Apologia Pro Vita Sua by Cardinal John Henry Newman, Post 4

This is the fourth post in a series of St. John Henry Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua. 

You can find Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

Post #3 here. 

 

I finished reading his supplemental chapter on Liberalism, and frankly I still don’t feel I definitively know what he means by the term.  Still I think I’m closer because I think I’ve cleared up a couple of confusions.  From what I gather, the Liberals are the Low Church Evangelicals but it was a particular segment of Evangelicals.  From the “Liberalism” Notes:

 

When, in the beginning of the present century, not very long before my own time, after many years of moral and intellectual declension, the University of Oxford woke up to a sense of its duties, and began to reform itself, the first instruments of this change, to whose zeal and courage we all owe so much, were naturally thrown together for mutual support, against the numerous obstacles which lay in their path, and soon stood out in relief from the body of residents, who, though many of them men of talent themselves, cared little for the object which the others had at heart. These Reformers, as they may be called, were for some years members of scarcely more than three or four Colleges; and their own Colleges, as being under their direct influence, of course had the benefit of those stricter views of discipline and teaching, which they themselves were urging on the University... Thus was formed an intellectual circle or class in the University,—men, who felt they had a career before them, as soon as the pupils, whom they were forming, came into public life; men, whom non-residents, whether country parsons or preachers of the Low Church, on coming up from time to time to the old place, would look at, partly with admiration, partly with suspicion, as being an honour indeed to Oxford, but withal exposed to the temptation of ambitious views, and to the spiritual evils signified in what is called the "pride of reason."

So it sounds like the dispute was between factions at Oxford, between the High Church Anglican faction, of which Newman was a part, and a Low Church Evangelical faction, but that Evangelical faction was not necessarily in line with the Low Church pastoring that was in the English folk.  If I got that correct, and I’m not 100% sure I do, then I can see the confusion.  The Liberals were Low Church, but intellectual Low Church.

Newman provides an actual definition of Liberalism:

 

Now by Liberalism I mean false liberty of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and therefore is out of place. Among such matters are first principles of whatever kind; and of these the most sacred and momentous are especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation. Liberalism then is the mistake of subjecting to human judgment those revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond and independent of it, and of claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of propositions which rest for their reception simply on the external authority of the Divine Word.

Now that we see the definition, and understand the factional conflict, I do think Joseph is right when he says, “In broad strokes, we can see this pattern of argument repeated in today's debates over a slew of moral issues, and we can look back and see it as a forerunner to the Modernism of the early twentieth century.”  I think the “forerunner to the Modernism” goes back even further than this, but he is right when he says it is repeated in much the same pattern in today’s Church debates.

Toward the end of the chapter he provides a bullet list of 18 positions of the Liberals.  Newman provides some exposition on each of the positions, which makes it too long to quote completely, so I’ll just list the eighteen without his expounding on them.

1. No religious tenet is important, unless reason shows it to be so.

2. No one can believe what he does not understand.

3. No theological doctrine is any thing more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men.

4. It is dishonest in a man to make an act of faith in what he has not had brought home to him by actual proof.

5. It is immoral in a man to believe more than he can spontaneously receive as being congenial to his moral and mental nature.

6. No revealed doctrines or precepts may reasonably stand in the way of scientific conclusions.

7. Christianity is necessarily modified by the growth of civilization, and the exigencies of times.

8. There is a system of religion more simply true than Christianity as it has ever been received.

9. There is a right of Private Judgment: that is, there is no existing authority on earth competent to interfere with the liberty of individuals in reasoning and judging for themselves about the Bible and its contents, as they severally please.

10. There are rights of conscience such, that every one may lawfully advance a claim to profess and teach what is false and wrong in matters, religious, social, and moral, provided that to his private conscience it seems absolutely true and right.

11. There is no such thing as a national or state conscience.

12. The civil power has no positive duty, in a normal state of things, to maintain religious truth.

13. Utility and expedience are the measure of political duty.

14. The Civil Power may dispose of Church property without sacrilege.

15. The Civil Power has the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration.

16. It is lawful to rise in arms against legitimate princes.

17. The people are the legitimate source of power.

18. Virtue is the child of knowledge, and vice of ignorance.

As you can see, most of them are very Liberal even by today’s standards.  It is interesting that Newman states he never supported any of them “except No. 12, and perhaps No. 11, and partly No. 1.”  In today’s the United States, I think number 17 would qualify as something to support, but otherwise I’m pretty much on board with Newman’s assessment.

I hope that clarifies now what Newman means by Liberalism.

###

Newman articulates his theology of these years in three condensed points.  I won’t quote the entire paragraphs that outline those three points—it would be too much for here—but let me try to pull summary quotes.  Point #1:

 

1. First was the principle of dogma: my battle was with liberalism; by liberalism I mean the anti-dogmatic principle and its developments. This was the first point on which I was certain. Here I make a remark: persistence in a given belief is no sufficient test of its truth; but departure from it is at least a slur upon the man who has felt so certain about it. In proportion, then, as I had in 1832 a strong persuasion of the truth of opinions which I have since given up, so far a sort of guilt attaches to me, not only for that vain confidence, but for all the various proceedings which were the consequence of it. But under this first head I have the satisfaction of feeling that I have nothing to retract, and nothing to repent of. The main principle of the movement is as dear to me now, as it ever was. I have changed in many things: in this I have not.

Point #2

2. Secondly, I was confident in the truth of a certain definite religious teaching, based upon this foundation of dogma; viz. that there was a visible Church, with sacraments and rites which are the channels of invisible grace. I thought that this was the doctrine of Scripture, of the early Church, and of the Anglican Church. Here again, I have not changed in opinion; I am as certain now on this point as I was in 1833, and have never ceased to be certain. In 1834 and the following years I put this ecclesiastical doctrine on a broader basis, after reading Laud, Bramhall, and Stillingfleet and other Anglican divines on the one hand, and after prosecuting the study of the Fathers on the other; but the doctrine of 1833 was strengthened in me, not changed.

Point #3:

 

3. But now, as to the third point on which I stood in 1833, and which I have utterly renounced and trampled upon since,—my then view of the Church of Rome;—I will speak about it as exactly as I can. When I was young, as I have said already, and after I was grown up, I thought the Pope to be Antichrist. At Christmas 1824-5 I preached a Sermon to that effect. But in 1827 I accepted eagerly the stanza in the Christian Year, which many people thought too charitable. "Speak gently of thy sister's fall." From the time that I knew Froude I got less and less bitter on the subject. I spoke (successively, but I cannot tell in what order or at what dates) of the Roman Church as being bound up with "the cause of Antichrist," as being one of the "many antichrists" foretold by St. John, as being influenced by "the spirit of Antichrist," and as having something "very Antichristian" or "unchristian" about her. From my boyhood and in 1824 I considered, after Protestant authorities, that St. Gregory I. about A.D. 600 was the first Pope that was Antichrist, though, in spite of this, he was also a great and holy man; but in 1832-3 I thought the Church of Rome was bound up with the cause of Antichrist by the Council of Trent.

I think that captures the three points, but if you want the full development of each point you will have to turn to the text.  Actually about ten pages later, Newman, in identifying his position as the Via Media, summarizes them himself:

Lest I should be misunderstood, let me observe that this hesitation about the validity of the theory of the Via Media implied no doubt of the three fundamental points on which it was based, as I have described them above, dogma, the sacramental system, and anti-Romanism.

So I think one can look at the first two points as Catholic-lite, but the third as strongly anti-Catholic.

###

Notable Quote: What the Church Needs by John Henry Newman

Here is another distinctive quote by this wonderful prose writer.

 

“What we need at present for our Church's well-being, is not invention, nor originality, nor sagacity, nor even learning in our divines, at least in the first place, though all gifts of God are in a measure needed, and never can be unseasonable when used religiously, but we need peculiarly a sound judgment, patient thought, discrimination, a comprehensive mind, an abstinence from all private fancies and caprices and personal tastes,—in a word, Divine Wisdom."

In the first main clause he provides a list of negatives (“not, nor, etc.) of what the Church doesn’t need.  Then he pauses with a subordinate clause qualifying those negatives before he gives a second main clause providing a list of what it does need, including an “abstinence” which is another form of negation.  Then he tops it off with a summation, “Divine Wisdom.”  That is just so beautiful. 

###

Now that we have an understanding of what Newman means by Liberal, I think this key statement can be re-looked at:

 

Lest I should be misunderstood, let me observe that this hesitation about the validity of the theory of the Via Media implied no doubt of the three fundamental points on which it was based, as I have described them above, dogma, the sacramental system, and anti-Romanism.

Of the three fundamental points on which he defines the Via Media, which is supposed to define High Church Anglicanism, each is in counter-distinction to three opposing religions.  That the Via Media rests on defined dogma is in counter-distinction to Liberal Low Church Evangelicalism; that the Via Media contains a sacramental system is in counter-distinction to traditional Low Church Evangelicalism; and that the Via Media is anti-Romanism stands in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.

Unless anyone else wants to pursue discussion of chapter 2, I think we have captured the gist of it.  If we had more time, we could look more closely at Tract 90, but we are already behind, and I think that summation just now suffices for our book club purposes.  

###

I’ve been meaning to mention this, and perhaps here is a good place to mention it.  I don’t know if you realize, because I didn’t realize for the longest time, the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not any official title or name.  The English assigned it the “Roman Catholic Church” to distinguish it from their “Anglo-Catholic Church.”  There is no Latin term that identifies the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church, or French, or Italian, or German, or any other language but English.  Everyone else uses simply, “The Catholic Church.”  I was surprised to learn that because it is so common in English.  I personally try to resist using Roman Catholic, and just go with Catholic.  In my mind, by qualifying Catholic with Roman is tending toward the pejorative, and even if not intended to be pejorative, it is a diminishing of the supremacy of the Catholic Church.  “Catholic” means “universal,” and by giving it a qualifier is to diminish her universality.  I try not to do it, though sometimes it can’t be helped.

Apologia Pro Vita Sua by Cardinal John Henry Newman, Post 3

This is the third post in a series of St. John Henry Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua. 

You can find Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

 

Chapter 2: History of My Religious Opinions from 1833 to 1839

Summary

Chapter 2 provides the bulk of Newman’s output as a Protestant theologian.  He makes it clear that he is still very much a committed Protestant but one of the key features of this period is Newman joining and supporting the Oxford Movement, a High Church theology that eventually evolved into Anglo-Catholicism and fought against the “Liberalism” of its day—that is the Evangelical Protestants and Low Church theology.  Newman provides a description of two of the key members of his movement, Mr. Hugh Rose, John Keble, and Dr. Edward Pusey.  What governs the development of this chapter are the series of Newman’s publications over these years.  The most important of these publications were a series of tracts published by Newman, Pusey, and Keble that came to be known as the Tracts for the Times.  The objective of the tracts was to present Anglicanism as the Via Media, that is, the middle way between Catholicism and Mainline Protestantism.  The theology of the Oxford Movement was to recover the rich history of English Christianity from the Middle Ages but yet maintain a distinction from “Popish” Rome.  One of Newman’s tracts, the last tract to be written, Tract 90, goes on to show that the 39 Articles central to the practice and faith of the Church of England are “compatible” with the Council of Trent, the Catholic Council in response to Protestantism, the central theological statement of the Counter-Reformation.  Tract 90 caused a firestorm within the English Church from all sides that the Tracts had to be stopped and Newman forced to resign from the Oxford Movement. 

Let me provide some Wikipedia links that might help you sort out this chapter.

Oxford Movement.

Dr. Edward Pusey. 

John Keble. 

Tracts for the Times. 

Tract 90. 

Via Media.   

 

###

How are you guys doing on this read?  I was going back and forth in private mail with one of our members who is “struggling” with this read.  I pointed out this is a tough read.  There are several difficulties. First, it was written in the 19th century, so there's a style gap between Newman and us. Second, he's very intellectual, so there is a lot of knowledge that is assumed the reader to know. Third he's dealing with finer points of apologetics. Fourth, there's a historical time and place context. The history of the Anglican Church is not something we are generally taught.  These definitely make reading this book difficult.

So, if you’re having trouble, just ask, either publicly or in a private mail.  I would prefer publicly since that generates conversation.  Also, just read along and just follow the conversation.  Even if you don’t get it completely, I think you will get something out of this read.  I believe I am getting it, though slowly, and so I think our schedule will be blown.  But this is a famous work, and we will be satisfied to have read it.  Plus, his conversion is coming up in the next couple of chapters, and that will be exciting.  If all you get out of chapter 2 is the summary I posted above, I think that’s all you need to know to move on.  So move on.  It’s ok.

###

John Henry Newman has the reputation of being one of the great prose stylist of the English language.  So far in the first two chapters we probably have only seen that brilliance shine a few times, probably because the dry facts of this person and his publications and that person and his positions doesn’t make for inspired writing.  At the beginning of chapter 2, Newman does give us a portrait of Mr. Hugh Rose that allows his prose to excel.  Let me quote these three paragraphs not so much because they are very important to the chapter theme, but because they show Newman’s skill as a writer.  Perhaps the key take-away is that Rose had been “severed” from the Oxford Movement and he went on to die young.

 

To mention Mr. Hugh Rose's name is to kindle in the minds of those who knew him a host of pleasant and affectionate remembrances. He was the man above all others fitted by his cast of mind and literary powers to make a stand, if a stand could be made, against the calamity of the times. He was gifted with a high and large mind, and a true sensibility of what was great and beautiful; he wrote with warmth and energy; and he had a cool head and cautious judgment. He spent his strength and shortened his life, Pro Ecclesia Dei, as he understood that sovereign idea. Some years earlier he had been the first to give warning, I think from the University Pulpit at Cambridge, of the perils to England which lay in the biblical and theological speculations of Germany. The Reform agitation followed, and the Whig Government came into power; and he anticipated in their distribution of Church patronage the authoritative introduction of liberal opinions into the country. He feared that by the Whig party a door would be opened in England to the most grievous of heresies, which never could be closed again. In order under such grave circumstances to unite Churchmen together, and to make a front against the coming danger, he had in 1832 commenced the British Magazine, and in the same year he came to Oxford in the summer term, in order to beat up for writers for his publication; on that occasion I became known to him through Mr. Palmer. His reputation and position came in aid of his obvious fitness, in point of character and intellect, to become the centre of an ecclesiastical movement, if such a movement were to depend on the action of a party. His delicate health, his premature death, would have frustrated the expectation, even though the new school of opinion had been more exactly thrown into the shape of a party, than in fact was the case. But he zealously backed up the first efforts of those who were principals in it; and, when he went abroad to die, in 1838, he allowed me the solace of expressing my feelings of attachment and gratitude to him by addressing him, in the dedication of a volume of my Sermons, as the man, "who, when hearts were failing, bade us stir up the gift that was in us, and betake ourselves to our true Mother."

 

But there were other reasons, besides Mr. Rose's state of health, which hindered those who so much admired him from availing themselves of his close co-operation in the coming fight. United as both he and they were in the general scope of the Movement, they were in discordance with each other from the first in their estimate of the means to be adopted for attaining it. Mr. Rose had a position in the Church, a name, and serious responsibilities; he had direct ecclesiastical superiors; he had intimate relations with his own University, and a large clerical connexion through the country. Froude and I were nobodies; with no characters to lose, and no antecedents to fetter us. Rose could not go a-head across country, as Froude had no scruples in doing. Froude was a bold rider, as on horseback, so also in his speculations. After a long conversation with him on the logical bearing of his principles, Mr. Rose said of him with quiet humour, that "he did not seem to be afraid of inferences." It was simply the truth; Froude had that strong hold of first principles, and that keen perception of their value, that he was comparatively indifferent to the revolutionary action which would attend on their application to a given state of things; whereas in the thoughts of Rose, as a practical man, existing facts had the precedence of every other idea, and the chief test of the soundness of a line of policy lay in the consideration whether it would work. This was one of the first questions, which, as it seemed to me, on every occasion occurred to his mind. With Froude, Erastianism,—that is, the union (so he viewed it) of Church and State,—was the parent, or if not the parent, the serviceable and sufficient tool, of liberalism. Till that union was snapped, Christian doctrine never could be safe; and, while he well knew how high and unselfish was the temper of Mr. Rose, yet he used to apply to him an epithet, reproachful in his own mouth;—Rose was a "conservative." By bad luck, I brought out this word to Mr. Rose in a letter of my own, which I wrote to him in criticism of something he had inserted in his Magazine: I got a vehement rebuke for my pains, for though Rose pursued a conservative line, he had as high a disdain, as Froude could have, of a worldly ambition, and an extreme sensitiveness of such an imputation.

 

But there was another reason still, and a more elementary one, which severed Mr. Rose from the Oxford Movement. Living movements do not come of committees, nor are great ideas worked out through the post, even though it had been the penny post. This principle deeply penetrated both Froude and myself from the first, and recommended to us the course which things soon took spontaneously, and without set purpose of our own. Universities are the natural centres of intellectual movements. How could men act together, whatever was their zeal, unless they were united in a sort of individuality? Now, first, we had no unity of place. Mr. Rose was in Suffolk, Mr. Perceval in Surrey, Mr. Keble in Gloucestershire; Hurrell Froude had to go for his health to Barbadoes. Mr. Palmer was indeed in Oxford; this was an important advantage, and told well in the first months of the Movement;—but another condition, besides that of place, was required.

Try to read each sentence to yourself and let each sentence settle before you go to the next.  Newman has such a wonderful rhythm.  Notice how he uses couplets of adjectives and nouns: “pleasant and affectionate remembrances,” “cast of mind and literary powers,” “gifted with a high and large mind,” “of what was great and beautiful; he wrote with warmth and energy; and he had a cool head and cautious judgment.”  It all sort of culminates with this powerful sentence: “He spent his strength and shortened his life…”  Some writers love to write in twos, others in threes; Newman definitely in twos, which provides a very distinct rhythm. 

Here’s another stylistic observation: he likes add little tags phrases (free modifying phrases) at the end of main clauses in order to balance the sentence.  Like this: “His reputation and position came in aid of his obvious fitness, in point of character and intellect, to become the centre of an ecclesiastical movement, if such a movement were to depend on the action of a party.”  “in point of character and intellect” is a modifying phrase of the main clause, and then he adds a tag “if such a movement were to depend on the action of a party” after subordinate clause, “to become the centre of an ecclesiastical movement.”  One half of the sentence balances the other—again a sort of duple rhythm—and the repetition of the word “movement” from the subordinate clause echoes in the subsequent tag phrase, which seems to give an emphasis on that final beat of the rhythm. 

Finally Newman is skillful in mixing long and short sentences.  After a number of longish sentences, notice how the short staccato clauses of this section just bounces on the tongue:  “Mr. Rose had a position in the Church, a name, and serious responsibilities; he had direct ecclesiastical superiors; he had intimate relations with his own University, and a large clerical connexion through the country. Froude and I were nobodies; with no characters to lose, and no antecedents to fetter us.”  And none of these stylistic flourishes calls attention to itself.  It probably came very natural to him, not giving it much thought.  It’s just there for those that hear it and appreciate it.

###

Joseph Commented:

I apologize that I've been a bit MIA, but I've had a busy couple of weeks. I find fascinating, from chapter one but fleshed out in chapter two, that the "religious liberalism" which Cardinal Newman was reacting against is pretty much the same as that we have today, just with different emphases. By and large, the critiques of the Oxford Movement seem to be that a Christianity which conforms itself to the fashions of the day eventually ceases to be Christianity. In broad strokes, we can see this pattern of argument repeated in today's debates over a slew of moral issues, and we can look back and see it as a forerunner to the Modernism of the early twentieth century. It certainly gives credence to the observation in Ecclesiastes that, "there is nothing new under the sun."

My Reply:

The same thought occurred to me too Joseph.  However, I had to scale back.  The tension between those that seek progressive advancement and those that seek to conserve is always there going back to the nominalism of the Middle Ages, so it's not unusual for Newman and those of his day to characterize a dichotomy between a "liberal" faction and a "conservative" one.  The question is always what is being conserved and what is being advanced.  Here it seems that the Evangelical, Low Church is being called the liberal while the Anglican High Church is the conservative.  Intuitively it could have been just the opposite for all I know.  Why is the Evangelical the liberal side?  A lot depends on the development of Anglican theology.

 

Here's what I know.  When Henry VIII overturned the Catholic faith, what he established was not too much different.  But in short order with Queen Elizabeth, the Puritan (forefathers to the Evangelicals) spirit started to rise sharply, and with her successor James I it really began to dominate, so much so that when his heir was going to be a Catholic king, the country went into Civil War, and the Puritans won that war.  England became very much Low Church Puritan.  When the monarchy was re-instituted, it was more a return to Henry VIII's Catholic-lite theology at the aristocratic level, but not so much at the local level.  Then there was another civil war, more going back and forth until the Bloodless Revolution where England pulled a king and queen from continental Europe who were very Protestant.  Now there was another hundred years or so until Newman's time, where I don't exactly know which theology was on top and which wasn't. 

 

So now why would Anglo-Catholic be more conservative?  As I reflected on it, I would have guessed the Low Church Evangelical was the conservative and those pushing closer toward Catholicism were the liberal.  But I guess I am wrong.  I just don’t have the nuanced understanding of the English religious scene of the 18^th century that led to Newman.

Frances Commented:

I’m not certain if this contributes to the discussion but because it’s from Bishop Robert Barron’s Word On Fire, I’d like to quote “What Is Liberalism”? from ‘’The Pivotal Players’’:

 

‘’When John Henry Newman battled theological ‘liberalism’ in his writings, he wasn’t engaging what we today mean by that word, in its political sense. Here’s how he defined it: ‘Liberalism is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion and that demonstration or formal logic is the only basis for any certitude. It teaches that all are to be tolerated and that revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste.’’

Peej Commented:

Even though I haven’t started rereading yet, I do want to comment that the disregard of dogma is something I see in non-denominational churches today. One recent example is a sermon on Matthew 9–old wine in new wine skins—in a church in Parker, CO. The pastor used this verse to prove Biblically the principle of relevance. How remaining relevant and changing worship music can reach more people for Christ. But he never defined what is non-negotiable and what is dogma. This is a column built on quicksand.

My Reply to Frances and Peej:

Those are both helpful comments. What Peej is saying is along the lines of my assumption of Low Church representing the Liberal side but frankly it doesn't seem to add up altogether. The problem is that Newman was not clear as to what Liberalism refers to. I think he assumed it from the context of his time. In the 1865 version, there is a supplemental chapter called "Liberalism" where he states he was asked to define it. Apparently others reading it made the same observation, and so he had to add it. I have not read the chapter. Here is a link to the online 1865 publication.  

 

The chapter on Liberalism is the first of the supplemental material, under Note A. It looks like it's only 14 pages. I'll try to read it tonight, but if anyone else wishes to, please feel free to tell us what it says.

Sunday Meditation: The Oblivious Rich Man

Today’s Gospel is one of those unforgettable parables—that of the rich man and Lazerus—that convicts.  It convicted me from the first time I read it, and it continues to every time I read it.  Is it because I identify with the rich man?  What exactly is his sin?  Sure luxury and gluttony, but neither are listed in the Ten Commandments.  However, luxury and gluttony lead to the obliviousness and callousness of the rich man to the pitiful poor man.  But there is so much more to the parable than showing the just deserts of heaven.  The Kingdom of God is the paradoxical inversion of the earthly world.  There is also the lesson Father Abraham, a stand in for God, delivers: no sign from heaven will ever be good enough for those without faith.

 

Jesus said to the Pharisees:

"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen

and dined sumptuously each day.

And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,

who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps

that fell from the rich man's table.

Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.

When the poor man died,

he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.

The rich man also died and was buried,

and from the netherworld, where he was in torment,

he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off

and Lazarus at his side.

And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me.

Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue,

for I am suffering torment in these flames.'

Abraham replied,

'My child, remember that you received

what was good during your lifetime

while Lazarus likewise received what was bad;

but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.

Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established

to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go

from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'

He said, 'Then I beg you, father,

send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers,

so that he may warn them,

lest they too come to this place of torment.'

But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets.

Let them listen to them.'

He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham,

but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,

neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Lk 16:19-31

 

As well as I thought I knew this parable, this Franciscan friar—Fr. Joseph Mary from the Capuchin Friars on a vlog called A Simple Word—points out even more than I realized.

 

The parable is addressed to the Pharisees!  How could I miss that?  And perhaps even more importantly, the rich man has no name while Lazarus does.  How rich is that!

 

###

 

Edit 25 September 2022 at 9:05 PM: 

Here’s an interesting question on this parable, proposed by Fr. Paul D. Scalia (yes, the son of the former Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia) in an article, “The Poverty of Wealth,” at The Catholic Thing.  

 

Who is the more pitiable in this parable, Dives (the rich man) or Lazarus? Naturally, our heart goes out to Lazarus, the poor man at the gate, longing for scraps of food and whose sores the dogs would come and lick (an endearing detail to today’s dog lovers; but not to the ancient Jews, who didn’t have that same affection). In fact, Dives is the more to be pitied, not only because it’s far worse to do evil than to suffer it, but also because of what he became by way of his sin. So, we must appreciate the wretched state of Dives and the sin that brought him to it.

I think the person to be pitied becomes inverted with the inversion of status in God’s kingdom.  I think this is a very pertinent question to ask. 

Notable Quote: The Most Important by Meister Eckhart

“The most important hour is always the present one; always the most important person is who is facing you; always the most important deed is love."

-Meister Eckhart

MeisterEckhart was not a saint but a wonderful German mystic and theologian. He was accused of heresy during his lifetime and just when he was on his way to Avignon—it was during the Papal relocation from Rome to Avignon—to defend his writings and preaching, he died. So the accusations stuck for some seven centuries until Pope John Paul II cleared his name. I only know a little of Meister Eckhart’s writings, but the little I know seem quite profound. He was a Dominican friar by the way, which is why I know a little about him. He was at the forefront of what became the German mystics of the fourteenth century, who called themselves the Friends of God.  

Sunday Meditation: The Unjust Stewart

I know, it’s not Sunday.  It’s Wednesday.  Were you as confused about this past Sunday’s Gospel reading as I was?  Normally if I miss posting a “Sunday Meditation” I usually let it go for the week.  But I had to come back to the Parable of the Unjust Stewart.  I guess I have never understood this parable before because I didn’t understand it now.  Not just not understand it, but completely baffled by it.  So I had to turn to Brant Pitre for an explanation, and you will see he does not disappoint.  It was so enlightening I thought everyone should understand it, and so I posted this “Wednesday” meditation! 

 

First the Gospel reading, but only the parable first.

 

Jesus said to his disciples,

"A rich man had a steward

who was reported to him for squandering his property.

He summoned him and said,

'What is this I hear about you?

Prepare a full account of your stewardship,

because you can no longer be my steward.'

The steward said to himself, 'What shall I do,

now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me?

I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg.

I know what I shall do so that,

when I am removed from the stewardship,

they may welcome me into their homes.'

He called in his master's debtors one by one.

To the first he said,

'How much do you owe my master?'

He replied, 'One hundred measures of olive oil.'

He said to him, 'Here is your promissory note.

Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.'

Then to another the steward said, 'And you, how much do you owe?'

He replied, 'One hundred kors of wheat.'

The steward said to him, 'Here is your promissory note;

write one for eighty.'

And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.

"For the children of this world

are more prudent in dealing with their own generation

than are the children of light.

I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth,

so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

Lk 16:1-9

 

So the steward is fired for being a lousy steward, then cheating his master to ingratiate himself with others, and yet the master commends him?  To add to the confusion, Jesus then goes into a series of wise sayings without any transition from the parable.  Here is how this passage ends.

 

“The person who is trustworthy in very small matters

is also trustworthy in great ones;

and the person who is dishonest in very small matters

is also dishonest in great ones.

If, therefore, you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth,

who will trust you with true wealth?

If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another,

who will give you what is yours?

No servant can serve two masters.

He will either hate one and love the other,

or be devoted to one and despise the other.

You cannot serve both God and mammon."

        Lk 16:10-13

These sayings, on the issues of trustworthiness and money, seem to be directed at the steward.  But the steward is neither trustworthy nor ascetic with money.  He seems to be a disciple of mammon. So why is the steward commended?  At this point, I needed help, and who best than Dr. Pitre.

 

Get that?  You are to pay off spiritual debts—sins—with the Lord’s money, so that those you whose debts you pay off will welcome you into eternal happiness. 

Interesting.  In a way it sounds a lot like works righteousness, only Jesus is not so much referring to works that you are storing up but to some sort of spiritual currency.  The bitcoin of heaven!