(Catholic) Christian thoughts on "Letting her be"

  September 22, 2020

(Catholic) Christian thoughts on "letting her be"

While running today and listening to "Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), I was caught up thinking about the call to evangelize (cf. Mark 16:15– "And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation'")– to be priest, prophet and king (CCC 783)– even as lay Christians. It is easy enough to live in a community of faith, where each person can (ideally) bring each other up and support the journey to faith. This is best exemplified in my life with my Bible studies and general encounters with my girlfriend Arie. For situations like this, it is easy to relate to my fellow faithful Christians. We all have a common orientation to the good that is epitomized in the trinity as father, son (word) and spirit (breath). 

It is of much more considerable difficulty in responding appropriately to the call to preach the gospel in secular society, of which make up general life outside of the people of faithful I know. Not only is the difference in orientation on what "good" is different (in fact it is respectfully and arguably diminished in secular short term thinking), it is difficult already to communicate the faith (even if it is my own) to others. 

This is of considerable question to me as a Catholic (as opposed to other denominations), because the faith teaches us of the urgency to seek others to conversion. As far as I've experienced in my albeit limited exposure to weekly Sunday worship in Arie's Victory church, it seems that the focus is on strengthening the Christian communities and to pray for other people to be awakened by their faith. I support this rather brandished statement by last week's sermon that quoted theologians saying that our faith was imparted to us by God and is not a result of our doings and that everything we do and are in relation to God comes from Him because we are saved by faith alone.

While Catholics actually also agree that faith alone is necessary to be saved and that faith is given to us by God, the emphasis of mission in Catholicism leads us to center our attention on what's next, often citing the often not defended James 2:26: For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.". In our discussion I think Arie concedes this point to me, even without having to rely on our own denominations, that works are indeed essential if only to emphasize and reflect our faith that God has graced us with. As far as I can be certain of my Catholic faith, it is of our mission to spread the good news especially to the poor and those suffering. Where does this begin? I'd like to think it starts with the family, and of most concern are my sisters, even my older sister already married with children. 

It is certainly much easier to rely on authority to communicate and remind my sisters of what the faith is. Certainly it is a safe enough position to take. However, authority only works when the authority is authorized by who they are instructing. In another sense, Mica and Anya have to look to me for something they recognize as needing advice on. In my scenario with them, this is not necessarily the case. Mica's mantra has focused on "you do you", probably not to the extent of doing serious harm unto oneself but allowing a kind of "learn from your mistakes" kind of approach. While it is agreeable to let someone "learn from their mistakes", I have now come to the position to disagree on being neutral about anything. Being neutral means to take a stance saying at worst I don't "care" about what you decide, often adding the existentialist "so long as you truly choose it but be aware of the ramifications". The ramifications of leaving it up to the "individual" is a symptom of modernity's failed ideal still being spun, that "man is the measure of all things"; in other words, relativism. 

But in our specific case it doesn't actually have to be this idealistic. I think such ideas have penetrated into our conscience entrusted into us by our mother, who often let us to decide on our own. This is just only part of the story, because I indeed have also fallen away from the faith and searching for truth. What we often forget is that mom puts trust in the institutions that take care of us, from La Salle and Woodrose to BSM and to our colleges. They in a sense outsourced the parenting, often preferring to be moral guidance if sought rather than being active. They leave us alone in that sense. 

So it would be no surprise that my sisters and I have adopted that kind of idea. I'm still privy to such a solution, I think trying to figure it out on your own is a good thing. But only if we actually know we have something to figure out. If we blatantly ignore what exactly it is we are being left alone to do, then most would just realize "I'm free to do anything". That kind of idea is dangerous and actually misses the point of this idea of "letting be". Heidegger for one has advocated a philosophical "letting be", giving up trying to appropriate "being" and instead letting it come and preferring to describe it poetically (while still being somewhat philosophical). But back to this point of contention, Mica's problem for me seems to be not that she is solely "free to do anything", but such a statement comes out of feeling that she was done injustice for her life trajectory which was given to her. She likes living in New York and being amongst other peers, "free" from our parents' parenting in a sense. And yet she knows that in order to fulfill such a contract, she "must become a lawyer" for the family. 

While such idea is commendable, when she talks to me about it, it feels twisted, almost resentful, and kind of certainly not the kind of "free to do anything" ideal that most Americans seems to want in their interpretation of liberty. The free to do anything clause was in a sense, her giving into indulgences because of the hardship and work she has to do to stay there. It's kind of a vicious cycle here, then. And what's even weirder is that whenever she needs help with something and asks for it, she doesn't really want to learn the reason why but just the "how" to do something. I used to get irritated at this, because the hyper-practicality makes me feel more like a tool rather than a person giving time to explain and teach. It's like giving into an opposite version of "do as I say, not as I do" , making it "do as I do, not as I say". 

But I ask myself now how this whole analysis is relevant? For one, I'm back here in DC and Mica's alone in New York. I quickly "left her" as soon as I got the chance to in that sense. I indeed given up (for which I am remorseful for), thinking that she couldn't (or wouldn't) understand where I'm coming from, especially with the whole debate on being free to do what you want. When we discuss and then eventually argue, it seems that it's hard for Mica to fight with me honestly because she may not be sure of herself either. What she is sure of is the idle talk of ideals in colleges now "people are free to come to their own interpretations about anything". It's such an obvious statement... of course people are free to their own interpretations about anything. What's lacking in this statement? Well a moral judgement. And when there is something lacking, people can attach things. For example: "people are free to their own [wrong] interpretations about anything". But that's not the ideal at hand here in this ordinary thought. In fact, it's more like people's own opinions are all right in their own way. 

Here we have yet another partial truth. When people feel strongly about something, it is indeed probably true in some respect. However as a Christian I'm led to remember what sin is: Sin comes from love as well but love for something that is "lesser", be it "less good" or straight up "wholly evil". Choosing something less good in the strictest sense is considered evil especially if one knows that there's a better chance. I have to keep myself accountable for this as well. Here is yet another weird attack on truth by partial and unthoughtful truisms. Relativism is dangerous and paradoxical in this sense, especially when used as an actual way of life and not just an argument, because it advocates to do away with something that is better. Sure it is hard to ascertain it, and even the most studied of people can be wrong despite advocating for the good. But morality shouldn't be politicized; morality is for all.

This is what I mean on how "letting be" can get out of hand, and is the object of my confusion here, of which I only hope to pray for being graced with as I continue my own studies and my own journey in faith. I acknowledge my limited knowledge and understanding here is rather the probable reason. 

An excerpt from Ratzinger's book struck me yesterday and I told Arie about it. It seemed obvious to her, but I went about summarizing his analysis of the parable of the two brothers (as he prefers over the parable of the prodigal son).  I just opened my Bible now and read it from Luke 15:11-31. The parable, in short, speaks of a son who asked for his share of his father's fortune to go out into the city. His father obliges and he goes out but spends every penny on it in "loose living", which led him to eventually finding work in a famine stricken area as a swine herd's help, happy to eat the pods used to feed swine. He realizes how wrong he is and resolves to make things right by confessing to his father "Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants" (Luke 15: 18-19). And when he did so, the father interjected him and forgave him, celebrating the return of his son. 

I reflected on this for the past 2 days and thought of Mica or Anya or anyone really. Are they also in their own prodigal son/daughter scenario? Should this be a foundation for "letting them be"? But as soon as I think this, I'm humbled myself of why Ratzinger prefers the parable to be called the parable of the two sons or the forgiving father– the other son is complacent and even resentful of his brother being forgiven. This other brother too, though so "steeped" in the comfort of the faith, was still in the wrong when he acted in that way. But the loving father is sure to forgive this son too, assuring him "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found" (Luke 15:31-32). So I too, having reconciled my faith (and still in the process of reconciling) must always be aware of getting too complacent within the faith. This is why I think mission is important, because it challenges one's faith to being active as we are called to be in the world– "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15: 19). And not only this but to be empowered by grace, and to cultivate it faith, so that "when the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). 

And there's even more to the story for me to identify with as well. I too was the prodigal son in that I fell away from my "home", living a largely agnostic secularist life while in college, but always kind of drawn to the idea of truth, which I thought the roman catholic church too rule-based (just as Ben Gibbard thought) to actually help me access it based on structure alone. But when I returned to the faith, oh how rich it is to read and be educated in catechesis. It is indeed the religious education that enriches all of the sacraments we can find boring. 

So where does this leave me at least in my state of questioning this strategy to "let her be"? I can't merely just say "it's her life so she should do what she wants" any more than I can say that for myself. The good life is indeed the better life, and I'm always reminded by Pope John Paul II's take on freedom: "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought". 

From the beginning, "man and woman; he created them" (Genesis 1:27) to have a personal relationship with Him, for which we have the freedom to freely choose God who is love and who is of utmost goodness. And it is such then that my resolve is to turn my attitude towards another not in terms of just cranking out a strategy such as "let her be", but to consider carefully each situation so that justice and what is due to each person is given. The slightest of grace that I can give in the form of light reminders can go a long way in helping them realize on their own freedom and not from my coercion/persuasion, that they freely chose the good. It is then that I turn to furthering more this idea of freedom and truth coming from that famous quote by actually reading the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, from which Pope John Paul II's teaching for the Catholic Church on freedom and truth is most officially and most authoritatively preached.