Go Go Go

One of the strongest pulls in the United States is work. Technology hasn't made this any better like it promised. We are always working. One of the professors at our school says that this is a direct result of the implicit atheism of the modern age. She says that the depression of the modern era effected Europe by sending them into a state of helpless immobility. However, in the United States, she said, we just became really busy. This is definitely my experience. As the years have gone on it has only gotten worse. We are so busy that we have become obsessed with productivity methods. Just look at the plethora of productivity apps available for your electronic devices, the books, podcasts, etc. litter the ethos of current American culture. Literally, we are so busy we can't keep up with our work, so we develop methods so that we can do even more work. It's insanity!

Make no mistake. This is a symptom of a society that lacks true Hope. When we expend so much energy on earthly tasks, how concerned are we with heavenly tasks? We need to reject this cultural trend. Busyness does not lead to holiness. Rather, silence is necessary. Peace is necessary. Contemplation is necessary. Yet, underneath each of these things is something else. In order to live out this call toward contemplation must have leisure.

Leisure?

Yes, leisure. I love how this goes against our American mentality.

Leisure does not mean having the time to sit around and do nothing. It's time that should be used for pursuing virtue and contemplation. It is only in the context of leisure that we can attain to our highest happiness. It could be said that heaven is a perpetual state of leisure.  

But we can't wait to attain to the life of contemplation in the next life. We must start that life now in this earthly state.This goes for all of us. Both the layman and the monk must make time for leisure. Yes, even monks get caught in a sort of "rat race" mentality. The monastery isn't a complete refuge from the world. Each monk brings a little bit of the world into the monastery. This is even more true with those of us Religious that have a vocation that takes us frequently into the public square.

Sometimes, as Religious we forget that we need leisure. Often we mistake our Regular Observances for leisure. This is a false understanding of Regular Observance. Public acts of worship like the chanting of the Divine Office or the Celebration of the Mass are not leisurely activities. Rather, they are our most profound work. They are our Opus Dei. Our first job is to fulfill these public obligations of worship with and for the Church. The graces that stem from these are more powerful and effective than any apostolic work or internal ministry we can do. To believe the contrary is to fall into the American sense of usefulness which is fundamentally a form of Utilitarianism. Worse, it could be a type of Pelagianism. Either way it at least looks like either some sort of Messiah complex or a convenient way to avoid intimacy. We must always remember the saying, "there is only one Savior and I am not he."

The activities of leisure are not necessarily bound up with public works. Study, Holy Reading, personal prayer and devotions, communal recreation, these are activities of leisure. These are essential. if we do not take a significant time to embrace silence and enter into these sort of activities then we will never be able to attain to the habit of contemplation. Without contemplation we will never be able to live a properly balanced, happy and holy life.

Our daily labors are not unimportant. I don't want to create a false dichotomy. i just want to point out the current pressing problem. We as a people are currently work oriented. We don't really need to learn how to work more or work harder. Rather, we need to learn how to slow down and make time for leisure. It will make our life more fulfilling and our work more fruitful. We need to learn how to properly balance time for work, refreshment, and leisure. We ought not spend too much time in any of these categories of life. We must learn to enter into each as completely and intensely as possible. For me, as a Dominican, these life categories will be filled with different content than the average layman. However, the common human need is to have a balance between the three.

I would challenge everyone to regularly evaluate their life and see if each of these areas are properly balanced. If not, rearrange what needs to be rearranged. If you can't rearrange then it is probably time to cut something out of your daily life.

Observance

I was having a conversation with one of our brothers about the peculiarities of our Dominican life. He lives in an adjacent cell. As a result, through the wall, he got to hear the numerous joy filled phone calls I made to close friends and family after I received word that I had been approved for Solemn Vows. He thought it was really cool to hear the repeated excitement expressed in each new call. He told me that since he entered the Order he had missed hearing those kind of emotional outbursts — the delight in life. He shared that he was slightly disturbed by the emotionally subdued texture of our day to day life. It was a great conversation. It prompted me to reflect on the various reasons for the powerful eruptions of my emotional states. For me, this is a new thing. It has only fully taken hold since I entered Religious Life.

We deliberately apply the word 'regular' to our life. This is because from the moment we wake to the time we go to bed our life is regulated. It is ordered. I felt this most strongly in the Novitiate. It was almost as if, between the hours of sleep, we moved from prayer to food to study without any variation. It was a difficult process at first. It was disturbing. Getting into a regulated habitual way of living can be difficult, to say the least. This is especially true if you have been accustomed to making your own schedule as I had become. But, over the years it has become quite normal — profoundly regular.

Over the near six years of my religious life this regularity has taken its toll. I do nearly everything in a stable routine. And sure enough, with such regularity comes what could be characterized as a dull, muted life, lacking in spontaneity. But it isn't. The surprise is that this regularity makes the affective aspects of life so much more spectacular. The austerity of our chapel has taught me to marvel at the beauty of color and natural forms. The silence we observe has taught me to cherish every sound, especially the sound of the human voice. The ordered schedule makes the days of celebration all the more joyful and the days of sorrow all the more dark. Our regularity makes life more spectacular just as fasting makes food more delightful.

Six years of this way of life has had an amazing effect on me. What will fifty years bring?

Obedience

There are two ways to break a window. Either, you can shatter it with a single blow or, you can make a thousand tiny cracks in it. In the end the result is the same. Obedience is similar. Most often, however, we break obedience in those little ways. The large dramatic ones are more rare.

I recognize this all the time in myself and in others. Instead of conforming our will to the will of our superior, our spouse, our boss, or God we often try to duck under it or get around it. There are so many ways to do this that it would just be silly to list them. Plus, I think we all have plenty of personal experience with how we habitually break obedience. But, sometimes we break it without even realizing. An example is when we  try to figure out how we can spin a command to align it to my own wants, desires, and needs. But, the virtue of obedience is not to conform the command to me. Rather, it is to conform myself to the command given.

St. Thomas Aquinas has the coolest understanding of obedience that I've come across. It comes from a deep understanding of human nature and a similarly deep understanding of human interactions. He tells us that it is not for the one commanded to pass judgment on the wisdom of the command given. Rather, the one commanded should strive to promptly fulfill the command. However, the one commanded is must determine the time and the place to fulfill the command. Of course, this assumes that the command given is not intrinsically evil.

There is a lot packed into this understanding of obedience. I won't bore you with a complete breakdown. Hopefully, you can see how he beautifully balances human freedom with obedience. What is not clear in this brief statement is the relationship of obedience to God's providence. This is a point that is often forgotten this days. Even in religious life there is a deficit in our understanding of who God's providence interacts with the will of the superior. In my own Order this unity of Divine Providence with the will of the superior was expressed in the formula for written commands. The command would say something like, "it is our will and the will of the Holy Spirit that you ..." Maybe this formula should be restored to help us remember how God fits into things when we receive a command that we don't particularly like. It may helps us remember that we are not to pass judgement on the wisdom of the command given.

There are essentially two reasons why we don't question the wisdom of the command given by the superior. First, we assume the good. Our constant principle for interpreting the actions and words of others must be the principle of charity. We must assume that the one giving the commands is doing his best for everyone concerned. The second reason is because the superior stands in the place of God when he is giving a command. He may not know it. You may not see it. But, God is the master of everything. We can trust that God will work for the good through the commands of someone he has placed over you. This is a scary thought. This means that God has chosen some slob to be the instrument of his will in your life. Well, yeah. But, to some degree we're all slobs. This is, again, why we obey through charity. We assume the good. It sounds naive but it's the right thing to do and its the right way to act. Trust God, trust your superiors, and trust yourself.

Relationships

When I was younger I had so many poorly formed ideas about life, the universe, and everything. 42 just wasn't a sufficient answer. So, I concocted a number of half-baked theories about life. I still have a lot of half-baked theories about life. I guess the difference is that I'm willing to challenge them these days. One of these was about relationships. Not romantic ones, just relationships. I found it fascinating that in all the possibilities of life we encounter people who, on a sliding scale, become deep personal friends or are momentary, seemingly insignificant chance encounters never to be seen again. I was obsessed with that moment of encounter. It is, after all, an amazing thing. The intersection of two lives changes both lives forever. Maybe this is why I became so attached to the philosophy of Personalism. My problem was that I was so entranced by the encounter itself that I lost sight of its purpose.

If we believe in the sovereignty of God over all things we should hopefully see his hand in each encounter. With this in mind my question has changed. I'm still entranced by the mystery of meeting another. Now, however, I want to know why God allowed me to have this new relationship. Why now? Why do I retain older relationships? Why have I lost touch with others? It sounds a little hippie to me but I want to know how God is speaking to me through the other and how God is speaking to them through me. I have no real answers here. I just thought I'd share one of my random thoughts.

I hope you want to know this sort of think too.

Holy Obligation

Today I rejoiced. The USCCB approved what I think is the most important liturgical project it has recently engaged. Today the Bishops approved a new translation project for the Liturgy of the Hours. Finally! The Roman Missal was a giant step in the renewal of the whole English speaking Catholic world. This will be no less of a renewal. But it is a renewal with a narrower scope. This, I think, will be a large step toward the renewal of the clergy and religious. You see, we take on the obligation to pray with and for the Church in the Liturgy of the Hours. It is our Holy Obligation, hence the name: Divine Office. It is a sanctification of all time and all space, hence the name: Liturgy of the Hours. The Office, as it is tersely referred to, is not a private devotion. It is a public act of Worship. It is not undertaken for the sake of building the virtue of religion in the one who is praying it. Rather it is prayed for the salvation of the whole world.

However, one who prays the Office faithfully cannot help but be changed by it. Such repetition begins to form one's thinking, one's actions, one's prayer life. Holy habits are just as formative, and addictive, as profane habits. I know it has dramatically effected my own life. My favorite psalms are always whirling through my mind during the day. But more than that, the very schedule of my day is literally ordered around the celebration of the Divine Office. It permeates everything a cleric or religious does.

Something that is so deeply infused into the life of the cleric or religious is going to deeply form him. The Mass is a big part of this, but I think the Divine Office is a much bigger influence on those obliged to keep it. I'm really excited by this move. It is a tangible point of demarcation in the effort to renew the clergy and religious in our country.

Now, if we could only get Rome to re-reform the structure of the Office.

Universal Call to Holiness

We all hear about the need to be holy. God tells us. The priest tells us. Mother Angelica tells us. Our Grandmother's tell us. But what does it mean for each of us to have a personal vocation from God to be holy? Yes! Each of us. Essentially it has to do with our baptism. Baptism turns us into something new. A baptized person is essentially different than an unbaptized person. Why? When you were baptized you were grafted onto the Mystical Body of Christ. Just like grafting in horticulture the new limb takes on some of the attributes of the plant to which it has been newly joined. We are joined to Christ. We begin to participate in his nature. We are divinized. In this identification with Christ we specifically participate in his role as priest, prophet, and king.

Our baptismal call is to live out these roles with gusto. Religious life is merely a radical intensification of what all Christians are called to do — how all Christians are called to live. Each of us are called by God on account of our baptism to live a life radically united to him. Look to how a Religious ought to live. That is how you ought to strive to live too. So, you have children and a job. Do what you can. It was said that the house St. Dominic grew up in was more like a Monestary than that of a minor noble and knight. Being a layman is no excuse for neglecting the more rigorous aspects of a radically lived Christian life.

Being baptized has consequences. Christ accepts no half measures. We are held to a higher standard because of the nature we participate in through baptism. His nature! This means all the baptized. Those who poorly live the Christian life, those who deny it, and those who try to live faithfully are all called to the radicality demanded by Christ. All are accountable to God for living that call or for squandering their life following worldly allurements. We too, those actively seeking holiness, must take care. We have an obligation to help all the baptized live this Christian radicality. We must take care that we do not place unnecessary obstacles in the path of those weaker or immature in their faith. We must not build up loads that we are unwilling to carry.

We must always remember that we are sinners. We are afflicted. None of use, myself included, live up to the life required by the Gospel. Therefore we must have mercy on each other. This does not mean we look the other way when a brother sins. On the contrary, we must hold him accountable. But, this accountability is for reconciliation. We are not so much interested in punishment. We are interested in getting people back on the right path. We want to build up not tear down. We are all in various stages of this life. We must try to help each other limp along the path. We must strive to help each other get to heaven. This is what it means to love one another as Christ has loved us.

Christian BE what you already ARE!

Contemplative?

As a Dominican I am supposed to have a "Contemplative" life. But, what does that mean? I'm not a Monk. My job in the Church is not to simply pray with and for the Church. St. Jerome said that the job of the monk is to weep for his sins and the sins of the world. Yes, St. Dominic wept. But, instead of radically abandoning the world like a monk does, St. Dominic radically entered the world. He didn't turn away, he turned toward. Of course there is an immediate problem with this. The temptation is to abandon one's self to the work of the apostolate. You must "get a job" or "do" ministry. If you don't focus your life on these "works" then it is obvious that you must not have a "love of the people." You should find another Order. But, this "works righteousness" approach to Religious life, to Dominican life, is absurd. It is rooted in the very Pelagianism that we were founded to combat.

We must be prepared to engage the world. We cannot afford to plunge into the depths of the world armed simply with our habit, our talents, and hard work. We need  the grace of God before all else. If we are not intentionally seeking the face of God in our common life (both privately and communally) then we will be a broken tool in the hand of the Lord. Yes, we may drive a few nails; but, eventually our rusty head will snap from its shaft and we will be fit only for the trash heap.

It is a mistake to set aside time for contemplation. We are called to live a life permeated by contemplation. This is not something opposed to the active apostolate. Rather, it precedes it and gives it depth. Without it we will always be lacking in our apostolic ministry. This, contemplative life begins with our common regular observances. It is from these observances that we come to understand the Lord as a community as Dominicans. From there we seek the prayer of study and meditation. We then go out into the world to pass on the fruits of this private and communal contemplation. But, even this going out into the world must have a contemplative character to it. We don't leave the life of contemplation back in the cloister! Contemplation is not something or the choir stall for the cell. It's having our entire being focused on the Lord. It is one thing to say this and give it lip-service. Many professed Religious do. It is another think to live it.

We Dominican's must recapture this life of contemplation. We are not social workers, we are not Diocesan priests who wear white, nor are we monks. We are Dominicans. We are scholars who sing. We are monks in the city. We are preachers. We must live out the life as defined in our Constitutions. We must love and appropriate our entire 800 year tradition continually seeking reform and renewal. We must be zealous for the Lord and equally zealous for the salvation of souls. We must reside in the heart of our Holy Mother the Church. We must constantly seek the face of God. We must not give in to the workaholic tendencies of the modern western world. We must not seek to be relevant. We must not seek to be popular. We must not seek any worldly laurels. We must not appropriate the relativism and subjectivism of our age. Rather, we must chase after Christ and him crucified without fail. In the radical following of Christ, there can be no compromise.

But, as with all things, reform and renewal always begins at home. It is not enough to live the Dominican life faithfully. It must be lived zealously. We must rise up like Matthias Maccabaeus, confident in the truth, reliant on the Lord, and courageous in our actions. Anything less is unworthy of those blessed brothers who preceded us. We have a family name to uphold. We must, once again, take up the banner of Christ, armed with contemplation, study, and penance. We must make war against those powers that seek to drive us into our cloister walls. We must help all of Christ's faithful avoid mediocrity. This is our time! Now, is the time for the rebirth of the Order.

The New Evangelization beckons!

Be Ye Reconciled: Part 4

We've spoken about both the objective character of a sin and the subjective character of sin. Hopefully this will be helpful. Maybe it's just been confusing. If it's been confusing or you have questions just shoot me an email. You can find that email address on the About page. In this final post in this series I'll try to give some practical advice for the Christian life. Actually prepare before you go to confession.

Take the time to think about the manner in which you have been living your life. Identify your sins and really think about the gravity of each. Be honest with yourself. Be willing to admit to yourself where you are weak and where you are strong. Ask God to help reveal your own heart to yourself. Too often when we examine our consciences we neglect God's assistance. The Lord is the one who knows the heart. As a psalm says, "in the secret of my heart teach me wisdom." Implore his aid in your examination. "O God come to my assistance. Lord make haste to help me."

After going through this process get yourself to confession.

Go to confession as frequently as you need. In doing this don't simply think of confession as something functional. Think of it as it truly is — an encounter with Christ. We should think of the sacraments as acts of love. We should want to receive the sacraments because we love God not simply because of what they do for us. So, go to confession because you love God. Make this your disposition and it will be rewarded.

When you go to confession make sure you are faithful to the requirements of the Church.

Remember to name the sin, express its gravity, and the frequency with which you committed the sin. When you do this it doesn't need to resemble a shopping list. You can have a conversation with the priest. Remember, confession is not spiritual direction! If you need spiritual direction make an appointment. However, have an honest conversation about your sins with the priest. Also, you don't need to confess the sins of others. Exercise Christian maturity and take responsibility for your sins. Don't try to blame others for your sins. Only recount the involvement of others if it is essential for explaining the gravity of a sin.

Enjoy the sacrament.

Sacraments are celebrations. Celebrate the great mercy that God has given us in the forgiveness of sins. What a wondrous thing! I think that it is hard in our present culture to do this. It requires us to first realize that we are all sinners. Our society doesn't like this reality. They think it harms our self-esteem. I say, better my ego is damaged than my immortal soul be lost. I think we have so much anxiety over going to confession because we are told that we are supposed to be perfect already. We are told by the world that if we admit our sinfulness then we are somehow less. But remember, Christ came for sinners, not the righteous.

I think the main point is that we need to feel sorry for our sins and at the same time rejoice in God's mercy. If we keep this disposition in mind and educate ourselves then we can celebrate this sacrament well. Our God is truly a savior who has promised to provide for us in our deepest needs.

Be Ye Reconciled: Part 3

Okay. So. This part is a pretty big task. Also, I am going to rely on the mercy of everyone reading this because there are a lot of disputed issues and pitfalls. Essentially I'll be trying to explain Question 73 of the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae. Synthesizing and doing justice to each article here will be a challenge. When we want to determine the praise or blame (culpability) to assign to an action we have to wrestle with all the various circumstances that can effect human action. We can never have a perfect picture of all of these circumstances. Only God can have a perfect picture. However, we do our best. When we are considering sin and want to know how much blame should be applied to a sinful action we can look at specific things to determine how grave the sin was. This is really important for everyone to understand. Let me explain why.

When you are preparing to go to confession you generally want to determine what sins you have that are mortal so you can confess them. As I said earlier, I think this is unhelpful. Instead we should number our sins and then determine how grave they are. Thinking of sin as a disease is really helpful here. When we go see the doctor we don't generally tell him what complaints are deadly. We tell the doctor that we are experiencing a number of problems, some worse than others. The doctor, on his part, will try to determine the degree of each complaint to prioritize treatment. So, in preparing to go to confession it is not a bad idea to think about our list of spiritual ailments. First we should treat them all as equally harmful. After all, each sin is in some way an offense against God and does damage to the Mystical Body of Christ and contributes to the general evil in the world. Then, in our preparation for the Sacrament, we should try to discover which sins cause greater harm than others. To be able to do this we need to honestly reflect on our culpability for each action. This is hard at first, but it becomes easier. So what is the criteria we should use to judge each sin? Here we turn to the Angelic Doctor.

The first question we should ask ourselves concerns who we primarily offend by the sin. Sins against God, like blasphemy, are worse than sins against human beings which are worse than sins against the other animals or other living beings. Also, there is a distinction between internal and external offenses. So, murder is worse than theft because murder offends the person directly while theft harms the person indirectly (by way of things attached to a person). This makes perfect sense, stabbing a person is worse than stealing their wallet, blasphemy is worse than destroying a holy icon. Offenses against persons is worse than things and offenses that attack a person directly are worse than those that attack him indirectly.

The second question we should ask concerns the virtue we offended in our sinful act. Virtues are placed in a ranking based on their excellence. Charity is greater than hope or faith. These theological virtues are greater than the natural virtues. This is why it is good to have a copy of the Summa Theologiae around. If you look at the so-called "Treaties on the Virtues" you will see a proposed ordering. So, the more excellent the virtue we neglected to practice the more depraved the vice.

The third question is easy. Is it a sin of the flesh or a sin of the mind. Sins of the flesh are less grave than sins of the mind. I'm reminded of a friend who was listening to me rage against the industry that is Las Vegas (I despise that place). This friend is a Monk. He quickly told me, "Gabriel, those are the sins of children. If you want to see real sins, come to the Monastery." We laughed but he was right. Lying, gossip, or grudge holding are more grave than fornication, unjust violence, or drunkenness. The old saying is, "sins of the flesh are the least grave but more frequent, sins of the mind are the most grave but less frequent."

The fourth question has to do with the will. Essentially the distinction here is about whether the cause of the sin was internal or external. So, the way I would put this is thus: Did I know it was a sin and still chose to do it without external motivation or was I compelled by external forces. The more one is compelled by external forces the less grave the sin.

The fifth question is a little difficult. It has to do with the circumstances that surround the action. I don't mean circumstances in the common use of the term. I mean, what are the ways that my sins effects the world and others. There are three types. Aquinas gives a great example to demonstrate what he means by the first type. He proposes the situation where a man commits adultery. Well, if the woman he did this act with was also married then now the sin is more grave because he facilitated her committing adultery and not simply fornication. So, the relevant circumstance in this example is that the woman was also married. But, if the man didn't know that she was married then his ignorance of that circumstance absolves him of blame for that circumstance. But, if he knew that she was married then his sin would be graver. So, this circumstance changes the nature of the sin by adding injustice against the woman's spouse. Another circumstance would be what Aquinas calls the ratio of the sin. This is the sort of circumstance where a man sins in more ways than one by a single act. It is similar to the first kind but it is multiple instances of the same sort of sin in a single act. So, the example that Aquinas gives is the wasteful man who both gives what he ought not give to who he ought not give it. So, an example is someone who gives an inordinate amount of money to a charity thus depriving his family of some necessary goods as opposed to a man who does the same but gives the money to a criminal organization. The third type of circumstance is when the sin is just bigger. So, embezzling $100 from your company is bad but embezzling $1,000,000 is far worse. So, one way to think about this whole thing is that sins stack.

The sixth question has to do with quantity of harm. Simply, were more hurt by my sin. So, the person who commits fornication is better off than the person who commits fornication in public. This should be pretty obvious.

The seventh question is about the state of the one offended. This is similar to the first question but instead it has to do not with the objective category but with relationships. So, it is more grave to injure a saint than a sinner because he is more closely united to God. It is more grave to harm a friend than a stranger because he is more closely related to you. It is more grave to harm many people than one person because of our responsibility toward our neighbors.

The eighth and final question has to do with your own state. First, the more virtuous you are as a person the more grave the sins you commit become. Second, sinning is a lack of gratitude toward God because he is the source of all good things. Thus, the degree of ingratitude with respect to the excellence of the goods God has given you makes a sin more grave. Also, if you have a public station like a political office or you are a religious leader then your sins can be more grave than the common man. The example here is the priest who is a fornicator or the prince who commits injustices. The priest has taken a vow of chaste celibacy and the prince is the guarantor of justice. Hence in the areas of life over which a public person has command, his sins in those areas of his influence become more grave.

So these are question:Who did I sin against and how? What virtue did I neglect to practice? Was it a carnal or spiritual sin? Did I freely chose to sin or was I compelled by external factors? To what degree was I aware of circumstances that increase the gravity of my sin? How much harm did my sin cause? What is the status of the person injured with respect to God, yourself, and others? What is my state before God and man?

In my next and final post of this series I'll tie all these things together and help provide a sure means of approaching Confession in a healthy, adult manner.

Be Ye Reconciled: Part 2

Previously, I shared an insight about some of the underlying reasons why people either never go to confession or become scrupulous. It's becoming my belief that both of these dispositions are born out of a poor understanding of how to judge whether a sin is confessable matter or not. Before I offer some practical solutions I want to explore a better of way of understanding the degree of a particular sin. So, I said that every sin has an objective character but also a subjective application. What do I mean by this? I mean we have to understand what a sin actually is in its broadest sense. Fundamentally a sin deprives the whole of the created order of some good. Another way to put this could be that when we sin we add evil to the world. But properly speaking, by sinning we remove goodness from the world. This isn't the first thing we usually consider. These days we either consider the relational or legal aspects of sin first. We often think about who we offend or what law or rule we broke. These two things are part of sin but they are not the first consideration. We must first realize that sin, no matter its degree, is an act of violence against the good of God's creation and God himself.

Why is this important? If we ground our understanding of sin in either relationality or legality then we ground sin in something arbitrary – shifting sand. If it is grounded in relationality then something could cease to be considered a sin if the one offended doesn't experience the offense or ceases to be offended by  it for some reason. So in this scenario, if Molly is married to John and he commits adultery then it is only a sin if Molly considers adultery a sin. If Molly and John have a so-called "open marriage" then neither would experience adultery as an offense. See the problem? Also, if we ground sin in legalism or rule following it is equally arbitrary. If a law changes then the law doesn't recognize what was previously considered wrong as an offense any longer. Take for instance the sin of abortion. The American legal system doesn't view abortion as an evil – a sin. So, it is either neutral or a good according to the American legal system. But, prior to the judicial ruling of Roe v. Wade it was considered an evil act according to the law. So, it should be pretty clear that neither relational experience nor law are sufficient grounds for determining the objective aspect of sin. But, if we ground our understanding of good and evil in ontology, in the nature of creation, then we can speak intelligibly about the objective qualities of sin.

So, when we consider an action we must determine if the action is objectively good or evil. An action is objectively good if the action is consistent with nature. An action is objectively evil if the action is contrary to nature. So, giving a plant water is good. Giving a plant ammonia, however, is not so good. This objective characteristic is not the same as the assignation of praise or blame for the action. So, when we judge an action we want first to know if it is objectively good or evil. We must know this before we determine the praise or blame we should assign to the person who did the act. The reason for this is because of the relationship between the objective characteristic of an action and the process of assigning praise or blame. This is because an act that is objectively good could, in the assignation of praise or blame, be judged either a praiseworthy act (which is obvious) or a blameworthy act (not so obvious). An objectively evil act never becomes praiseworthy and is always blameworthy (on some level). So, the objective characteristic is binary. An act is either objectively good or evil. The subjective characteristic (praise or blame assignation, also known as culpability) is a gradient or sliding scale.

Okay, if you have been able to wrap your mind around this then you are ready for the next part. If not, reread this and comment on my Facebook wall and I can try to clarify some of the details. But, I want to stop here in this post so that these basics can sink in. Next, I'll post about how to determine the praise or blame that should be assigned to an act. This is the heart of what I want to get at. But, I needed to start here before we moved to that conversation. Once all these parts are together I'll offer the promised practical solutions for how we should approach the Sacrament of Penance, a.k.a., Confession, a.k.a. Reconciliation.