If considered from a religious ‘angle,’ celebration of Christmas is logical. Celebrating the commencement of a new year seems utterly illogical, but probably that fact is of no concern to people who do so (‘Why allow rationality to thwart fun?’).
Joy has, undoubtedly, a natural capacity for being attractive and ‘infectious,’ which ‘explains’ New Year’s Night’s euphoria in ignorance of what the new year will bring. Instead of attributing joy to hopefulness,1 why not wait to see whether the hope is fulfilled, and be joyful if it is?
Apart from simple rationality, there is an interesting and important question of whether joy is obligatory for Christians.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church”2 refers favourably to joy as a fruit of the Holy Spirit. The authority cited is Galatians 5:22-23, in which St. Paul added that “against such there is no law.” Should we deduce therefrom that there is a law against joy’s opposite?
We can, furthermore, note that the ‘joy of the Master’ is the kingdom of Heaven granted to diligent servants,3 and, in the light of that, ask: can discouragement co-exist legitimately with religious diligence?
Sister Josefa Menendez wrote that Our Lord told her, “I want you to live in joy, while endeavouring all the time to be something of an executioner to self. Often choose what costs you, but without loss of joy and gladness, for by serving Me in peace and happiness you will give the most glory to My Heart.”4
That should not be disparaged on the ground that it was a ‘private revelation’ and/or that it applied only to her. It is compatible with Our Lord’s reassurances to the disciples, after the Last Supper,5 recommending equanimity and joy. Some seem relevant specifically to His Passion, death, and Resurrection. They could, however, be interpreted more widely, and Christianity is based on the premise that His words and deeds were intended as enduring models. The clearest ‘open-ended’ reassurance is “In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”6 God’s desires from us are not mere preferences, accompanied by indifference as to our compliance. ‘Your wish is my command’ is not merely a famous line from a pantomime.
Consequently, based on Our Lord’s own words and on the teaching of the Church, joy does seem to be obligatory for Christians. That vindicates, for example, a prayer that Our Lord will “Let us rejoice and embrace what is good and happy, forsaking the gloom of negative thinking.”7 Also vindicated was advice that “the new life of the resurrection” is received “in a fresh and new way…by turning to God [and] saying sorry for negative ways of thinking…”,8 and a prayer asking, “Lord, teach me that it is wrong to be sad,…or pessimistic…”9
About what are we obliged to be joyful? Fundamentally, our having been created, baptised, and given the chance of reaching Heaven. En route, however, “[we] have tribulation,” but Our Lord told us to “be of good cheer.”10 Are we obliged to be joyful in all circumstances? Joy can be smothered, but objectively we should not for long lose sight of it. No doubt for that reason, encouragement, to various extents, is a standard element of clerical and episcopal comment. Do such statements ‘rub off’ on their recipients? The “Catechism of the Catholic Church”11 assumes that the laity always accept and implement what they are told. How much sign is there that typical Catholics who still go to Mass are so uplifted by sermons that their consequent evangelism is carried out in a spirit akin to “Oh what a beautiful mornin’…”12?
There are solid doctrinal justifications for fundamental joy in our hearts, but inflating it to the extent that it blots out realities around us is just as much an obstacle to the Church’s ‘leavening’ mission as types of attitude which Pope Francis wishes to banish. The joy which is being displayed conspicuously by the institutional Church is very obviously a practical strategy intended to cultivate a benign attitude among those who are outside the ‘fold’ (even if, nominally, they are in it; see “Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 837). Pope Francis made this crystal clear in “Evangelii Gaudium,” and, a few months earlier, in his interview for various Jesuit magazines. There is, of course, nothing wrong with a wish to cultivate a benign attitude, or with recognising the existence of factors which in practice can or do impede it. Reality is a fact, and taking proper account of it in making plans is legitimate.
The interpretation of “proper account” is crucial. It is necessary to recognise obstacles, in order to look for ways of overcoming them. Because “no human activity can be withdrawn from God’s dominion”13 and the task is to “remedy the conditions and institutions of the world when [they] are an inducement to sin” in order to make them favour rather than hinder the practice of virtue,14 it is not legitimate to surrender to the obstacles or allow an impression of sympathy towards opinions that the ‘obstacles’ are really to be approved.
No doubt because “European culture gives the impression of “silent apostasy” on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist,”15 ordained and lay members of the Church are not vocal advocates of controversial, widely-rejected Catholic principles. Whereas paragraph 31 of Vatican II’s “Decree of the Apostolate of the Laity” said that the laity should learn doctrine, especially subjects of controversy, more diligently, it is not unusual to encounter overt ‘down-playing’ of such subjects, and (worse) support for contradiction of them. A well-known Catholic, invited by the BBC on appropriate occasions to contribute undoubted expert knowledge within his special field, said in 2013 that he hopes the Church will stop talking about subjects on which young people have written it off as an authority. He must have been encouraged by the fact that Pope Francis, in his 2013 interview for Jesuit magazines and in “Evangelii Gaudium,” described some of those subjects as “secondary” to the Church’s main message.
Such subordination of specific and fundamental Catholic principles to general and therefore-more-comfortably-asserted ones is disconcertingly reminiscent of what Pope Benedict called “a facile accommodation to the spirit of the age.”16 Instead of “a sound implantation of the Gospel in contemporary language and culture,”17 it is an unsound adaptation of the Gospel to contemporary language and culture. It is making the Church think and function like a political Party, ‘dropping’ voter-alienating policies.
Pope Francis seems to have that type of inclination. For example, he wrote that where Christianity is a minority “the ultimate aim should be that the Gospel, as preached in categories proper to each culture, will create a new synthesis with that particular culture.”18 “Ultimate” indicates ‘long-term’ and final. “A new synthesis” is uncomfortably indicative of ‘accommodating compromise,’ which in practice means that the minority view of things is evident and implemented only in so far as allowed by the power-holding representatives of the majority view. That would be satisfactory if the majority view were the right one, but by Christian standards often it is not.
It has been submitted above that joy in our hearts is obligatory for Christians. In “Evangelii Gaudium,” Pope Francis promoted it as a strategy. Apart from whether the ‘faithful’ do, in fact,19 embrace and adopt what priests and bishops propose, are they obliged to adopt joy as a strategy? The answer requires reference to principles which neglect has helped to negate (the negation shows that truth cannot be influential unless it is publicised adequately).
There was a time when ordinary Catholics knew that, in ordinary language, they must ‘obey the Pope’ or ‘obey the Church’. The alarming erosion of that knowledge and/or assumption renders necessary a revival of attention to the basis, meaning, and extent of the duty of obedience. The relevant information can be found in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”20 and Vatican II’s “Lumen Gentium.”21 Those sources confirm that the essence of faith (the adequate response to God’s invitation into His company) is the complete submission of one’s intellect and will. That submission is “the obedience of faith.” It is required to be shown to the Word of God, and the task of interpreting that Word authentically has been entrusted by Christ exclusively to the living teaching office (the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church. That teaching function is exercised supremely by the Pope, and extends to bishops who are in communion with him. The Magisterium’s task is to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error, for which purpose Christ endowed the Magisterium with infallibility in faith and morals. The key factor in ascertainment of the duty of obedience is the category into which Papal statements fall. The duty arises when they are about matters of faith or morals. Infallibility and obedience do not arise only in cases of first-time declarations ex cathedra, but also when there are other manifestations of the Holy Father’s mind and will, which may be recognised from the type of document in which he manifests them, or from his frequent repetition of the teaching, or from the manner in which he expresses it.22
A distinctively-Catholic, but neglected, fact is that the duty is not subordinate to, but overrides, the personal thoughts of the people to whom the statements are directed. People are not entitled to regard Magisterial statements as mere suggestions or opinions, but are bound to accept their teaching given in Christ’s name; and, furthermore, the Magisterium (however much may be its consideration of others’ thoughts and experience) is not the servant of popular or widespread opinion, but is entitled to demand assent.23 Similarly, personal conscience and reason must not be invoked in opposition to the Magisterium or to the moral law.24
It is evident from the “Catechism” and “Lumen Gentium” that Papal or episcopal statements on matters other than faith or morals are not binding on conscience. Therefore, respectful disagreement with such statements is not culpable disloyalty. If, for example, the Pope or a bishop advocates a particular pastoral and/or practical strategy (such as use of particular technological equipment) for the exposition and advancement of the Church’s teaching, a Catholic who believes that the advocated strategy is not a good idea should not feel obliged to comply unless, surely, so required by his special position and/or by an accepted promise of obedience.
It is time to draw a conclusion from the circumstances set out above.
An appearance of joyfulness is now prescribed as the best strategy for engaging with the religiously-uncommitted. It was already far more noticeable than adoption of Pope Benedict’s request that British bishops proclaim the counter-culturally life-giving elements of the Gospel.25 The prospects of such proclamations being prioritised and made forcefully by many European hierarchies do not seem bright, because it would be contrary to not only Europe’s adoption of the “culture of death”26 but also to the long-established culture of ‘moderation’ in the Church. There is also the disappointing fact that Pope Francis has given ‘mixed messages’ regarding the importance of ‘life’-related ‘hot-potatoes’ – “secondary aspects” of which he has “not spoken much” and of which “it is not necessary to talk…all the time”, because “[t]he dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent” and “[p]roclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things…”27 Furthermore, counter-cultural comments, especially about giving life or not destroying it, arouse opposition, and therefore defeat Pope Francis’s declared purpose of appearing joyful.
Opposition is, of course, a familiar problem. Not long has elapsed since St. John Henry Newman was recommended earnestly, as joy is now. Pictures of him suggest that he was not a very joyful fellow, and at least some of his writings convey that impression. He seems to have had no high hopes of converting “[h]eathens, and quasi-heathens (such as the miserable rabble of a large town).”28 He wrote that “We can but desire in our day to keep alive the lamp of truth in the sepulchre of this world till a brighter era.”29
Apparently, today’s proponents of joyful religion had their equivalents also in Newman’s time. He wrote, according to Father Francis Marsden,30 that “The age loves an exclusively cheerful religion. It is determined to make religion bright and sunny and joyous…whatever be the form of it which it adopts. And it will handle the Catholic doctrine in this spirit; it will skim over it…[W]e take what is beautiful and attractive, shrink from what is stern and painful.”
In the joyful style of evangelisation which Pope Francis has asked us to adopt in all of our activities,31 those will not be among the most widely-quoted of the Cardinal’s comments.
1. “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraphs 1818-1821.
2. Paragraphs 736 and 1832.
3. Matt. 25: 21 & 23; cf. “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 1720.
4. “The Way of Divine Love;” Sands & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 1949, p.127.
5. Jn. 14:1 & 27; 15:11; 16:6, 20, 22, & 33.
6. Jn. 16:33.
7. Redemptorist Publications’ “Sunday Plus” sheet for Easter Sunday 2014.
8. “Walk With Me,” Alive Publishing, Lent 2014, p.56.
9. Ibid., p.61.
10. Jn. 16:33, op. cit.
11. Paragraphs 87 & 93.
12. “Oklahoma!” Rodgers & Hammerstein.
13. “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 912.
14. Ibid., paragraph 909.
15. Apostolic Exhortation, “Ecclesia in Europa,” Pope St. John Paul, paragraph 9.
16. Speech in Westminster Abbey; “Catholic Herald,” London, 24th September 2010, p.14.
17. Ibid.
18. “Evangelii Gaudium,” op. cit., paragraph 129.
19. (as the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraphs 87 & 93, op. cit., assumes)
20. Paragraphs 85, 882-883, 890-892, and 142-143.
21. Paragraph 25.
22. “Lumen Gentium,” paragraph 25.
23. “Mysterium Ecclesiae” Declaration in Defence of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 24th June 1973, section 2. That document contained examples of impermissible beliefs or opinions.
24. “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 2039.
25. “Catholic Herald,” London, 24th September 2010, p.20.
26. Pope St. John Paul, “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 12.
27. August 2013 interview for Jesuit magazines (e.g. “A Big Heart Open to God,” “America” magazine, September 2013), and “Evangelii Gaudium” paragraph 34.
28. “How to accomplish it” essay, March 1836, section 11.
29. Ibid.
30. “Catholic Times,” 10th November 2013, p.7.
31. “Evangelii Gaudium,” paragraph 18.
Leave a Reply