been exhausted or consider that is to say diplomacy sanctions or whatever it is that we can do that for Lord of having to take another life should be exhausted a second factor is that the evil to be the evil to be cured by going to war is efficiently grave to call us to to do something that might take a human life we cannot we cannot Target combat combatants for example so the means by which we do it have to be consistent with principal proportionality all of these things speak to the possibility of Defending a society and even in defending a society in ways that might result in the death of other people because that's what war. But even here if we think about how we can exercise our moral imagination even here we can understand that that's not inconsistent with my explanation that we understand the prohibition on killing as meaning that we don't form intention to take a human life because even in just War criteria Our intention is not to kill the other combatant Our intention is to protect Society from the aggressive nature of the enemy because we're trying to protect Society from the aggressive nature of the enemy it may sometimes be the case that there is nothing we can do short of taking another human life order to do that but once again going back to my baking the cake example or illustration Our intention is not to break the egg or intention is not to kill the soldier intentions for Texas Society if it's the case that there's no way possible to protect Society without taking another human life then certainly the tradition of the Catholic Church permits in in very limited way guerlain and limited scope the possibility of Defending Society in a way that causes the foreseeable death of another person but that doesn't mean that we intend that debt as a matter of fact if we can text Society through memes that are short of killing we must protect society that way and if we can do that but don't do that then once again it must be that we're forming the intention to kill the same criteria apply except even even written it in a broader and more secure and in more significant way to questions of abortion and euthanasia obviously when we think about killing the first thing that many of us think I've been specially unjust killing or what we consider to be without without any exception I'm just killing abortion and euthanasia but once again I want us to understand that what even only think about abortion and euthanasia we're not thinking about it in terms of protecting the right of the fetus or the right of the unborn child to live or the right of the person at the end in extreme illness or at extreme old age we're not think we shouldn't think in terms of the right of that person but rather the sovereignty of God the sovereignty of God to to give and to take life and therefore I think it gives us a better foundation for all of these questions that have to do with the possibility I've killing Weatherby abortion or euthanasia capital punishment self-defense or just War and this way we're not thinking in terms or it with this is nothing in terms of these old catchphrases seamless garment which has its own baggage we're not thinking in terms of social justice without consideration of abortion and euthanasia we're not considering human life issues like abortion euthanasia without considering other aspects of protecting life such as capital punishment self defense in war but we think about them all and it in it together rooted in the Dignity of the human person the sovereignty of God and necessity of rendering to society what Society is do or to an individual what an individual is it is due which never can take the form of intending to take a human life now I talked at the outset about the difference between distributive or commutative Justice and whoops one of the I love my technology but to sometimes it sometimes it can for me here and let me I just close the wrong window there we go I talked about justice as general Justice or legal justice which is what we've been talking about up to now the seventh commandment takes us to distributive justice and remember I read from the USCCB document earlier tonight which it actually is quoted in the catechism and which speaks to the issue of distributive justice now the and that of course is you shall not steal as I said earlier tonight you shall not steal as a necessary implication not expressly as spelled out in the catechism and the Ten Commandments but rather embedded in it and necessary in it and that is the legitimacy of private property however the legitimacy of private property also has to be understood in the context of the common good when we talked about common good 1 corollary to come and good is what we often called the universal the universal destination of human Goods that's a very common phrase that you'll hear in Catholic Social Doctrine the universal destination of humor what that means is that all human good Are Made For All Humans that's not consistent that's not I'm sorry that's not inconsistent with a right to private ownership but the right to private owner skip must be kept in tension with the universal destination of human good which is to say that if one if a person is deprived the possibility of sharing in the common good then that is just as much a violation of the 7th Amendment as it would be to take that person's property from him let me say that again if a person is deprived the possibility I'm sharing in the Universal destination of goods that's as much a violation of the seventh commandment as it is if you took that person's property from him or her by force in other words Thou shalt not steal has a normal everyday meaning right don't take your neighbor's stuff but has a far broader implication embedded in the Universal destination of human Goods that requires us to think about what so call Justice rendering to another what another is due every human being is due a share in the Universal destination of goods by law regulation force or any other Factor we deprive a person of the ability to share in the Universal destination of goods Weavile the seventh commandment just as surely as we took that person's private property from him so ownership private property personal property are all implied by the very notion that you shall feel but the church understands not stealing to be rooted and private property and personal property to be rooted in the Universal destination of all of all Goods it isn't enough simply to think about protecting our own stuff or not taking our neighbors stuff rather we have to think of intern economy's pallet of a political structures regulatory structures and legal structures and how they do or do not facilitate the ability of all purse to participate in an economy so that they have legitimate possibility of sharing in the Universal destination of goods and don't get me wrong this doesn't necessarily mean that we will resort to some Kai mass of redistributive government it doesn't mean that we somehow question the legitimacy of private property again as I've already said the commandant itself necessarily imply is legitimacy of private property the property wasn't legitimate the command would be something else it wouldn't be thou shalt not steal it would be thou shalt not have private property however we have to understand that brought that that right to private property to be Chasin by this Universal. a nation of gods such that whatever means that it takes in order to ensure the ability of everyone to participate in an economy for example to make a living to secure Goods we as Catholic Christians have to understand that that's as much a mandate for our moralized as it is to be opposed to abortion or post contraception or post euthanasia it's as much a mandate people who are concerned with the legitimate access to goods and services and well now of course we use Prudential judgment in determining what that is and making markets available I think it was DJ GK Chesterton said that the problem with capitalism is not too much Capital it's not enough capitalist in other words we need economic structures that allow a broad participation in the UK and laws regulations discrimination that impede that are just as surely in violation of the seventh commandment as the as you stealing your neighbor's Goods the tenth commandment seems to be related more closely to the 7 then to save for obvious reasons the tenth commandment is the car I meant the says you shall not covet your neighbor's stuff your neighbor's property now just a quick note about the new the numbering of the Ten Commandments I mentioned this on the first night this is why it's easier to to number Ten Commandments by looking at the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy rather than the 20th chapter of Exodus because the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy separates the 9th and 10th Commandments in a way it is simpler to see the ninth commandment which will talk next week is you shall not covet your neighbor's wife that's a Prohibition of lost which will talk about next week the 10th commandment is you shall not covet your neighbor's stuff I mention why Protestants typically number that 10 command and the way that they do it it makes the tenth commandment be you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or your neighbors stuff Cena need to make the wife just more stuff and that's an unfortunate that's an unfortunate result we don't do it that way we understand then the ninth commandment to be not to covet not to lust after your neighbors spouse and the 10th not to covet your neighbor's stuff I want to use the tenth commandment however and enclosing tonight not necessarily to talk about coveting but rather to talk about this important Catholic notion of interior sin earlier tonight I said that I would revisit the point that the task of Catholic Social a Catholic moral Doctrine is not to tell us what we should couldn't do what to tell us what kind of people we should be and part of the reason for that is if we're the kind of people that we're supposed to be will do what we're supposed to do simply doing what the law and does not necessarily make us the kind of people we should be in other words it isn't enough merely to choose the proper moral object its to be a moral person to be a moral person is to choose the proper moral check in the right manner with the right attitude at the right time under the right circumstances we can accidentally choose the proper moral object we can be coerced or forced to choose the proper moral optic we can do it out of we're out of ignorance none of those things makes us moral people we're only more people when we choose the proper moral object in the right way at the right time with the right attitude the right composer into the right person other words our moral lines are as much constructed by our interior lies as they are by are exterior actions this is unique to Christianity send don't have anything to do with actually doing anything nearly covering the tenth commandment doesn't doesn't prohibit any action and it can be violated without without committing any action it can be violated simply by having an attitude of Covenant covetousness toward another's property I think the best illustration of this is not covering proper but since send of things like for example racism I actually use this in a an article that I wrote not long ago about President Biden and his his support for abortion rights it's false to say the president Biden is personally opposed to abortion but but but in a Democratic Society blah blah blah President Biden is personally in favor of abortion and what I said is that that's as much a sin or that is a sin in the same way that performing of abortion is even if President Biden has never paid for procured recommended participated in any way done anything other than NASA Federal dollars to Planned Parenthood to perform an abortion the fact that he believes that abortion is a legitimate moral choice is itself a sin and guys did to racism its faces it is it a sin to be a racist even if you've never ever done anything that results to discriminating against another person the send is attitude not in the action of course the action compounds the sin but you've already send if you Harbor racist attitudes you already send if you believe abortion is a lived-in moral choice even if you've never done anything to describe against another person or even if you've never performed an abortion in other words the Catholic life is the Catholic moral life is not simply about what we do but about Who We Are choosing the good but choosing the good and a good way not refraining from the bad but refraining from the Bad and the proper way virtue is not choosing the good but rather virtue is choosing the good in a way that a virtuous person does it and that takes hard work all of this ties together to think it and thinking about social justice because it isn't just what we do in terms of protective surrendering to another what another is due but the way that we frame our entire moral lies and our entire moral conscience has such that we necessarily and natural render to another without contemplation without discernment without pain we render to another one another is due because we recognize that the basis for example in in the fifth commandment is the sovereignty of God will loan has the right to give and take life in the seventh Commandment that every person has the right to participate in the Universal Universal goods and therefore we form our consciences and such a way that we understand that Justice requires social justice and it begins with us if you can does individuals who always render to another what another is do whether it be an exterior act or an interior disposition and that's all Justice is social justice thank you and I are there any questions tonight when a little longer than the first few weeks but we soon will answer some questions yes so so for the for those either listening live on the stream or later at the question is basically this car going to one of the last things I said about racism as being a an interior stand whether or not anyone has ever done anything discriminatory is it is it racist and does it equal racism to have cultural preferences and not just cultural preferences but cultural dislikes not not simply not appreciating other cultures but even disliking aspects of of of of other cultural Traditions it's a question it's a question that is fraught with with difficulty and it's kind of one of those third rail types of questions bet that I'm not going to be able in any means 2 exhaust tonight what I would say is this racism isn't necessarily cannot be reduced simply to the cultural a coup Vermont of a particular racial group or a particular demographic group and therefore we have to get Beyond those types of thinking in order for us to get to the heart of what it means both racism is and therefore what the remedies that we can that can be proposed in order both either to overcome past racism or even the Lord overcome our praise present racist impulse we all have cultural even those who have the exact same kinds of demographic backgrounds and and personalities and so forth and and that's legitimate and that's a legitimate aspect of the diversity of human life that's quite a bit different from having an attitude that because someone's cultural taste is different from yours or even that you don't like it that that person is somehow either a not sharing in the Dignity of the human person the way that I am orbi is not do the same kinds of social recognition protections and so forth that I am and I know and I know that that's not what you're suggesting so it's a difficult and it's and it's an it's a it's a it's a it's difficult to thread these distinctions and we certainly are going to do that tonight but but I will say this what we have to be careful about is is our appreciation or disappreciation if that's the word for differences or for people who are different from us hats we have to be very careful and treading that ground because it's very easy for that to develop into not just a dispatch for other cultural Traditions but a distaste for other for the people who participate in this cultural traditions and I really can't say a lot more than that I mean again that's it it's an important problem an important distinction but I think that's one way of thinking about it Wolf River Cafe well in the fridge in the instance of there are two there two ways of thinking about that and it and I ain't you know I've said more than one time about President Biden in writing that he is not that politician he is not the politician who says I'm personally opposed but that's that's the old Trope he doesn't say that he says he has said and this is a direct quote it's a woman's right. Now if it's a woman's right. That's a moral turn and it's if a says that is as his belief belief is not I'm morally opposed his latest I'm morally support I'm morally support abortion now now but that's different from a lot of politicians who say I'm morally opposed but I won't impose my my vag put on society here's the question for that politician named one other issue in which you're morally opposed but you wouldn't be willing to legislate that as opposition and they won't have they won't be any a second way of approaching that is the way that that my friend Robbie George does who by the way is going to be on campus at the Athenaeum next up Falls giving the giving a lecture that we're looking forward to and he doesn't simply in terms an interesting the same question terms of justice that again it's just not to take that life so you say to that politician in a very similar question and what other aspect would you not legislate the just Kimura law that affects justice so that I think that's the way to approach a bit against I don't want to give Joe Biden and you do look young Joe Biden has some policies that are not inconsistent with what it means to be a Catholic but those are not those are not does it does in my mind don't overcome his not just morally opposed but cuz that's not his attitude he believes that abortion is a moral option that's quite a bit that's quite a different thing and I forgot to bring Pete the question but I think you probably figured out the question by the answer anything else all right it's it's late on a Friday night thank you very much I'll see you next I love your comment when you say it's a challenge and again are online the listeners didn't the chance to hear you talk about how challenging this is to live the Ten Commandments and how Faith formation does take a lifetime it's so you constantly learning constantly reminding yourself and remembering and growing in our knowledge in our ability to follow God so thank you again for a wonderful presentation we come back next week for our last presentation which will be on check for my paper your chastity continents and something else so we'll be here for the last week or last season session next week so blessings safe travels on your home see you next week thank you

Videos

2021 Lenten Series: Week 4

More videos in Events