When Donald Trump’s policy of building a wall along the U. S. – Mexico border was in the news, Pope Francis was reported to have advocated a contrary policy of (metaphorically) building bridges. Probably His Holiness would not have needed to ponder for long before realising that each of those alternatives is useful in appropriate circumstances. It depends on the desired purpose. Bridges facilitate access, and walls facilitate security, but access is not always desirable and security can be taken too far. Donald Trump’s wall was intended to keep people out, and the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in; they had a common effect of exclusion – Mr. Trump wanted to exclude illegal immigrants, and the East German Communist Party wanted to exclude the possibility (already taken by many people) of leaving the East. If considered empathetically, each objective can be understood, but not necessarily approved.
One of the vogue concepts in today’s ‘mainstream’ secular and religious world is ‘inclusivity’. Consequently, ‘exclusion’ is ‘out’. The secular ‘parent’ of ‘inclusivity’ is ‘tolerance,’ and the religious one is ‘love’. In the places in which this analysis is probably most likely to be read, public comment is dominated by secular opinions; one result is that the meaning of ‘love’ has been contaminated. A sign that the contamination has entered the religious sphere is noticeable when religiously-inclined people use ‘tolerance’ as a substitute for ‘love’ – no doubt hoping thereby to stem the steady slide into indifference and apostasy. Pope Francis, for example, regards making the faith attractive as the top priority, and has seemed to choose accordingly the matters on which he comments and the style in which he does so.
A seemingly-ignored question is whether love and/or tolerance oblige Christians to treat exclusion like a plague. Put in another, and ‘pre-modern,’ way: can it be right to regard something or somebody as ‘anathema’?
The subject can be examined from an ‘in principle’ viewpoint and from a ‘strategic’ viewpoint.
1. Is exclusion wrong in principle? What about ‘anathematising’ as a moral duty?
This could entail a wide-ranging analysis of ‘love’ and ‘tolerance,’ but that is impractical here, so let it be sufficient to note prescriptions from the highest among the authorities.
A. the Gospels
Our Lord said:
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” and “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you”;[1]
“Judge not, that you be not judged,” [2] but He said also “judge with right judgment.” [3] He said “condemn not” [4] (as the woman who had been brought to Him and accused of committing adultery was not condemned [5]), but that un[dis?]believers are condemned. [6]
He said “forgive,” [7] but that if an offender refuses to listen to witnesses or the Church, ostracise him, [8] and shake off from your feet the dust of a town which rejects you. [9]
Contrast with the above His references to “brood of vipers” [10] and “hypocrites,” [11] and His expulsion of the Temple traders. [12]
B. the Epistles
St. Paul’s teaching contains considerable reference to exclusion; St. John, who wrote far fewer Letters, mentioned it once.
‘In line’ with Our Lord’s instruction to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for our abusers and persecutors, [13] St. Paul wrote “Bless those who persecute you;…and do not curse them.” [14] Similarly ‘in line’ with Our Lord (“do good to those who hate you” [15]), he wrote “Repay no-one evil for evil,… No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink.” [16] ‘On the other hand,’ he taught avoidance of “those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught;” [17] anybody who preached perverted versions of the gospel should “be accursed.” [18] Avoid also, he wrote, people inside the Church who are lazy,[19] immoral (interpreted in an end-note in the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1966, to mean those who are fornicators), greedy, idolatrous, angrily insulting, habitually drunk, or who rob (do not even eat with such a one), but this ban does not refer to people outside the Church who are guilty of such behaviour (since if it did “you would need to go out of the world”) – the rule is “Drive out the wicked person from among you,” [20] and “have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” [21]
Another list of people (apparently regardless of whether they are in or out of the Church) who should be avoided is given in 2 Timothy 3:2-7. Contrast Our Lord’s reply to the complaint that He ate with tax-collectors and sinners. [22] Contrast also the necessity of preaching to the wayward[23] with “have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed, [but d]o not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” [24] Is it only an appointed “watchman” who should warn the wayward? Asking God “am I my brother’s keeper?” did not enable Cain to evade responsibility.[25]
St. Paul’s reference to members of the Church as ‘brothers’ [26] seems to show that he regarded all of us as ‘watchmen’ over each other. This finds an ‘echo’ in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” paragraph 1829’s reference to “fraternal correction” as a fruit of love – a lover desires the welfare of the loved, and welfare includes avoidance of what should be avoided: God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[27]A man who is inclined to dissent should be admonished once or twice and then avoided. [28] This should not be misinterpreted. St. Paul insisted on sound doctrine and condemned dissent from it; [29] that is the dissent to which Titus 3:10 refers. “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” [30]
“Do not be mismated with unbelievers. … [W]hat has a believer in common with an unbeliever? [31] Depending on what is the correct meaning of “mismated” (e.g. friendship? marriage?), this instruction may not strictly be synonymous with exclusion, but there seems little practical difference. St. Paul seems to be telling his audience to avoid involvement with unbelievers. Again, however, there is an evident difficulty of recognising compatibility with Romans 10:14-15 (op. cit.), because unbelievers cannot “believe in him of whom they have never heard[,] and how are they to hear without a preacher?” Avoidance of involvement with unbelievers is likely to leave them in darkness. Nevertheless, St. Paul is on record as having taught that it is because of immorality, impurity, and idolatry that “the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them” or (which would, of course, be worse) take part in their works, but (rather than simply ignore them) “instead expose them.” [32]
A very wide ‘net’ was cast by St. Paul when he told Timothy to avoid people who love themselves and/or money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, those who slander, are profligate, fierce, hate good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, love pleasure rather than God, and those who hold the form of religion but deny the power of it. [33]
Apparently the same rule of avoidance applies to people “who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth,” [34] who, furthermore, “oppose” it, [35] having a “corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;” [36] this is a useful reminder that professed faith is not always authentic, and therefore that to describe somebody as a Christian can be a mistake. St. Paul gave a specific example of possible distinction between appearance and substance: “he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.” [37] History and current reality vindicate St. Paul’s prediction that people will not accept sound teaching but turn away from it, wandering into myths and following teachers who suit their own likings [38] and being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” [39]
St. John wrote that anybody who does not bring the doctrine of Christ should not be received into the house or greeted, because such a greeting would constitute sharing in wicked work. [40] This instruction seems, rationally, to refer to the bringing of a religious message, not to the bringing of something unrelated to religion; so surely it is legitimate to greet and let in a plumber, for example.
C. The First Vatican Council
‘Vatican I’ was held (between 1869 and 1870) for, inter alia, “the increase and exaltation of the catholic faith and religion” and “for the uprooting of current errors.” [41] Its declarations are collectively a magnificent model of Catholic orthodoxy and identity. Pope Pius IX recited and declared his unhesitating belief in “each and every article” of the profession of faith used by the Church, together with everything else which had been “transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent.” Then he added that “whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.” In terms which apply exactly also to today’s world, he described widespread rejection of established doctrine, even among many members of the Church, who have strayed from the right path, “and as the truth was gradually diluted in them, their catholic sensibility was weakened.”
In response to the calamity the Council re-affirmed various truths, and “Let him be anathema” was used on 22 occasions, referring to anybody who asserted specified errors (aggregate total thereof: 40).
[1] Matt. 5:44; Lk. 6:27-28, 35.
[2] Matt. 7:1; Lk. 6:37.
[3] Jn. 7:24.
[4] Lk. 6:37.
[5] Jn. 8: 11.
[6] Jn. 3:18.
[7] Matt. 6:14, 18:21-22, 24-35; Lk. 6:37, 17:3-4.
[8] Matt. 18:15-17.
[9] Lk. 9: 5, 10:10-11.
[10] Matt. 12:34; 23:33.
[11] Matt. 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Lk. 12:56, 13:15.
[12] Matt. 21:12-13; Mk. 11:15-17; Lk. 19:45-46; Jn. 2:14-16.
[13] Matt. 5:44; Lk. 6:27-28, 35.
[14] Rom. 12:14.
[15] Lk. 6:27.
[16] Rom. 12:17, 20; also 1 Thess. 5:15.
[17] Rom. 16:17.
[18] Gal. 1:8-9; that seems to contradict his own prohibition on cursing (Rom. 12:14, op. cit.), so perhaps he meant ‘let him be avoided as if he has been accursed by someone else,’ not that the curse should be imposed by the current hearers of those perverted versions.
[19] 2 Thess. 3:6.
[20] 1 Cor. 5:9-13.
[21] 2 Thess. 3:14.
[22] Matt. 9:10-13; Mk. 2:15-17; Lk. 5:29-32, 15:1-10.
[23] Ezek. 33:1-19 and Rom. 10:14-15.
[24] 2 Thess. 3:14.
[25] Gen. 4: 9-12.
[26] Mentioned also in 1 Cor. 5:11.
[27] 1 Tim. 2:4.
[28] Titus 3:10.
[29] E.g. 2 Tim. 3:7; 4:3-4; Titus 1:9; 2:1.
[30] 1 Tim. 5:20, reflecting Matt. 18:15-17.
[31] 2 Cor. 6:14-15.
[32] Eph. 5:5-11.
[33] 2 Tim. 3:2-5.
[34] 2 Tim. 3:7; in a word, relativists.
[35] 2 Tim. 3:8; they oppose it because they do not recognise it as truth and therefore deny a duty to submit to it.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Rom. 3:28-29; see also 2 Pet. 1:20-2:2, and Matt. 7:21-23.
[38] 2 Tim. 4:3-4.
[39] Eph. 4:14.
[40] 2 Jn. 9-11.
[41] https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm#SnippetTab