The Shame of the Cowardly Shepherds
An article written by Fr. Jeffrey Kirby: The Shame of the Cowardly Shepherds
(The Faithless Shepherd)
There is a spiritual battle going on within the fallen heart of humanity. We have been created by and for God. Our soul naturally longs for him and the things that surround him. Our fallenness, however, desires the passing things of “the flesh,” the disordered love for pleasure, comfort, and power. The battle rages within us.
The battle reflects the two roads described by the Lord Jesus, one leading to eternal life and the other to perdition. (Matthew 7:13-14) It’s the tension behind the way of the Spirit and the way of the flesh described in many places by Saint Paul. It lies behind Saint Augustine’s two cities, Saint Ignatius of Loyola’s two standards, and – more recently – Pope Saint John Paul II’s two cultures. The battle is real, tangible, and observable.
The spiritual battle is the reason for a culture war in our contemporary world. As in the fallen human heart, so in society. No believer seeks a culture war, no person of goodwill desires it. A culture war exists, however, wherever two ways of life are in competition for the soul of humanity.
The evitability of a culture war is plainly visible to those who seek the way of virtue and holiness. A culture war isn’t odd to those who seek to work out their salvation in Jesus Christ. It is an almost given state of affairs in a fallen world that seeks redemption beyond its own devices and machinations. It has been understood, grasped, and prepared for by the saints, spiritual masters, and mystics for over two millennia.
So, it’s peculiar when contemporary shepherds of the Church tell us that there is no culture war or that some among us are needlessly creating and fuelling a culture war, or that only those who thrive in contention are perpetuating the delusion of a culture war. We are told to believe that any hint at acknowledging a culture war is divisive, misleading, and contrary to the Spirit of Jesus Christ
Such a perspective is a far cry from the hope we should have of preventing a culture war through a triumph of virtue, a victory for godliness, mass conversions to the Gospel, and the active pursuance of grace in the life of people and society.
The messaging we are told today is very different.
In history, we are oftentimes told of cities or outposts during various wars that continued to fight after an armistice was signed. The outpost was unaware of surrender by its leadership and so they continued to fight. Many believers today are beginning to wonder if the white flag of surrender has been raised by high churchmen while many of the troops – the baptized in the midst of the world – are still in the battle, fighting the good fight, and labouring for goodness and righteousness to triumph in the human heart and in society.
Many baptized Christians are starting to ask, “Have we lost?”
Such a thought is shocking, since the Gospel cannot lose. But it does express the need for clarity and affirmation. Surrender has only been offered by those who never turned up for the fight in the first place, or by those who showed up but decided the fight wasn’t worth it, or by those who started to fight but became disillusioned by the Cross of Jesus Christ. They allowed themselves to become compromised or seduced and have begun to rely on something other than the Lord Jesus’ promise of eternal life.
While the historical example of outposts fighting after a surrender might help in some ways, the example falls apart with respect to the culture war. Battles are waged here and there; nations rise and fall through time. But the battle of the Body of Christ – the most central battle of human history – is for the very salvation of the world. And this battle determines the health of the Church, her effectiveness in proclaiming the Gospel and bearing true witness to humanity’s Lord and Saviour.
And it involves the eternal destiny of countless people in our world today who need redemption and the hope that is born from it, whether it’s recognized or denied.
Many shepherds of the Church today are imitating King Saul of Israel. God made Saul the tallest man in Israel. He blessed him with strength and military prowess. When the Philistines came, however, the king led his troops in stagnation, sitting behind battle formations, wallowing in doubt and uncertainty, cowardly avoiding a fight even for God’s honour, and looking for a path to avoid battle and live a life of comfort and respectability.
Goliath’s blasphemies went unheeded and unchecked. The tallest man in Israel quaked before the threat. A small shepherd boy, with stones and a heart of courage, took a stand, spoke truth, and defended the majesty of God. In many ways, the young David reflects many of the baptized who – despite the Sauls behind them – still know the difference between right and wrong, light and darkness. They see the spiritual battle and they’re willing to fight for truth, goodness, and holiness.
There are shepherds among us who should be kings and generals – the tallest among us – who cringe and have become slaves to a fallen world and suppliants to the way of the flesh. They deny the very battle for which they were raised up and for which they should lead the charge. Their lack of action, sins of omission, and absence of courage are their lasting shame.
And yet, without the robust and strong leadership that should be given to them, there remain many baptized Christians – small shepherds with mere stones – who have taken up the mantle and will not accept the white flag of a false surrender of wayward shepherds. They will continue to seek truth, labour for goodness, and accept persecution in defence of beauty. They will fight the good fight, run the race so as to win, and zealously seek the imperishable crown that is promised to those who love God.
Thanks to Fr. Jeffrey Kirby for a great article.
ReplyDeleteConservative Christian and perennial pessimist Peter Hitchens has said for a while now that Christianity's days (in Europe at least) are numbered; we may be required to remain the outpost(s) that continue to fight (or at least to resist) after an "armistice" is signed.
Yes, for baptized Christians, the question “Have we lost?” should be shocking, since the Gospel cannot lose.
Has "the white flag of surrender has been raised by high churchmen"? For what it's worth, here in Romania we are something of a backwater, appreciating benefits that have recently been coming from "The West" but often not forced to rapidly accept changes in matters such as education and medicine that have been kinda imposed on other more "developed" countries. Also - again for whatever it's worth to anybody here - here in the Romanian Baptist church (though I'm not sure we have "high churchmen") the core beliefs appear to remain reasonably intact... though our test may come when those who stayed stalwart during Communism are no longer so much with us. We have just returned from the summer camp we run every year and the mood of solidarity still apprears to be there among those who take the thing seriously.
One suggests reading the lives of the saints - most denominations have some! - who often knew something of these matters.
I don't know about this. The 'culture wars' seem to me to be largely about gaining power in the temporal sphere and the identification (from across the pond) of right wing political viewpoints with Christianity is forgetting that 'my kingdom is not of this world'. I think Fr. Kirby is confusing the spiritual struggle with the cultural one.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the promise of 'mass conversion' anywhere in scripture; instead I see the promise of the faithful and persecuted remnant. I don't see Christ advocating for Christians to go out and avenge Goliath's blasphemies: I see one who 'was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth'.
HJ believes you are correct - it's a thinly veiled attack on Pope Francis.
DeleteIf this article is indeed an attack on Pope Francis then it was not veiled nearly thinly enough for this particular reader! But hey ho, if that is the case, I shall stop my ecumenical ponderings and leave you chaps to sort it out. I shall return to my reading of Benson's Lord of the World, which I am finding more astonishing and relevant to our current times which each passing chapter, though I am intrigued to find out in which direction it is ultimately headed.
DeleteHappy reading, Gadjo. HJ will not spoil the ending for you ...
DeleteFrancis is a bad pope. I don't think anyone can really deny this. As a priest, I suppose Fr Kirby cannot come out and state the obvious, but the analogy of outposts fighting on while the high command has surrendered is not lost on this reader. Attending my regular Latin Rite mass, I often hear sermons like this from the priests. Not direct attacks against the hierarchy, but let's say you'd have to be wilfully ignorant of what's going on in the Church not to get pick up on the undertow, and grown-ups being wilfully ignorant in not the same as cultivating a Franciscan childlikeness. Let's say it's the kind of thing you can detect now and then in the opining of a certain blogger of this parish.
DeleteIf you criticise a "blogger of this parish", then do speak clearly, Bell.
DeleteIt wasn't a criticism.
DeleteReading back over my comment, I can see how it could be interpreted as a criticism. That was not the intention. For clarity, my point was that Jack is NOT wilfully ignorant of events in the Chuch, but merely more charitable in his interpretation of them than I would be. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I get the impression that he has become more troubled by them over time, which speaks well of him. I merely point out that, if this IS the case, Jack is part of a growing trend among the faithful. To quote Bruce Willis, "Welcome to the party, pal."
DeleteHe singles out "high churchmen" as though they alone have "raised the white flag of surrender." Why? He doesn't explain.
ReplyDeleteAs HJ said above, he suspects this is an attack on the pontificate of Pope Francis.
DeleteHave a read of this article and follow the links to the National Catholic Reporter and LifeSite News.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be about the "culture war" in the Catholic Church.
In a recent interview, Pope Francis said people with “right-wing” ideologies were the most dangerous faction in the Church and he called for a generation of priests who played soccer instead of going into communities to preach. “We need normal seminarians, with their problems, who play soccer, and who don’t go to the neighbourhoods to dogmatise,” Pope Francis said.
Describing himself as “a stone in the shoe” for people who are opposed to his ecclesiastical and political vision, the Pope also condemned ideological movements in the Church which, he said, “dress up in a restorationist air, with a lot of apparent mystique, but also a lot of corruption”. Francis also expressed frustration that he was unable to reform the Church as much as he would have preferred. His reform efforts to date in the Church have revealed “a certain impotence” in that there’s only so far “over the limit” it’s possible to go.
Referring to criticism he’s received for gestures such as regularly meeting transgender persons at his Wednesday audience, Francis cited the example of Jesus in the Gospels, who spent a large amount of time in dialogue with people who weren’t necessarily his followers. “The first time they came and saw me, they left crying, saying I had given them a hand, a kiss, as if I had done something exceptional for them, But they are children of God! He still loves you just the way you are. Jesus teaches us not to set limits.”
"Normal" seminarians? Lots of luck with that. One of the issues which seems to cause Francis ongoing despair is the increasing "rigidity" of the young men entering the seminaries. Despite the ferocious opposition to them from the chancery rats, they can't be kept out because they're the only ones going forward to serve. The "ordinary" men are doing just what Francis suggests -- playing football with their mates. In that famous clip from "The Young Pope", where Pius XIII (Jude Law) addresses the cardinals, he declares he wants fanatics for the faith. I suspect Francis' style of pontificate will be much more effective in producing such a priesthood than Lenny Belardo's would have been.
DeleteAnd what are these “right-wing ideologies" that Pope Francis says are so dangerous? In my experience, when actually specified, they tend to be things like free speech, sanctity of the individual (rather than that of a prescribed group), protection of the unborn, honouring the natural and unversal meaning (until 5 minutes ago) of the word 'marriage', not flooding communities with possibly antogonistic newcomers, etc etc.
DeleteIt's the same here with some (Protestant) missionaries we know, who bandy the word 'conservative' around as criticism: they are REBELS! - possibly as Pope Francis would also like to be considered - personally saving the world with their 'kindly' and 'helpful' actions (which 'conservatives', who tend to have proper jobs etc, are often then expected to sponsor).
I would think that 'culture war' is precisely the mission of the Church. I can imagine a contemporary bishop chiding St Paul for 'dangerous right-wing dog-whistles' in Ephesians 6.
ReplyDelete@Little Hobb,
DeletePossibly. 'Culture' seems to me to be a very broad term; perhaps 'world-view war' is more to the point of what Fr. Jeffrey Kirby intended. But whatever term we use, a movement, for example, suggesting that humans have 'gender' and that it is fluid cuts against Genesis 1:27 etc and sets us in some kind of battle with current orthodoxy
Christianity is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It is simply Christianity. I think we wander into dangerous territory when we allow politics to infiltrate and define faith: that has never worked out well, people are capable of anything when they believe that they have divine backing for their ideologies: look at the wars of religion, or the state of the CofE.
DeleteThe 'culture war' is, by and large, a temporal battle. Christians are called to remain faithful to our calling, but we aren't called to 'win' the culture nor are we called to do battle for temporal ideologies.
@ Little Hobb
DeletePaul was writing to Christians in his epistle - not the whole population of Ephesus.
Ephesians 4 issues a call that Christians be a unified people who keep "the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (4:3). This is necessary, Paul says, so that “we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.” (4:14).
Isn't unity of the church one of the central theme of the epistle?
The Ephesians are, “[T]o walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (4:1); that is, with lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance in love, and maintaining the unity of the Spirit.
Paul states clearly that a change in life is required, because “you must no longer walk as the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their minds” (4:17) which are darkened and alienated from the life of God owing to hardness of heart. The Gentiles have “given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness” (4:19). This is contrary to Christ, so they must “put off the old man that belongs to your former manner of life…and put on the new man, created after the likeness of God” (4:22-24).
He's not saying to them engage in a "culture war" with larger society - but is saying avoid disunity amongst themselves. What we're seeing in the Catholic Church and other churches today is tensions in the Church about evangelical and pastoral approaches being overtaken by an American-style culture war.
Here’s excerpts from an interview with Pope Francis in 2021.
ReplyDelete"Communion is not a prize for the perfect, think of [...], Jansenism, the perfect are able to take Communion. Communion is a gift, a gift, the presence of Jesus in his Church. It is in the community. This is the theology … Why [can they not take Communion]? Because they are out of the community, excommunicated, they are “excommunicated” it is called. It’s a harsh term, but what it means is they are not in the community, either because they do not belong, or they are baptized but have drifted away from some of the things ...
Now let’s return to the person who is not in the community and is not able to take Communion because he is outside of the community. This is not a penalty: you are outside. Communion is to unite the community.
But the issue is not a theological problem, which is simple. The problem is a pastoral problem: how we bishops manage this principle pastorally. If we look at the history of the Church, we will see that every time the bishops have not managed a problem as pastors, they have taken sides about political life, about the political problem. For not managing a problem well they have taken sides on the political front.
Let’s think about the night of St. Bartholomew: Heretics, yes, heresy is very serious [...] everyone, it’s a political fact. Let’s think about Joan of Arc, with this mission. Let’s think about witch-hunts. Always we think of Campo de’ Fiori, Savonarola, all these kinds. When the Church, in order to defend a principle, does not do it pastorally, it takes sides politically. And this has always been the case. Just look at history.
What should the pastor do? Be a shepherd, do not go around condemning, not condemning, but be a pastor. But is he also a pastor of the excommunicated? Yes, he is the pastor and he has to shepherd them, and he must be a shepherd with God’s style. And God’s style is closeness, compassion, and tenderness. The whole Bible says that. Closeness. Already in Deuteronomy, He says to Israel: What people have gods as close as you have me? Closeness. Compassion: the Lord has compassion on us. We read Ezekiel, we read Hosea, right from the beginning. And tenderness -- just look at the Gospel and the works of Jesus.
A pastor who does not know how to manage with God’s style slips and he adds many things which are not pastoral ...
You can tell me: but if you are close, and tender, and compassionate with a person, you have to give Communion -- but that’s a hypothetical. Be a pastor and the pastor knows what he has to do at all times, but as a shepherd. But if he stops this shepherding of the Church, immediately he becomes a politician. And you will see this in all the denunciations, in all the non-pastoral condemnations that the Church makes. With this principle, I believe a pastor can act well. The principles are from theology, the pastoral care is theology and the Holy Spirit, who leads you to do it with the style of God. I would venture to say up to this far.
If you say to me: but can you give or cannot give [Communion]? It is casuistry, as the theologians say. Do you remember the storm that was stirred by Amoris Laetitia when that chapter on accompanying separated, divorced couples came out: “Heresy, heresy!” Thank God there was Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian who clarified things.
But always condemnation, condemnation, enough with excommunication. Please let us not place any more excommunications. Poor people. They are children of God. They are outside temporarily, but they are children of God and they want, and need, our pastoral closeness. Then the pastors work things out by the Spirit of God."
Communion should only be withheld as an act of mercy, not punishment.
DeleteIt can be merciful by being medicinal'
DeleteIn 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Tim. 1:20, the expression “deliver such a one unto Satan” is used. This is the equivalent of “expel the wicked man from among you.” An idiom for the severing of fellowship from the Christian community. The sense is this: send the man back into the world, out of the church community, that he may learn to “destroy” his baser, “fleshly” urges, and thus be reclaimed to Christ.
Isn't this how Pope Francis has framed it?
I wasn't saying that he wasn't. I was just commenting that withholding communion is often framed as a punishment - i.e., the calls that Biden shouldn't receive communion because of (that is, as punishment for) his support of abortion. Scriptural says he shouldn't receive communion because he risks 'eating and drinking judgement' on himself, so withholding it until he is right with God (contrite, not perfect) is an act of mercy. His public support of abortion is also a declaration that he does not agree with the faith of the Catholic Church, and as communion is an act of publicly affirming a shared faith it is a mercy to prevent him (and the Church) from bearing false witness.
DeleteIt is medicinal inasmuch as it's accompanied by remedial pastoral work. The aim is not to serve a sentence but to bring the penitent to a place where communion can be restored - which should involve more than just kicking them out and locking the door (assuming willingness to change, of course). We also mustn't forget that the Eucharist itself is medicinal, so I think early re-admittance is an important part of healing.
But hasn't Pope Francis said elsewhere that he'd never refuse anyone communion?
In this interview HJ posted, Pope Francis was asked whether he had ever denied the Eucharist to someone who presented themselves for Communion who promoted abortion. In was in the context of the row going on in America about Jo Biden
DeleteHis reply:
"I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone. No one. I do not know if anyone came [to me] who was in this situation, but I never refused the Eucharist. To this day as a priest never. But never have I been conscious of having a person in front of me as you describe. That is true."
Pope Francis basic point is to promote a desire to follow Jesus and to embrace His salvific message. In the West, many of the hot-button moral teachings of the Church are typically accepted only by those already motivated by a desire to live out the Christian faith.
ReplyDeletePope Francis is teaching that a person must first accept the basic principles of the faith before they will embrace its more difficult moral teachings.
In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis tells us that we need to be careful about how we present the Catholic faith. He explained that “In today’s world of instant communication and occasionally biased media coverage, the message we preach runs a greater risk of being distorted or reduced to some of its secondary aspects. In this way certain issues which are part of the Church’s moral teaching are taken out of the context which gives them their meaning”
Catholics who oppose abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, euthanasia, etc,; know how they are portrayed by the media and how their positions and motives have been distorted. This has increased as opposition to these issues has become more closely associated with conservative politicians – the “culture war” against progressive “wokism”
Pope Francis continued, “The biggest problem is when the message we preach then seems identified with those secondary aspects which, important as they are, do not in and of themselves convey the heart of Christ’s message. We need to be realistic and not assume that our audience understands the full background to what we are saying, or is capable of relating what we say to the very heart of the Gospel which gives it meaning, beauty and attractiveness.”
When Church leaders become known for lashing out publicly at political figures and rowing with one another, (regardless of their justifications for doing so), they project an image of the Church as an enclave for ideologues to outsiders while fostering a “bunker mentality” among its members. Those who are not attracted to life in the bunker are pushed to the margins or give up on the Church altogether.
In Evangelii Nuntiandi, St. Paul VI wrote“This question of ‘how to evangelise’ is permanently relevant, because the methods of evangelising vary according to the different circumstances of time, place and culture.”
I'd be more impressed by these arguments, if instead of the 'thinly' veiled attacks, people just came out with it clear and concise. Otherwise I'm not certain that they deserve to be listened to .
ReplyDeleteThat's what certain people might think.
Delete