It’s a common belief in modern day society that
all organizations be inclusive of everyone. The thought that one’s personal
beliefs—and the behavior one chooses to engage in—should be accepted by everyone
in the name of tolerance and inclusivity—regardless of whether this behavior
coincides with natural law, morality, or religion—only furthers an ideological
belief that natural law, morality, and religion have little to offer society and
the public realm. This belief has brought into current favor—through the
increased secularization of thought—the active pursuit of lobbyists,
politicians, and those who harbor agendas, to enact into “law” that which would
“protect” the marginalized, or, those they perceive as being marginalized.
Governments, institutions, and associations are being forced to accept, include,
and welcome those who would live outside the “confines” of natural law,
morality, and religious belief. Further, this belief imposes upon society the
limiting of personal freedoms.
True tolerance
St. Thomas Aquinas speaks about
these principles within the Summa Theologica: Human government is derived from
the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful
and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the
universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be
forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those
who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be
lost, or certain greater evils be incurred…
Hence, though unbelievers sin in
their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues
therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus, from the fact that the Jews
observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we
hold, there follows this good—that our very enemies bear witness to our faith,
and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason,
they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.
On the other hand, the
rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no
means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g., the
scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of
those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For
this reason, the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and
pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.”1 Venerable Archbishop Fulton J.
Sheen, confirms this thought, while offering additional considerations, within
his book, Moods and Truths: There is no other subject on which the average mind
is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is
always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with
broadmindedness.
Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is
taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance
and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to
persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but
never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must
be intolerant about principles because they are divine.
We must be tolerant to
the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be
intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s.
And hence
the Church in her history, due reparation made, has always welcomed the heretic
back into the treasury of her souls, but never his heresy into the treasury of
her wisdom.
The dominant point here, is that Truth is not of our making, but
God’s. Thus, it is not narrow-mindedness, nor is it a bad thing, that Christians
remain “intolerant” concerning any attempt by individuals, societies, or
governments to subvert the Truth, that is, ignore the natural law, Divine Law,
or the founding principles established and granted us by God.
On the other hand,
we must “tolerate” the sinner, we must forgive all of the offenses committed
against us, instructing and admonishing all who have erred—with love, according
to the teachings of the Church and the Gospel Truth]—that she “welcome” back
into the treasury of her souls, those who were lost in error. While, at the same
time, remaining always vigilant in the refusal to accept—the error into the
treasury of [the Church’s] wisdom.
Justice and the common good Therefore, what
principles must be set firmly in place that a Christian abide by man-made laws?
It has been established that human government, or law, has been derived from
Divine Government or God’s Law. And, we are aware, in accordance with this
reality, that all created law should be predicated upon the principles of
justice and what serves the common good. St. Thomas affirms this: Laws framed by
man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding
in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to (cf.
Proverbs 8:15): By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things. Now laws
are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the
common good,—and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made
does not exceed the power of the lawgiver,—and from their form, when, to wit,
burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and
with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community,
each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in
all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the
part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these,
which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are
legal laws. On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being
contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned
above:—either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his
subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his
own cupidity or vainglory;—or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a
law that goes beyond the power committed to him;—or in respect of the form, as
when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the
common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as
Augustine says (cf. De Lib. Arb. i, 5), a law that is not just, seems to be no
law at all. Man-made laws must remain rooted in Divine Law, in order that these
laws be just. And, if a man-made law does not conform to this principle, it is
not in favor of the common good. Nor are laws just when men seek to enact laws
that go beyond the power committed to them, for example, laws which seek to
legitimize and justify abortion, the so-called “right” which would seek to
empower a man or woman to end the life of another human being. No man or woman
possesses this “right”—only God—the Creator and Sustainer of all things
possesses a “right” over human life. Other laws that run contrary to Divine Law
are those that would seek to codify civil unions, transgenderism, or any attempt
to eliminate gender altogether. These laws are acts of violence rather than
laws; they are destructive and run contrary to the Truth, the dignity and true
good of the human person. They do not serve to bring men and women closer to God
and the promise of Eternal life. Therefore, a law that is not just, seems to be
no law at all. Thus, if individuals, governments, and societies have mitigated
their ability to acknowledge the natural law, the moral code, and
Judeo-Christian values, through the omission or commission of personal sin,
which blinds one from recognizing sin for what it is—how is it even feasible to
recognize this behavior as destructive, disordered, and sinful And, how is it
possible for any organization, recognize these basic and founding principles, to
welcome into the fold those who have no intention of putting an end to their
sinful and destructive behavior? They who would entreat these same
organizations, through the force of unjust legislation, to “welcome” them and
their sinful behavior into the organization; because a failure to do so could
appear outdated, exclusive, narrow-minded, intolerant, and even hateful. The
meaning of “welcome” Here we must consider the different ways in which the word
“welcome” can be used. The Collins Dictionary defines the word “welcome” as a
transitive verb: “If you welcome someone, you greet them in a friendly way when
they arrive somewhere.”4 In this sense of the word, Catholics and Christians can
certainly “welcome” those who are not of their faith, those who choose to live
outside of the teachings of organized religion.5 Yet, once this “warm greeting”
is extended to those who have no intention of living out the teachings and
founding principles of the organization, one would have to ponder the
long-lasting purpose of the encounter. Are they resolved to follow in the
footsteps of Jesus Christ, living as He instructed His followers to live, that
they be raised up by Him to Eternal life? What is the motivation behind their
seeking out those who represent the organization for this warm greeting? Are
they merely seeking out a “warm greeting” alone, or is something additional
being sought out? Hence, it is helpful to consider how the word “welcome” is
used as an adjective: “If you say that someone is welcome in a particular place,
you are encouraging them to go there by telling them that they will be liked and
accepted.” And, “If you tell someone that they are welcome to do something, you
are encouraging them to do it by telling them that they are allowed to do it.”6
In this sense of the word, no perpetually sinful lifestyle is “welcome” in a
Christian organization. Here, a particular individual is seeking to be
“welcomed” into the organization, while he persists in errant and sinful
behavior. This is clearly against the Truth [which] is not [of] our making, but
God’s, a reality far above the mere opinion of a single individual. St. Thomas
addresses this also in the Summa Theologica: For this reason the Church not only
admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also
safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the
ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion
appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the
good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems
to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they
are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death. Here we
see, upon one’s return to the Church, an errant or sinful individual must be
admitted to Penance, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Then, the individual will
have been provided an opportunity to humble himself, acknowledge that his
behavior was both sinful and errant, internalize true remorse for his
transgression, and implore the Lord for His forgiveness. Following this, through
the cooperation of the priest, the individual receives absolution, and grace is
imparted to the penitent. And, that his conversion remain constant and sincere,
he must renounce his sinful behavior, avail himself of the grace of the
sacraments, and possess gratitude for the forgiveness received. This will enable
the individual to persist in faith. Surely one can see the wisdom of “welcoming”
members into an organization, who not only desire to receive a warm reception,
but also seek to live out the instructions and teachings of that organization.
Because, the good that the organization was founded to provide, is best served
when its members live out its instructions and teachings. A helpful example to
illustrate this concept is found in the everyday life of a family. As a family,
the parents can certainly invite relatives and friends to their home for the
birthday party of one of their children. Once the guests arrive, the family can
extend a warm “welcome” to those who have accepted their invitation. But, as the
guests enter the home, some of them could make the choice to engage in
inappropriate, destructive, and sinful behavior in the presence of children.
And, if this were the case, would these guests continue to be “welcome” in the
family’s home? Would not the parents who own this home be justified in expecting
a certain decorum and appropriate behavior concerning the birthday party of a
child at the home of a family? Would not the parents of these children confront
the guests who engaged in this destructive behavior, requesting that they depart
immediately from the party? Would this not be undertaken for the true good of
everyone present, including those who are engaged in destructive behavior? And,
following this incident, how ready would this family be to “welcome” these
particular guests into their home again, without the benefit of an apology, or
an assurance that this type of behavior will not be engaged in again, in the
presence of young and elderly alike? Here we must realize, the family has the
right to “welcome” whomever they wish into their home. But, is it really the
family in this example who establishes the ideal of what decent and appropriate
behavior is in its true essence? The family can certainly discern the behavior
of their guests and decide what they are willing to allow in their home, but
what should they use as an example of decent and appropriate behavior—as they
compare appropriate behavior to destructive behavior? One would have to conclude
it is the natural law, Divine Law, and the moral code, which govern what decent
and appropriate behavior is in its essence, and this should be reflected in
man-made or positive laws. Thus, the natural law, Divine Law, and the moral
code, exist in and of themselves, that is, whether or not the family chooses to
acknowledge them. Or whether or not, man-made or positive laws take into account
their existence, they exist nonetheless. The ultimate purpose of the Church What
ramifications does this pose for the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is a
unique case as organizations go, in that the Church is a religious organization,
living and enlivened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, God Himself. Therefore,
the Church is guided by the One Living and True God. And, as it has been stated
above: Truth is not [of] our making, but God’s. This is not to say that Truth is
something God created, just as He created the earth and all that is in it, but
that—He is—Truth Itself. Therefore, the Truth is not something man can change,
man must come to recognize Truth for what and Who it is, and realize that God
has existence outside of ourselves. The natural law, Divine Law, and the moral
code, have been given us by God to help us to flourish, as a loving father
guides his son in a manner that ensures his safety and true good. Is this
restrictive in terms of personal freedom? In a certain sense, yes; but what is
the end or purpose for setting these boundaries? A father sets these boundaries
for his son because he loves him and desires to see him attain happiness.
Furthermore, there are many parents who do not set boundaries for their
children. These children appear to go about their lives with relative freedom.
But, is this a state healthy for a child, or for that matter an adult? It is
not. The child ends up believing that his parents do not care about him or about
what happens to him. However, the child will encounter these boundaries
nonetheless, as he befriends other children who do have parents that set
boundaries for their children, or later in life when he disregards the man-made
or positive laws which make up the fabric of society. The fact is, these limits
or boundaries assist us in living out our lives and help us to attain true
happiness: “For whom the LORD loves he reproves, as a father, the son he
favors.”8 Thus, does the fact that the Catholic Church expects its laws,
precepts, and Commandments, be followed—necessarily mean that it should be
viewed as “unwelcoming” to those who live outside of them? No, all men and women
are “welcome” to follow in the footsteps of Christ, and following in the
footsteps of Christ has many implications concerning the manner in which one
lives out one’s life. Here, one has to consider the overarching purpose of the
foundation of the Church, that is, its intent—to prepare its members for union
with God in Eternal Life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this
in paragraphs 830-831: The word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal,’ in the sense of
‘according to the totality’ or ‘in keeping with the whole.’ The Church is
catholic in a double sense: First, the Church is catholic because Christ is
present in her. ‘Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church’ (cf.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8, 2: Apostolic Fathers, II/2, 311). In her
subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that
she receives from him ‘the fullness of the means of salvation’ (cf. UR 3; AG 6;
Eph 1:22-23) which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full
sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was,
in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost (cf. AG 4) and will
always be so until the day of the Parousia. Secondly, the Church is catholic
because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human
race (cf. Mt 28:19): All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This
People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout
the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be
fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all
his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one…. The
character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord
himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the
return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of
his Spirit” (cf. LG 13 §§ 1-2; cf. Jn 11:52).9 The first point here is that the
Church is catholic because Christ is present in her—a living breathing entity
sustained and nourished by Him—now, for all time, and in the Eternal life to
come. And, it is—in Christ—that she receives from him ‘the fullness of the means
of salvation.’ It is beyond the powers of man to attain Eternal life, we receive
this gift from the only One Who can grant it, God Himself. The second point is
that the Church is sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human
race. Does this not suggest that all are invited and given the opportunity to
follow in the footsteps of Christ; both those who carry the Gospel message to
the ends of the earth, and those who will hear the message, repent, and
experience a conversion? All men and women of faith and good will experience
both the sufferings which are a part of this life, and the eternal joy we hope
to receive when we enter into eternal union with God in Heaven. All are made one
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and there cannot be true unity with others, or
with God, when there are persistent sinners who seek to be prospective or full
members of the Church, as they persist in sinful and destructive behavior. This
is surely not in keeping with the reason the Church was founded, nor will it
ever foster unity with God and our brothers and sisters in Christ. Out of love,
we are called to seek out those who have strayed from Gospel Truth and the
teachings of the Church. But, this cannot and should not result in a one-sided
pursuit. Those seeking to become members of the Church should fully understand
what they are attempting to enter, and that this will never truly be obtained
while they remain attached to sin. Thus, let us internalize these words of St.
Augustine: The shepherd seeks out the straying sheep, but because they have
wandered away and are lost, they say that they are not ours. ‘Why do you want
us? Why do you seek us?’ they ask, as if their straying and being lost were not
the very reason for our wanting them and seeking them out. ‘If I am straying,’
he says, ‘if I am lost, why do you want me?’ You are straying, that is why I
wish to recall you. You have been lost; I wish to find you. ‘But I wish to
stray,’ he says; ‘I wish to be lost.’ So, you wish to stray and be lost? How
much better that I do not also wish this. Certainly, I dare say, I am unwelcome.
But I listen to the Apostle who says: Preach the word; insist upon it, welcome
and unwelcome. Welcome to whom? Unwelcome to whom? By all means welcome to those
who desire it; unwelcome to those who do not. However unwelcome, I dare to say:
‘You wish to stray, you wish to be lost; but I do not want this.’ For the one
whom I fear does not wish this. And should I wish it, consider his words of
reproach: The straying sheep you have not recalled; the lost sheep you have not
sought. Shall I fear you rather than him? Remember, we must all present
ourselves before the judgment seat of Christ” (cf. Sermon 46, 14-15: CCL 41,
541-542).10
Notes Thomas, and Dominican Province, Summa Theologica: First
Complete American Edition in Three Volumes (New York: Benziger, 1947), ST II-II,
q. 10, a. 11., (hereafter cited as Thomas). Sheen, Fulton J., 1932. Moods and
Truths. New York: Century., pg. 163-164. Thomas, ST I-II, q. 96, a. 4. Collins
English Dictionary, 13th ed., s.v. “welcome (tv),” accessed January 31, 2023.
Ibid., “welcome (adj),” accessed January 31, 2023. Ibid., “welcome (adj),”
accessed January 31, 2023. Thomas, ST II-II, q. 11, a. 4. Confraternity of
Christian Doctrine, Catholic Church, Saint Joseph Edition of the New American
Bible (Washington, D.C. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and
Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Co. 2011), Prov. 3:12. Catholic Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church : Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin
Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II. 2nd ed. Vatican City Washington, DC:
Libreria Editrice Vaticana; United States Catholic Conference, 1997., 830-831.
Catholic Church and Franciscans. 1975-1976. The Divine Office : The Liturgy of
the Hours According to the Roman Rite : As Renewed by Decree of the Second
Vatican Council and Promulgated by the Authority of Pope Paul. Volume IV. New
York: Catholic Book Pub., pg. 290.