Posted on 09/05/2011 9:53:53 AM PDT by Teófilo
Brethren: peace and good to all of you in the name of Jesus.
A few posts ago I formulated a Catholic definition of tolerance derived from biblical and theological first principles. The definition was as follows:
Tolerance is that good habit – that is, the virtue – through which the Catholic Christian actively and consciously loves his neighbor, especially when the neighbor lives in grave sin, by avoiding judgment and showing him the same mercy the Lord shows us for our sins, as we choose the right means to eliminate or ameliorate the evil incurred in this world by the neighbor’s (and our own) actions, through the right exercise of the theological and cardinal virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, so that both our neighbor and us might attain salvation and everlasting life in the world to come.
I wish to reflect briefly on this definition with the aim of triggering some conversation here or elsewhere on the net, and also to move as many fellow Catholics as possible to enact this virtue in their lives. These are the reflection points:
• Tolerance is a good habit, that is, a virtue, which needs to be practiced repeatedly until it becomes second nature as it were. This is where I active cooperation with grace comes. We embrace the grace each and every time we practice the virtue in our lives.Thank you all for your attention. May the love of the Father, the grace of Christ, and the koinonía of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
• We must remember that tolerance, as understood by a Catholic, is not merely a natural virtue or good habit. Tolerance must be based upon the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, in order for the virtue to achieve its supernatural end on us and on others. Otherwise it would be ineffective and supernaturally dead, a “dead work” so-to-speak.
• The subject of the virtue is the acting Catholic; the object of the virtue, the object of our “tolerance” is always the human being who is acting against God’s law as transmitted in revelation or reflected in natural law. The “act” itself is not the object of toleration, but of moral evaluation. The act is good, evil, or neutral. Accordingly, once morally evaluated, our reaction to the act is of approval and furtherance; of disapproval and resistance; or indifference.
• Some well-intentioned souls may be inclined to describe the previous approach as “hate the sin, love the sinners.” I’ve always thought that cliché as dangerous, because “hate” is a dangerous emotion to lay claim to. It is very easy to transfer the hatred from the sinner to the sin. Many of us do it habitually. It is also dangerous to “hate a sin” the way Scripture tells us God does. We can’t “hate” like God does, we are incapable of going beyond the Scriptural anthropomorphism.
• Instead, we should focus on loving as God does, as being compassionate which is, to listen to the neighbor and to procure his or her healing with their salvation (and ours) as the ultimate end.
• The Catholic virtue of tolerance does not exempt us from stopping, correcting, or reversing the evil caused by our neighbors moral falls, particularly when these evils cascade through culture and society. We resist these evils by first, evangelizing our culture and society. We must continue to proclaim the message of conviction, repentance, and conversion contained in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Lay people in particular are called to resist evil by being involved in the political process and working for the enactment and preservation of laws enacted in accordance to natural law, and the derogation of legislation violating natural law. All Catholics in public service must support legislation in favor of natural law and the Catholic electorate must work with particular force to remove from power those Catholic leaders who refuse to write laws supportive of human life, natural marriage, and the like.
• An objection to the above definition of tolerance may take this form: “Would you tolerate a serial/murderer rapist?” Our answer should be “yes”: we tolerate them in jail. Should we tolerate abortionists? Of course, we should. We should tolerate them as unemployed. To be tolerant toward a person in grave sin does not mean giving them a “free pass” from the moral or legal consequences of their actions. Tolerance is no substitute for prosecution, judgment, verdict, and punishment, or for the future obsolescence of the abortion-provided market which will leave all providers in search of new employment.
• The virtue of tolerance points toward the realization of that, when observing our neighbor sin grievously, “there but for the grace of God go I.” Due to the wound of original sin, and absent our willingness to cooperate with God’s grace, we can sin in the same ways or worse. This should keep us humble and realistic toward our own capacity to resist mortal sin.
• Finally, we must remember that the core of Catholic tolerance lies in our duty to refrain from judging our neighbor as to his or her ultimate eternal destiny. We don’t know the myriad of ways God’s grace will triumph, nor at what moment in a person’s life. Our duty is to scatter the seeds and let God do the rest.
I don’t know what “extremely prejudice” means, but what is “ridiculous” in my post?
Indeed we are, by grace alone, which is the only source of our faith and our good works:
[4] ...God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, [5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) [6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.(Eph. 2)
And this is how we are actually saved or condemned:
[31] And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
(Matthew 25)
Our good works are the basis of our judgement. A Jew will be judged by his works done in imitation of Christ, and a Christian, -- by his.
Thank you. I have more hateful bigotry where that one came from...
I agree, good post. Said better than me.
Tolerance: The last and only virtue of the completely immoral society.
Thanks, but I spoke too fast. Lacking the virtue of Prudence (Queen of the Virtues)and the gift of humility, I attacked Pope Benedict, who appears to have written this article. I should have gone to the site first—not that it would have changed my mind on the notion of tolerance, but I’d probably have objected less stridently. The only excuse here that I can think of is that tolerance, as we know it in America and in the English language generally, translates somewhat differently into German and Italian. Everything that is commanded of us in charity the pope cites in his definition of tolerance. But charity never accepts or allows evil to flourish. Tolerance, in our culture, does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.