What Anthony Weiner can teach us

After a rather lengthy absence from blogging — between my personal life and my work, including a coding binge during April so that I could take a nearly three-week vacation in May (including two glorious weeks in England... post coming on that later) — I'm back on the scene.

By now you have heard of Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-D) and "Weinergate".  Long story short: congressman has sexually explicit conversations with several women online and on the phone, and accidentally sends a woman an inappropriate picture via a public tweet.  (He meant it to be a direct message, a private tweet.)  In a panic, he began concocting a fable that his Twitter account was hacked, and that he was the victim of some hoax or prank.  Yesterday, he set the record straight and took responsibility for his actions; he was visibly distressed during his public apology, which appeared heartfelt.

What can we learn from this?  What can be gained by looking at this little (?) scandal from a Catholic perspective?  A little foray into the Catechism of the Catholic Church (II.2.2.4 — The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, specifically nn. 1451-1454) sheds light on the matter.

When it comes to sin and reconciliation, Catholic theology calls the sinner's first step towards reconciliation contrition.  The Catechism defines it as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again." (CCC 1451)  The Catechism goes further and distinguishes between two kinds of contrition:  imperfect and perfect.

Imperfect contrition is what we express when we consider the ugliness of sin or, more likely (I think), the eternal ramifications that our sins have on our own selves.  Yes, I'm talking about "the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner." (CCC 1453)  This imperfect contrition (also called attrition) is a contrition which grows out of fear.  This sort of contrition is not the ideal, but it is still a gift of God, a movement of the Holy Spirit within us:  it is sufficient for our honest entreaty to God for pardon and forgiveness, which is brought to completion in sacramental confession.  Imperfect contrition is infinitely and eternally better than no contrition!

The ideal, however, is perfect contrition.  While imperfect contrition is derived from fear of Hell, perfect contrition is derived from love of God, "a love by which God is loved above all else." (CCC 1452)  Instead of thinking of ourselves and the mess we've gotten into, we think of God and how, by sinning, we have offended Him, Who is "all good and deserving of all [our] love", as one popular Act of Contrition puts it.  This contrition moves us to be sorry for our sins out of our love for such a great and merciful God, a God Who endured the Passion and Crucifixion for us, because of our sins.

So what does this have to do with Rep. Weiner, the scandal, and the public apology?

If we take Rep. Weiner at his word, he is "deeply sorry" for the "terrible mistakes" he had made.  He is aware of "the pain this has caused" his wife, family, constituents, friends, supporters, and staff.  (Realize that his staff was told to lie about the situation — whether they knew it or not, they were spreading mistruths by advancing the "hacking" fable.)  He admits to not telling the truth and to doing things he "deeply regret[s]", and he apologizes for it.  He is "deeply ashamed of [his] terrible judgment and actions."  One would hope he will not make this errors in judgment in the future; that is, that he has a "firm purpose of amendment."  (He did not make this clear in his statement.)

Rep. Weiner is showing contrition for his sins, even if he didn't say it that way.  But let us consider why he is contrite:  due to a small accident of his keyboard, his actions were suddenly made public, brought to light.  I'm sure he would have preferred no one else ever knew about these things.  But because his conduct is becoming public knowledge, he feels remorse for what he has done.  I think we could consider that "imperfect contrition".  Who knows if he would have ever been moved to contrition if that inappropriate picture had been privately (rather than publicly) transmitted?

But let us not find ourselves in Anthony's situation of having a private mess made public, compounding our sin with more sin (such as lying), compelling us to come clean.  We should not wait for imperfect contrition, for a soul-shuddering fear of Hell to move us to ask God for pardon.  We must want to love God more fully so that our fear diminishes — as St. John so eloquently wrote in 1 John 4:18, perfect love casts out fear.  Let us learn from Anthony's mistakes, and our own, and approach the throne of grace and mercy, not looking over the precipice to the depths below, but looking ahead and up at our loving Father.  May we receive the grace to be truly and perfectly contrite for our sins.

"Structures of sin" and "social sin"

Here are two quotes from documents by Ven. Pope John Paul II on "structures of sin" and "social sin", phrases which sometimes get used out of the context in which the Holy Father insisted they must be understood in:

1984's Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 16, "Personal Sin and Social Sin"

Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person's freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals' sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person's dignity and freedom, which are manifested — even though in a negative and disastrous way — also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.

As a personal act, sin has its first and most important consequences in the sinner himself: that is, in his relationship with God, who is the very foundation of human life; and also in his spirit, weakening his will and clouding his intellect.

At this point we must ask what was being referred to by those who during the preparation of the synod and in the course of its actual work frequently spoke of social sin.

The expression and the underlying concept in fact have various meanings.

To speak of social sin means in the first place to recognize that, by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual's sin in some way affects others. This is the other aspect of that solidarity which on the religious level is developed in the profound and magnificent mystery of the communion of saints, thanks to which it has been possible to say that "every soul that rises above itself, raises up the world." To this law of ascent there unfortunately corresponds the law of descent. Consequently one can speak of a communion of sin, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words, there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, the most strictly individual one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family. According to this first meaning of the term, every sin can undoubtedly be considered as social sin.

Some sins, however, by their very matter constitute a direct attack on one's neighbor and more exactly, in the language of the Gospel, against one's brother or sister. They are an offense against God because they are offenses against one's neighbor. These sins are usually called social sins, and this is the second meaning of the term. In this sense social sin is sin against love of neighbor, and in the law of Christ it is all the more serious in that it involves the Second Commandment, which is "like unto the first." Likewise, the term social applies to every sin against justice in interpersonal relationships, committed either by the individual against the community or by the community against the individual. Also social is every sin against the rights of the human person, beginning with the right to nd including the life of the unborn or against a person's physical integrity. Likewise social is every sin against others' freedom, especially against the supreme freedom to believe in God and adore him; social is every sin against the dignity and honor of one's neighbor. Also social is every sin against the common good and its exigencies in relation to the whole broad spectrum of the rights and duties of citizens. The term social can be applied to sins of commission or omission — on the part of political, economic or trade union leaders, who though in a position to do so, do not work diligently and wisely for the improvement and transformation of society according to the requirements and potential of the given historic moment; as also on the part of workers who through absenteeism or non-cooperation fail to ensure that their industries can continue to advance the well-being of the workers themselves, of their families and of the whole of society.

The third meaning of social sin refers to the relationships between the various human communities. These relationships are not always in accordance with the plan of God, who intends that there be justice in the world and freedom and peace between individuals, groups and peoples. Thus the class struggle, whoever the person who leads it or on occasion seeks to give it a theoretical justification, is a social evil. Likewise obstinate confrontation between blocs of nations, between one nation and another, between different groups within the same nation all this too is a social evil. In both cases one may ask whether moral responsibility for these evils, and therefore sin, can be attributed to any person in particular. Now it has to be admitted that realities and situations such as those described, when they become generalized and reach vast proportions as social phenomena, almost always become anonymous, just as their causes are complex and not always identifiable. Hence if one speaks of social sin here, the expression obviously has an analogical meaning. However, to speak even analogically of social sins must not cause us to underestimate the responsibility of the individuals involved. It is meant to be an appeal to the consciences of all, so that each may shoulder his or her responsibility seriously and courageously in order to change those disastrous conditions and intolerable situations.

Having said this in the clearest and most unequivocal way, one must add at once that there is one meaning sometimes given to social sin that is not legitimate or acceptable even though it is very common in certain quarters today. This usage contrasts social sin and personal sin, not without ambiguity, in a way that leads more or less unconsciously to the watering down and almost the abolition of personal sin, with the recognition only of social guilt and responsibilities. According to this usage, which can readily be seen to derive from non-Christian ideologies and systems — which have possibly been discarded today by the very people who formerly officially upheld them — practically every sin is a social sin, in the sense that blame for it is to be placed not so much on the moral conscience of an individual, but rather on some vague entity or anonymous collectivity such as the situation, the system, society, structures or institutions.

Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when the condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.

A situation-or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself-is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad.

At the heart of every situation of sin are always to be found sinful people. So true is this that even when such a situation can be changed in its structural and institutional aspects by the force of law or-as unfortunately more often happens by the law of force, the change in fact proves to be incomplete, of short duration and ultimately vain and ineffective-not to say counterproductive if the people directly or indirectly responsible for that situation are not converted.

1987's Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 36

It is important to note therefore that a world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid ideologies, and in which instead of interdependence and solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can only be a world subject to structures of sin. The sum total of the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin," which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior.

"Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us.

One can certainly speak of "selfishness" and of "shortsightedness," of "mistaken political calculations" and "imprudent economic decisions." And in each of these evaluations one hears an echo of an ethical and moral nature. Man's condition is such that a more profound analysis of individuals' actions and omissions cannot be achieved without implying, in one way or another, judgments or references of an ethical nature.

This evaluation is in itself positive, especially if it is completely consistent and if it is based on faith in God and on his law, which commands what is good and forbids evil.

In this consists the difference between sociopolitical analysis and formal reference to "sin" and the "structures of sin." According to this latter viewpoint, there enter in the will of the Triune God, his plan for humanity, his justice and his mercy. The God who is rich in mercy, the Redeemer of man, the Lord and giver of life, requires from people clear cut attitudes which express themselves also in actions or omissions toward one's neighbor. We have here a reference to the "second tablet" of the Ten Commandments (cf. Ex 20:12-17; Dt 5:16-21). Not to observe these is to offend God and hurt one's neighbor, and to introduce into the world influences and obstacles which go far beyond the actions and brief life span of an individual. This also involves interference in the process of the development of peoples, the delay or slowness of which must be judged also in this light.

Household chemical waste disposal day

On my way to work this morning, I saw a sign on US Route 1 for "Mercer County Household Chemical and Electronics Waste Disposal Day". Three Saturdays a year, Mercer County offers a 6-hour window when people can drop off various household chemicals (aerosol cans, propane tanks, etc.).

HOUSEHOLD CHEMICAL

AND ELECTRONICS

WASTE DISPOSAL DAY

Sponsored by the

MERCER COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 2010

SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2010

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2010

8 a.m. – 2 p.m. • Rain or Shine

John T. Dempster Fire School

Bakers Basin/Lawrence Station Road • Lawrence Township

“Household Chemical and Electronics Waste

Disposal Days are a great opportunity to remove

dangerous chemicals or materials from your

home and dispose of them in an environmentally

friendly and safe manner without making a lot of

effort. Just gather up your chemical containers

and old electronics, bring them to the Dempster

Center, and let Mercer County do the rest.”

– Brian M. Hughes, County Executive

What's stopping the county -- and homeowners -- from disposing of these chemicals and materials on a regular basis?  What homeowner wants to stockpile old aerosol cans in their house until one of these three Saturdays comes along?  I'm sure there are facilities around the county where such things can be disposed of at leisure, but I don't know where they are or what their hours are.

I think this is a decent analogy for the general attitude (at least in some dioceses in the United States) towards the sacrament of Reconciliation.  While some parishes have the sacrament celebrated weekly, it isn't given great publicity.  There are communal penance services (with individual reception of the sacrament, of course!) during Advent and Lent, but does this promote the proper theology of this sacrament, the proper theology of sin?  It's unhealthy and improper to hold onto mortal sins for months at a time (keeping them "under the kitchen sink", if you will) all the while going about like nothing's amiss.

Mortal sins, like volatile chemicals, deserve (even demand) immediate attention.  If priests can make the sacrament of Reconciliation more available to those souls under their care (and any other souls who happen to be passing by), and speak up about the necessity, importance, and beauty of this sacrament, then maybe we'll regain a sense of sin and a sense of personal responsibility for our conduct as Catholics, and (God-willing) we'll become more faithful, charitable, and moral people.

Wisdom from Fr. Cantalamessa

Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her so that she would be 'without stain.'  And the Church would be without stain if we were not a part of it!  The Church would have one less wrinkle if I committed one less sin.  Martin Luther criticized Erasmus of Rotterdam for remaining in the Catholic Church despite its corruption, but Erasmus answered him: 'I put up with this Church, in the hope that one day it will become better, just as it is constrained to put up with me in the hope that one day I will become better.'

(H/T: Fr. Jay @ Young Fogeys)

Cleansing the Temple at every Mass

From Praying the Mass, chapter 4:

When Jesus entered Jerusalem the week of his Crucifixion (on the day we commemorate as Palm Sunday), he went into the Temple area and “caused a scene.” He drove out the money-changers, men who “helped” Jews on pilgrimage by trading their foreign currency for the coinage used in the Temple… at a lousy exchange rate. After chastising these dishonest bankers, Jesus turned his attention to the blind and the lame, and he healed them. We commemorate – and enter into – his cleansing of the Temple and his healing of the infirm at every Mass. It is called the Penitential Act.

The purpose of the Penitential Act, in the words of the Missal itself, is to “prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.” To do this in honesty and sincerity before God, we must examine ourselves and admit our sin and our sinfulness, asking the Lord for His mercy. Jesus tells us to be reconciled with one another before we present our offerings and ourselves at the altar. (cf. Matt. 5:23-24) In the words of the Catechism, “the first movement of the prayer of petition is asking forgiveness. … It is a prerequisite for righteous and pure prayer.” (Catechism 2631) This is true both in the liturgy and in our personal prayer.

After the priest invites us into this act, there is a brief pause for silent reflection and examination. Make proper use of this silence by calling to mind your sins – the ways you have failed to live out the Gospel in your daily life – and repenting of them. There has been a loss of the sense of sin in our world, with dangerous effects: so long as we’re healthy, wealthy, and wise (in the eyes of the world) we think we’re “all right.” On the contrary, Fr. Thomas Kocik wrote in Loving and Living the Mass that Jesus might say in our contemporary language, “it is better to enter heaven with a guilt complex than to enter Gehenna brimming with self-confidence.” (p. 43)

So how is this anything similar to the wild-but-tender side of Christ that we see in Matthew 21:12-14? “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?” (1 Cor. 6:19) “We are the temple of the living God.” (2 Cor. 6:16) We are temples, but we are marred by the stain of sin, as guilty as the money-changers though our sins might be completely different. We are temples, but we are plagued with sickness, as in need of Christ’s healing touch as were the blind and the lame. In the Penitential Act, Jesus Christ comes to us to cleanse us and to heal us of our sins.

Lenten Laments in English: Parce, Domine

Here is my attempt at a decent translation of Parce, Domine which retains the melody of the Latin chant.

R. Spare Thy people, Lord; spare us, Lord, we kneel here before Thee: lest Thy anger stay upon us forever.

1. To our knees we fall before Thy wrath, weeping tears of true contrition; crying out in supplication, we call to Thee with sorrowful hearts.

2. By our sins we have offended Thee, transgressing upon Thy mercy; pour down upon us from on high Thy gracious pardon, merciful One.

3. Cleanse the off'ring of our hearts, O Lord, in our tears and Thy charity: now is the day of salvation, now is a most acceptable time.

4. O benign Creator hear our prayers, bend Thine ear to our lamentations, in this season of penitence, this holy Lent of forty days.

5. O, beloved searcher of the heart, Thou Who knowest ev'ry weakness; grant Thy grace of forgiveness to those returning unto Thee.

Lenten Lament: Attende, Domine

R. Attende, Domine, et miserere: quia peccavimus tibi.

(Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy: because we have sinned against You.)

1. Ad te, Rex summe, omnium Redemptor, oculos nostros sublevamus flentes: exaudi, Christe, supplicantum preces.

(To you, Most High King, Redeemer of us all, we lift our eyes, weeping: hear, O Christ, our prayers of supplication.)

2. Dextera Patris, lapis angularis, via salutis, ianua caelestis, ablue nostri maculas delicti.

([You are] at the right hand of the Father, the Corner-stone, the Way of Salvation, the Doorway to Heaven: blot out the stains of our sins.)

3. Rogamus, Deus, tuam maiestatem: auribus sacris gemitus exaudi: crimina nostra placidus indulge.

(We ask Your Majesty, O God: hear [our] groans with [Your] holy ears: graciously pardon our offenses.)

4. Tibi fatemur crimina admissa: contrito corde pandimus occulta: tua Redemptor, pietas ignoscat.

(To You we confess [our] consented sins: we disclose [our] hidden [sins] with contrine heart: O Redeemer, may your mercy forgive [them/us]!)

5. Innocens captus, nec repugnans ductus, testibus falsis pro impiis damnatus: quos redemisti, tu conserva, Christe.

(Innocent, held captive; not fighting back, lead forth; condemned by false witnesses, for [the sake of] the wicked: O Christ, keep safe those whom you have saved.)

In verse 5, the clause testibus falsis pro impiis damnatus can be translated a number of ways, including "condemned by false witnesses in the midst of the wicked" (wicked = Pharisees, etc.) and "condemned as the wicked [are condemned], by false witnesses" (wicked = sinners in general).

Next week, I'll work on producing "nice" translations (i.e. ones that roll of the tongue more easily) of Parce, Domine and Attende, Domine.

Lenten Lament: Attende Domine

Next Wednesday, I'll post another Lenten favorite of mine, Attende Domine ("Hear [us] Lord"). This and Parce Domine are two of the earliest chants I learned (all of 18 months ago). They are simple melodies to learn, certainly penitential in character, and the words could not be truer. The Latin is beautiful, and it doesn't hurt to know what it means in English either!

Here's a teaser for Attende Domine:

R. Attende, Domine, et miserere: quia peccavimus tibi.

(Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy: because we have sinned against You.)

1. Ad te, Rex summe, omnium Redemptor, oculos nostros sublevamus flentes: exaudi, Christe, supplicantum preces.

(To you, Most High King, Redeemer of us all, we lift our eyes, weeping: hear, O Christ, our prayers of supplication.)

That's enough for now. Meditate on those words (and the words of Parce Domine) during Lent, especially on Friday.

As part of your penance (or mine?) I plan on recording myself singing this and Parce Domine and placing it online.

Lenten Lament: Parce Domine

R. Parce Domine, parce populo tuo: ne in aeternum irascaris nobis.

(Spare, O Lord, spare Your people: lest You be angry with us forever.)

1. Flectamus iram vindicem, ploremus ante Judicem; clamemus ore supplici, dicamus omnes cernui.

(Let us bow before the avenging wrath, let us weep before the Judge; let us cry out with words of supplication, let us all speak, falling prostrate.)

2. Nostris malis offendimus tuam Deus clementiam; effunde nobis desuper remissor indulgentiam.

(O God, by our wickedness we have offended Your clemency; pour forth on us from above, O forgiving One, Your pardon.)

3. Dans tempus acceptabile, da lacrimarum rivulis lavare cordis victimam, quam laeta adurat caritas.

(Giving us an acceptable time, grant to purify, in the rivers of our tears, the sacrifice of our hearts, enkindled by joyful charity.)

4. Audi, benigne Conditor, nostras preces cum fletibus in hoc sacro jejunio fusas quadragenario.

(Hear, O benign Creator, our prayers, with lamentations, poured forth during this holy fast of forty days.)

5. Scrutator alme cordium, infirma tu scis virium; ad te reversis exhibe remissionis gratiam.

(O beloved searcher of hearts, You know the weakness of mortal bodies; show to those returning to You the grace of forgiveness.)

---

English translations are essentially my own. Verse 3 was a tough one.

The antiphon is based on Joel 2:17.

Verse 1 is from Ex more docti mystico (Pope St. Gregory I), verse 5 (according to the revision by Pope Urban VIII). Verse 2 is from Ex more docti mystico, verse 6 (original).

Verse 3 is from O Sol salutis initimis (Pope Urban VIII), verse 2 (revision of Iam, Christe, sol iustitiae).

Verses 4 and 5 are from Audi, benigne Conditor (Pope St. Gregory I), verses 1 and 2.

Theology: Peter as an example for us (Part 1)

The Apostles were present for countless miracles and, as Jesus's trusted circle, received instruction into the meanings behind his parables. I'd like to focus, though, on Peter's experiences with Jesus:

• Jesus called Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew from their occupations as fishermen to be his first Apostles (Matt 4:18-22; Luke 5:1-11)
• Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15)
• Jesus brought Simon, James, and John into the house of Jairus whose daughter he resurrected (Matt 9:23-25; Mark 5:22-24,35-42)
  
• Jesus called Simon out of the boat to walk on the ocean, but Simon faltered (Matt 14:22-33)
• Simon confessed that Jesus has "the words of eternal life" (John 6:68)
  
• Simon professed, through the grace of God, that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" and Jesus names Simon "Peter" (meaning "rock") (Matt 16:13-19)
• Shortly thereafter, Simon tried to defy God's will for Jesus, and Jesus called him "Satan" (Matt 16:20-23)
• Jesus took Simon, with James and John, up a mountain, where they witnessed his transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8)
• Jesus tested Simon when questioned about paying the temple tax (Matt 17:24-27)
• Simon asked Jesus how often he must forgive his brother (Matt 18:21-22)
• Simon asked Jesus what the Apostles will receive for their sacrifices in following Jesus (Matt 19:27-29)
• Simon questioned Jesus's intent when Jesus prepared to wash the Apostles' feet (John 13:5-10)
  
• Simon promised Jesus that his faith shall not be shaken, but Jesus foretold Simon's denial (Matt 26:31-35; Luke 22:31-34; John 13:36-38)
• Simon, James, and John fell asleep while Jesus prayed in Gethsemane (Matt 26:36-46)
• Simon defended Jesus in Gethsemane with a sword (Luke 22:49-50; John 18:10)
  
• Simon betrayed Jesus three times (Matt 26:69-75)
• Simon noticed the empty burial cloths at the tomb, and was later visited by the risen Christ (Luke 24:12,33-34)
• Simon received a personal commission from Jesus to tend to Jesus's flock (John 21:15-19)
• After Pentecost, Simon performed many miracles through the power of Christ, although he did suffer a case of hypocrisy regarding the issue of the necessity of Gentiles following the Judaic law (Gal 2:11-14)
  

As you're probably aware, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes something called the "primacy of Peter", the concept that Peter had a distinguished position among the Apostles, which is one of the foundations upon which is based the institution of the Papacy (Peter being the first Pope, having a successor down through the centuries). Here are only some examples of the Scriptural evidence:

• he is the most frequently named Apostle in the New Testament
• he and his brother Andrew are the first Apostles
• he (along with a couple other Apostles) is often taken aside for specific revelation (such as the Transfiguration and the resurrection of Jairus's daughter)
• he is named Peter by Christ (the only Apostle to receive such an honor, as the bestowing of a new name on a person is a very important sign in Biblical literature)
• he alone was called out by Jesus to walk on the water
• he often speaks on behalf of the Apostles
• he is used by Jesus as a spokesman when asked about paying the tax
• he is prayed for by Jesus that his faith may not fail, and Jesus charges him to strengthen the other Apostles
  
• he is questioned by Jesus in Gethsemane for the failure of the Apostles present to stay awake
• he is named personally by an angel at the tomb after the Resurrection
• he was the spokesman for all who received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, preaching to the crowd that had gathered
• Paul stayed with him for two weeks before beginning his ministry, even after Paul received a revelation from Christ

But let us instead focus on Peter's faults, because it is in Peter's sinful human nature that we see the whole picture of the man chosen by Christ to shepherd the early church. On multiple occasions, shortly after Peter says or does something truly blessed, he follows it by blundering magnificently.

Walking on water, drowning in doubt
(Matt 13:22-33)
After the miracle of the fish and loaves, Matthew records an incident that occurred late at night on the sea by Capernaum. Jesus's disciples were crossing it by ship at night when the water and wind became rough. Then they saw Jesus walking across the water to them. Although Jesus greeted them, they were still unsure, and Simon told Jesus to command him to walk upon the water to him. Simon did walk upon the water, but then he noticed just how strong the winds were and began to sink. He cried out to Jesus, "Lord, save me!" (Matt 14:30) Jesus caught him by the arm and brought him into the boat, and asked Simon, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Matt 14:31) What happened to the faith Simon had as he stepped onto the water?

Peter the Rock, Peter the Adversary
(Matt 16:13-23)
Jesus asked his disciples "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" (Matt 16:13). His disciples reported the popular opinions, that he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or some other prophet. Then Jesus asks Simon "But who do you say that I am?" to which he responds "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt 16:15-16) Jesus then tells Simon that this revelation was granted to him by the Father in heaven, and not by men. Jesus then names Simon "Peter" ("Kephas", meaning "rock") and tells him that "on this rock I will build my church" (Matt 16:18) which Roman Catholics understand to be a statement about Peter, not about the declaration he made (although what Peter spoke was the truth). Shortly after this incident, though, as Jesus is explaining his future suffering and death (and resurrection), Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes him, trying to assure him that God would never permit such atrocities. Jesus then responds to Peter thus: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (Matt 16:23) What happened to Peter, the Rock, the man who received revelation from God the Father?

Unshakeable faith... shaken
(Matt 26:31-75; Luke 22:31-34; John 18:10)
At the Last Supper, Jesus tells his Apostles that they shall fall away from him that very evening. He tells Peter that he has prayed for him, "that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22:32) Peter declares his fealty despite what the other Apostles do. Later, when they went into Gethsemane, Jesus takes Peter (along with James and John, the sons of Zebedee) with him even deeper into the garden to keep watch as he prays. But when he returns an hour later he finds Peter and the other two asleep. Jesus asks Peter why they could not stay awake and warns him that "the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matt 26:41) Twice more Jesus goes off to pray and returns to sleeping "watchmen". Peter attempts to save Jesus when the crowd comes to arrest him by cutting the ear of a servant to a high priest, but Jesus rebukes him for this action (John 18:10; Matt 26:52-54). Then, after Peter was waiting in the courtyard to see what would happen to Jesus, some bystanders noted him and recognized him. Three times Peter denied Christ, saying he did not even know him. Then he heard a cock crowing and he remembered what Jesus had foretold; he left the courtyard and wept. Where is the man who would go to prison and suffer death for Christ?

Here we see three instances of Peter at his extremes: full of faith one moment and seemingly bereft of it the next! (How could such a man, the Reformers ask, be the "vicar of Christ"?!) Peter, the man who proclaimed "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.", was also the man to whom Jesus responded, "Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men." (Luke 5:8-10)

So what does all this have to do with Peter being an example for us? I want to compare and contrast the elements of these three incidents: what Peter did right and what Peter did wrong. Peter is a classical case of a prodigal son, a repentent sinner, a man who endured in his faith to the end despite his human doubt.

Look for Part 2 of this post next week some time this month eventually. In the meantime, I encourage you to post your comments and commentaries on the Scripture passages I've highlighted (or point out more of your own -- I certainly haven't covered everything Peter-related).

Theology: Forgiveness of sins... righting of wrongs

At ChristianForums.com, I've become involved in a thread on this question: "How exactly do I repent for my sins?" One member of the site, Treasurer, quoted Luke 19:1-10, where the sinful tax collector Zacchaeus shows his repentance by donating half his possessions to the poor and by promising to repay any amount he has cheated the taxpayers out of. Notice that Zacchaeus is demonstrating his faith by works: donation (almsgiving) as well as correcting the problems caused by his sins.

This is one place where Catholic theology differs from most Protestant theologies. We all agree that through Christ's sacrifice we have forgiveness of sins, but Catholics recognize that Christ has covered the eternal payment due for our sinful nature, specifically, our spiritual death, our eternal separation from God. Jesus never promised us that his sacrifice would fix the temporal problems we have created for others when we sinned. In fact, Jesus tells us that it is up to us to deal with the temporal situation:

Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24)

Here we see Jesus telling us (through the apostles) to make amends with the person whom we have wronged (or who has wronged us). Clearly it is unreasonable to expect that we will be able to undo every evil that our sins have caused, especially as we consider sins of months and years past -- who can even remember all the sins they have committed? We pray that God recognizes our efforts to correct those we do remember and can correct. But this does not mean we can just "write off" all the evil as unfixable just because some of it is beyond our power to correct! The person I insulted yesterday might still be hurting, even though I have asked God to forgive me for my unkindness (and therefore I am not "hurting"). What reason could I possibly have for not going back to that person and righting the wrong I have committed by apologizing (at the very least)?!

If we hold ourselves unaccountable for the ramifications of our sins, what is stopping us from living in a manner truly detrimental to our neighbors, and excusing our actions as being "covered" by the grace of God through belief in Jesus Christ? Imagine how terrible this life would be if we submitted to injustice in the flesh at the same time as we benefited from justice in the spirit! I will not accept such hypocrisy from myself. Jesus demands that we "go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37), and I will accept that command with all it entails.