Do we prefer Certitude or Freedom in Religion?

January 21, 2024

To understand the import of today’s first reading about Jonah, one must keep in mind the whole story of the Book of Jonah. We probably all know the story of Jonah trying to run away from God’s call and escape by boat, until finally he is swallowed by a whale and then is thrown up on land.  So in that part of the story the lesson is that God’s call is not something we ought to try and run away from.  The second part of Jonah’s story is found in today’s reading when Jonah, the reluctant prophet - a prophet being one who speaks for God - finally agrees to communicate God’s word or message to the people, and tells them that since they have sinned so greatly, they would be punished.   And then, to his surprise, the people of Niniveh listen to his message, and choose to repent.  Seeing t his repentance, God, in his mercy, forgives them and does not bring down the destruction on them that had been foretold, through Jonah. And here is where there is a twist.  In the part of the Book of Jonah that follows today’s reading, Jonah is highly displeased and angry with God, saying it is even better to die, because he felt that as a result of God not bringing destruction on the people of Niniveh as he had been told to announce, he himself was shown up as a fool, and a false prophet.  And besides his own discomfiture, we also get the impression that he did not feel it was justified that God’s mercy and love should take precedence over God’s just punishment for all the evil that the Ninivehites had done for so  long.   

And lest we jump too quickly to find fault with Jonah, perhaps a little soul-searching will remind us that many of us function somewhat similarly when there are changes in Church teaching that offer a more merciful way of looking at what were considered sins.  Thus, when Pope Francis allows the blessing of people in same-sex relationships, or when he reminds us that divorced and remarried Catholics are not excommunicated and so welcome into the Church, and further in that same context says that the Eucharist is not meant only for the perfect, but especially for those who are weak, - which has been interpreted by many to allow such couples to received the Eucharist - then many got upset because it looked like mercy and forgiveness and generosity were taking the place of what we have been taught for generations were mortal sins, and therefore liable to punishment by God.  For many, such changes in Church teaching that try to mirror God’s mercy, forgiveness, generosity and love, rather than a just and punishing God, creates an unrest within us, and like Jonah many are not happy. And one of the reasons we are not happy is because such changes de-stabilises  the certitudes we had grown up with.

In a similar manner, much of the opposition of hard-line conservatives in the Catholic Church started by their opposition to the teachings of Vatican 2, which took place in the early 1960s - a council which was called specifically by Pope John XXIII to “open the windows of the Church and let the spirit blow through”. Much of the anger against the decrees of this Council was because this Council legitimised many of the newer theological responses to issues that had been plaguing the Church for centuries, and this was not acceptable to those like Jonah who believed in an unchanging God, and believed that the Church, because it spoke for this God, should therefore also not change its teachings.  So, for example, the belief that unless one was baptised one could not be saved was whittled away, for the Council accepted the possibility of others outside the Catholic faith being saved.  Or the belief that many of us defended with tenacity,  namely that the Bible was the word of God and that every single thing in the Bible was literally true (as taught even as late as 1920 by Pope Benedict XV) was suddenly weakened by the Church saying that for instance the stories of Adam and Eve and all that came in the first 11 chapters of the Genesis were more a popular way of teaching a truth,  and that the Church could accept the theory of evolution as not being against divine revelation. Or when the strict canonical rule that every non-Catholic who married a Catholic had to promise formally to bring up the children as Catholics was replaced with a new rule that asked only the Catholic party to sign a document saying that s/he would “try his or her best” to bring up the children as Catholic, meant that the obligation of the previous rule was removed. And so many of those who, as per earlier teachings, ‘should’ have been condemned, would not be!!!.  And so Pope Francis, unlike his predecessor, through his many compassionate teachings, epitomised for these conservatives, in a far more stark manner, this kind of unacceptable and changing Church.  It would seem that many do not want the beliefs/rules changed, for that takes away the certitude on which many of us had grounded our commitment to Catholicism, namely that the Church never makes mistakes. That is why when Pope Francis gave a nuanced reply to the DUBIA (doubts) expressed publicly by a few bishops who lead the hard conservative movement, the questioners were quite unsatisfied and demanded a clear YES or NO answer - in other words, they wanted absolute certitude.

So many seem to get upset both when the changes in Church teaching upset our certitudes and because  the new ‘rules’ seem to result in others seeming to get a more merciful and generous treatment by the Church.  So the elder son in the parable of the prodigal son, or the workers in the vineyard who worked the whole day are all upset that the father/master treats others with generosity.  Probably, the most common reason many of us may give to explain why we are upset, is that our sense of justice is affronted.  It is against our sense of justice, we claim, for we have tried to fulfil Church rules, and then suddenly others get a ‘free’ pass to do what we taught our children not to do, and perhaps stopped ourselves or our loved ones from doing, perhaps with much difficulty and even sometimes, with suffering. It might be helpful to consider that this feeling is probably similar to what the Pharisees and Saducees and others felt when Jesus told them that the prostitutes and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of God before those of them who kept all the rules of Judaism, or when he told them that the Sabbath, one of their most important laws, was not so important that it could take precedence over other human needs - for the Sabbath was meant for man and not man for the Sabbath.

But perhaps, like Jesus taught, while we may indeed see the speck in the other’s eye, is there need to see whether there is a log in our own eyes? So, first, we need to ask ourselves, whether our sense of justice in these matters is grounded on our goodness being transactional, i.e. meaning, that we believed that by being good and following the Church, we would eventually be rewarded?  Was the elder son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son upset because his father did not acknowledge his own faithful obedience - which is something he had a right to expect, - or was it because he did not want his prodigal brother to be welcomed back with a feast ?  In actuality, in the parable, the father, though belatedly, does acknowledge the elder son’s faithfulness:  “My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours” (Luke 15:31) but we are not told that the elder son was satisfied with that.   Similarly, were the workers in the vineyard happy to get work at all when work was clearly difficult to get, considering that so many were still waiting for work right till the end of the day? - or was their happiness based on others getting less than what they themselves were given.  We need not be surprised if we do have a transactional approach to  goodness, because we find this attitude present even in the Apostles, at least during the time Jesus was alive. So, in Mathew ( 19:27ff ) we have Peter asking: “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?”  And in the next chapter itself (Mathew 20:20ff) we have the mother of James and John, coming “to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.  “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”  Of course, we are told in the Gospel that “when  the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers” - but the fact is that they all were probably looking for rewards by ‘betting’ on Jesus being the Messiah. And if we do acknowledge such a transactional nature in our goodness, then could this be what lies behind our claim that our sense of justice is affronted, because such changes in rules and beliefs upsets the validity or basis of our own transactions? After all, if we are really rooting for a world where there is greater love and compassion, and are not trying (like the mother of James and John) to inveigle a higher place in heaven, then shouldn’t we be happy if more and more people are welcomed into the kingdom of heaven? i.e. where more and more people want to create a world of justice, peace and compassion, even though they may not all agree with some of the rules we had set for ourselves.

There is a second question we could profitably ask ourselves when we are upset by a Church (or Pope) which/who changes the ‘rules of the game’ as it were.  And the question is this:  Why do we  tend to hand over to religious authorities the right to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong?  A common response that I have heard is that most of us do not feel theologically competent to explore such issues.  Yet we do not necessarily apply this principle in other aspects of our lives.  For example, in the matter of raising children, for which very few parents are trained, if we are really interested in doing a good job, we are willing to invest time and energy and resources to read up on the matter, to discuss with others (family or friends), to go for parenting courses,  and even go to specialists like counsellors, to help and guide us.  But finally, with all that input, we still exercise our own judgement on which advice to follow, and finally it is WE who take the responsibility to choose for ourselves how to bring up our children, without giving lack of knowledge or competence as an excuse. Why don’t we do that in matters related to religion?   (see also my blog : Should I follow the Church teaching or my conscience?  July 30,2023)

Dosteovsky, the Russian novelist, gives us a possible explanation for why we hand over such decisions to the Church institution, in his famous parable of the Grand Inquisitor (found in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov). In the parable, he points out through the voice of the Grand Inquisitor that “to man, rest and even death are preferable to a free choice between the knowledge of Good and Evil.  Nothing seems more seductive in his eyes than freedom of conscience, and nothing proves more painful.”  And he continues that since freedom to choose burdens “man’s souls with anxieties hitherto unknown to him”,  the Church authorities, over the centuries, took on the burden of choosing for the millions who are within its fold , and by doing this, gave them the peace that comes from believing that if they follow what the Church teaches, they will be saved, and so they do not have to bear the painful burden of having to choose for themselves, - especially because it is a matter of our eternal salvation.  It is interesting that even in a modern-day science-fiction film like the Matrix, when the villain of the film is confronted for controlling everyone through an illusion, albeit a beautiful one, he answers “The sheeple … like my world… They don’t want freedom or empowerment. They want to be controlled. They crave the comfort of certainty.”  

And so, many of us, like faithful soldiers, who do not have to decide for ourselves, are happy to believe that if we follow these divinely appointed leaders, the accomplishment of the task of our salvation is assured, because the Church can make no error.  And so what upsets many of us when there are changes, is that, that immutable rock on which we have built our faith seems to be shaking, because it would seem that the Church too is growing and evolving in its beliefs and its rules.

Jonah felt that God had changed, and this upset him, whereas it was not God who had changed,  but Jonah’s understanding of God which needed to change, for Jonah had not incorporated into his religiosity the fact that God was not only just, but also simultaneously always merciful.  Similarly, the understanding of God that we  humans have  (including the understanding of the Catholic Church as an institution) is never perfect. And how can it be perfect, because to claim the Church’s understanding is perfect would mean that we would have to accept that we humans can perfectly understand God, which no religion (including the Catholic Church) has ever claimed.  All religions, including the Catholic Church, accept that we have only a limited human insight into who God is.  And even though Christians believe that the insight that we have received through God’s WORD, is definitely part of the truth of God, we also admit  (and have to admit) that this insight doesn’t exhaust the fullness of God’s truth. And so we are always on pilgrimage, both as individuals and as a Church. And an obvious demonstration of this pilgrimage is the fact that the Church has had so many Councils spread out over 20 plus centuries, plus various Synods including the recently concluded one, each one trying to add one more layer of understanding as we journey this path to God.

And this journey, is not over, and will never be over, for we will never know the fullness of God.

First Reading: Jonah 3: 1-5, 10

Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.” Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

Second Reading: First Corinthians 7: 29-31

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;  those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep;  those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

Gospel: Mark 1: 14-20

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.  “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.  “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him. When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets.  Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.