There are many in our society today, especially those who swing a lot of weight in the media and in the field of education, who are much preoccupied with what they call diversity. This is one of the latest fads of our intellectual elite. Intellectual elites, in our time and in all times, are very adept at succumbing to fads, and then, in more cases than not, enthusiastically drumming up support for them. Such is the case with diversity, which has now become, for many intellectuals, a near obsession. Getting caught up in fads serves as a welcome substitute for serious thought, something which intellectuals, taken as a class, and contrary to received opinion, are not particularly adept at. In general, they tend not to excel when it comes to original ideas.

Just what is this diversity about which so much to-do is today being made? If one were to look up the word in a reliable dictionary—as I just did, in Webster’s Unabridged—one would be informed that diversity is a state which is characterized by difference, a lack of similarity, variety, unlikeness, multiformity. As such, I think we would all readily agree that diversity represents a very common condition. There certainly is a lot of difference to be found in the society in which we live.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? To give an adequate answer to that question we would first have to know what kind of difference is being considered. A person who lies, cheats, and steals is different from an honest, law-abiding, and in other ways respectable citizen, but that is not the kind of difference one would want to applaud, much less actively advance.

There is a very important fact about diversity—taking it just as such, and prescinding from its being either good or bad—a fact which the self-appointed apostles of diversity, for whatever reason, systematically neglect. It is this: diversity does not have to be promoted. Diversity is quite capable of thriving on its own. Such is human nature. There is always going to be, in any society or community, willy nilly, a range of differences among the membership. Furthermore, it will inevitably happen that some of those differences will be negative, in the sense that, if not properly tended to, they will adversely affect the health of the society or community.

This negative diversity, human nature being what it is, will make its appearance and flourish unassisted, like weeds in a garden. And, like weeds in a garden, if left unchecked, it could eventually lead to the ruination of the society or community in which it takes hold and grows. Negative diversity works directly contrary to the unity and coherence of any society. It should therefore be the principal concern of dedicated citizens to bend their efforts, not to the fostering of an indiscriminate diversity—once again, that needs no fostering—but rather to the eradication of negative diversity. Contrary to what the ideological social engineers seem to think, the natural opposite to a society low on what they understand by diversity is not a society beset by bland homogeneity; it is a healthy society, the different parts of which come together to compose a coherent unity.

But clearly the ardent advocates of diversity are up to something which smacks of the disingenuous. When they preach to us on the importance of diversity in society, and clamor for more of it, they are not interested in promoting difference of just any kind, but only of the kind which reflects their ideological presuppositions. And more often than not they are promoting negative diversity, diversity, that is, which contributes to societal disunity. “Diversity,” then, must be recognized as something of a code word, as it is used by the intellectual elite, a code word that identifies a rather elaborate agenda for social change. We can get a good idea of the particulars of this agenda when we discover that something like same sex marriages is put forward as representing a recommendable form of societal “diversity.”

A specific brand of diversity which receives perhaps the greatest amount of attention and support from the intellectual elite goes by the name of cultural diversity. The promotion of cultural diversity has fast developed into a formidable movement, and is now being vigorously advanced at all levels of education, both public and private.

The basic idea behind the cultural diversity movement is that students should spend a good deal of their time learning about cultures other than there own. More particularly, students in Western countries should learn more about non-Western cultures. Now, on the face of it, this is not a bad idea. But why should we consider it as something novel, and as deserving of special emphasis? Has it not always been an integral part of any worthwhile educational program, wherever it might be found, that in it students are urged to expand their mental horizons, and take pains to learn about what lies beyond their own back yard? Hence the importance of foreign language study.

Not surprisingly, a closer look at the cultural diversity movement reveals that there is more to it than what might first strike the eye. Rather than being simply a program designed to promote better education, it is but another dimension of a larger effort that is dedicated to ideologically driven social reconstruction. Many of those who argue for the need for Western children to become better acquainted with non-Western cultures, and to develop an appreciation for those cultures, often want this carefully directed learning process to take place at the expense of the children’s knowledge and appreciation of their own cultures. In addition, pro-non-Western attitudes are often furthered along with what are at least implicitly anti-Western attitudes. And the reason for this is that the promoters of these programs, who are Westerners, are themselves affected with a deeply anti-Western bias. In some extreme cases their stance amounts to something like a real hatred for Western culture.

How to explain this? A full explanation of the strange phenomenon would require a book, and I can here offer only a couple of tentative suggestions. It seems that one reason why so many of our intellectuals are anti-Western is because they are beset by a considerable ignorance of their own culture, so that they are largely ignorant of what they so summarily reject. Paradoxical though it may sound, intellectuals are not always the best educated of people; this is especially so in the United States, particularly when it comes to a knowledge of history, even the history of their own country. The fact that intellectuals reject Western culture out of an ignorance of that culture does not, of course, excuse their actions, but it may at least make them a bit more comprehensible.

But there is a deeper, and more disturbing explanation for the repudiation of Western culture on the part of so many of our intellectuals, and that is the close association they see, and rightly, between Western culture and Christianity. Great historians such as Hilaire Belloc and Christopher Dawson have impressively demonstrated for us the fact that the principal virtues of Western culture—and they are not a few—are attributable in the main to the influence of Christianity, and, in fact, inexplicable without Christianity. Our intellectual elite know enough about Western culture to know at least that, and the knowledge disturbs them. Fully committed as they are to the total secularization of society, they see certain seminal values of Western culture, values the culture owes directly to Christianity, as irksome obstacles to their ambitious plans for the transformation of society. What they really do not like about Western culture, then, for all the decline it has suffered in recent centuries, is that it still bears upon it the, for them, disturbing marks of Christianity, a Christianity to which they are unalterably opposed.

Dr. Dennis Q. McInerny’s articles have been published in the FSSP North American District Newsletter many times through the years and will soon be published in the upcoming book Perennial Wisdom Volume II by Fraternity Publications.

On March 6, 2010, six seminarians were ordained to the diaconate in the new seminary chapel. Four men were ordained for the Fraternity of St. Peter and two for the Carmelite Monks (Wyoming).

For more information and to view the photo gallery, please visit the Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary website.

What is a person? We will begin our response to that important question with a negative reply. A person is not a gift of the state. It is not within the power of the state, or of any other human institution, to confer personhood, the status of being a human person, on whomever it may choose. For any state to suppose it has such power is for it to assume a stance of the most wanton kind of arrogance. It is to perform an act of supreme recklessness and gross injustice. And yet that is precisely what the Supreme Court of the United States did in 1973. In a dark masterpiece of Orwellian logic, the court, after claiming that it was not within its competence to make any pronouncements as to when human life begins, then, by the actual judgment it made, arbitrarily precluded the possibility that human life could begin before the birth of a child.

Since that fatal decision we have gone even farther down the road of mindless nihilism. The court, by legalizing abortion on demand, has effectively invested every adult citizen with the specious right of deciding who is and who is not a human person. And now, not only do we assume the power to confer or withhold personhood, we take it upon ourselves to withdraw it as well. Woe to the deathly sick and the maim and the mentally retarded, for they stand in constant danger of being declared non-persons, and therefore subject to extermination, because they fail to qualify as persons according to standards which are purely utilitarian.

Personhood begins at the very beginning, at the moment of conception. And it is indeed conferred. It is a gift, but a gift of God, not of man. The fact is indisputable that as soon as sperm conjoins with ovum and that minute cell called the zygote comes into being, there is genetically a new human being. That it is a human being cannot be disputed, for what other kind of being could ever be generated by human parents? And it is a human being who is in no way to be confused with the human being who is the mother or with the human being who is the father.

So, from the moment of conception we have dwelling within the mother what is incontestably a distinct, individual human being, a human being minuscule in size, but a human being who has, at that moment, encompassed within its tiny physical self, everything it takes to be an adult human being. It all begins right there, and it is all there right from the beginning. It might be helpful to apply here the philosophical concept of potency. There are two ways of being, actual and potential, and they are both real. An acorn is an actual acorn, but it is also a potential oak tree. To call an acorn a potential oak tree is not simply to wax poetical and indulge in metaphorical language. It is literally true that an acorn is right now potentially an oak tree, meaning that, properly planted, and all conditions subsequently being favorable, it will in fact one day be an oak tree.

The tiny human being dwelling within a woman’s body at the very beginning of its life is chock full of potential. But note very carefully what must be understood about that tiny being’s potential. It is by no means a potential human being. It is an actual human being ab initio, right from the beginning. The potential of that tiny creature is with respect to its adulthood. Though at the moment it is at the humblest and most precarious stage of its life, bearing the rather unprepossessing name of “zygote,” it is nonetheless, at that moment, potentially an adult. That is the thunderously astonishing reality. Every adult human being now living began nowhere else but right there. That is where Dante and Shakespeare and Mozart began. That’s where Our Lady began. That’s where Christ Our Lord began. We have to impress upon ourselves the surpassing importance of this critical fact: potential being is real being. The adult human being is there, in potentia, potentially real, right from the beginning.

But one might say: I agree, given everything that we now know about genetics, that it cannot be denied that what we have from the moment of conception is a human being and nothing else. But we are concerned here with personhood. It is one thing to say that a human being is there right from the beginning, but can we say that a human person is there right from the beginning?

To which I would reply: What else could we say? How could one possibly divorce the notion of human being from human person? What would it mean, in philosophical or theological terms, to be (a) a human being, and (b) not a human person? In fact, as I hope will be made clear by what I will have to say in the following article, the two simply cannot be divorced without lapsing into incoherence. A human being is either at one and the same time a human person, or it is in fact not a human being at all.

If one is going to take the position that it is possible that the tiny zygote must necessarily be recognized as a human being, but not necessarily recognized as a person, then one has a very large difficulty on one’s hands. One is conceding that there exists a tiny creature who is, here and now, a potential adult human being but not a person. What then? The answer would doubtless be: a potential person. The idea is that we are human beings right from the beginning, but not human persons right from the beginning. Personhood is something we grow into. We become persons. Personhood is not a gift, but an accomplishment.

But this line of reasoning won’t do. Recall that the potential with which the tiny zygote is invested is with respect to its adulthood, not with respect to its status as a human being. It does not grow into a human being; it is a human being who grows. To claim that human personhood is not there right from the beginning, that it is something the human being grows into, is to make personhood something apart from a flesh and blood human being. In philosophical terms, it would make of personhood an accidental feature of humanness, rather than something that is essential to it. In other words, it would make personhood an element that is added on to human nature, rather than being, what in fact it is, an integral and inextricable part of it.

And of course if one does not concede that personhood is there right from the beginning—because to be a human being means to be a person—then there arises the insuperable problem as to when a human being becomes a human person. If a human being is not a person from the first moment of conception, if a human being only develops into the status of personhood, then where is the magic line that is crossed from mere human being to human person, and, more pointedly, who draws that line?

As soon as personhood is divorced from human nature as such, a Pandora’s box of evils is opened. When personhood is not accepted as a “given,” as that which is present from the beginning, then personhood becomes a status which is arbitrarily conferred, or withheld, by those with power over this tiny human creature, and according to criteria that have nothing to do with the ontological realities of the situation. “Choice” becomes a matter of choosing who is and who is not a human person. And those who are not so chosen are condemned to death at the very dawn of their lives.

Dr. Dennis Q. McInerny’s articles have been published in the FSSP North American District Newsletter many times through the years and will soon be published in the upcoming book Perennial Wisdom Volume II by Fraternity Publications.

March Reflection
by Fr. Eric Flood, FSSP District Superior

Throughout the liturgical year of the Church, the life of Christ is presented to our minds and hearts so that we are inspired to revolve our life around the life of Our Lord. The glorious feasts of Our Lord, like Easter and Christmas, we celebrate with joyful festivities, but the joy of being Catholic should resound the entire year. During Lent while we remember the sufferings and trials of Our Lord, our joy must radiate amidst our fasting, and no greater day does our heart resound with joy than on the day Our Lord resurrected from the dead.

This joy should permeate our entire lives and overflow into all our actions. Whatever happens throughout the day, we remain content, serene, and joyful. Those who traveled with the great pioneer Priest, Fr. De Smet, said that they never saw him become dismayed at bad weather, harsh conditions, or adversities. He accepted all as coming from the providential hand of God. As a result, his days were filled with peacefulness, even though he witnessed atrocities around him. We learn from Fr. De Smet that if our lives conform to God’s holy will, our reward will be a joy and peacefulness which resides deep in our Soul.

This joy, however, can be destroyed by anger, resentment, and bitterness—especially if these feelings have dwelt in our heart for years. Holding on to grudges and dislikes, harboring vengeful thoughts, and being contentious will take their toll on our Soul. The end result is that the person lacks peace and joy in his life, and he is like a wounded soldier in the Church Militant which only charity can repair.

There is no greater bulwark for our joy than our Catholic Faith. To suffer and to undergo the temptations of this life lose their value if they are not endured out of love for God, our neighbor, or our self. How can we imitate Christ if we live without suffering? How can we imitate Christ if our sufferings are not accompanied with joy? St. Paul reminds us that “whatever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad” (Rom. 8:28). Those who love God will remain content and joyful because their entire happiness rests upon the fulfillment of the will of God, even in adversities.

Our role, then, is to have joy not only in our hearts, but to radiate this joy outwardly in our attitude, expressions, and relations with other people. As God’s providential hand is multiplying the number of Latin Masses around the globe, we rejoice that the traditional liturgy can be more easily attended by those desiring to worship the Triune God in this form of Holy Mass.

There are still many faithful clamoring for the Latin Mass in their area, but our hope remains firm that the Latin Mass and the Church’s traditions will regain their vigor in God’s time. It gives those places with the Latin Mass, a reason to rejoice, for it is victory over the evil one every time a Priest ascends the steps of the altar. Likewise Mass is a source of joy for the Souls in attendance as the greatest of all the Sacraments— Holy Eucharist—is the fountain of joy for the Soul. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that a person is joyful when he is in possession of what he loves, and the end-result for those who love God above all things is that they possess joy in their Soul. So let our joy be seen by all men.

This article originally appeared in the March 2008 North American District Fraternity Newsletter. Click here to receive our free newsletter by mail.

Television is not a true relief.

Parents be wary

Sense Overload

For Immediate Release

Press Release
Special EWTN Live Interview with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter

DENTON, Nebraska – February 1st , 2010 – On Wednesday night, February 24th, EWTN favorite, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, will be interviewing two members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Father Calvin Goodwin and Deacon Rhone Lillard.

The topic of the interview will be the Pontifical Consecration of the Fraternity’s newly built chapel at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary which EWTN is televising live on Wednesday, March 3rd at 11:00am (EST). His Excellency, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska , will celebrate the Pontifical Consecration and Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The ancient ceremony will be in the presence of William Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Joining Cardinal Levada, will be several bishops from around the United States.

Watch EWTN Live online on Wednesday, February 24th at 8:00PM (EST)!
www.ewtn.com/audiovideo

Media Contact
Father Joseph Lee, FSSP
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary
7880 West Denton Road
Denton, Nebraska 68339
phone (402) 570-2707
emailjlee@gmail.com

About the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Established in 1988 by Pope John Paul II, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter strives to serve the Catholic Church by means of its own particular role, the sanctification of priests through the faithful celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Through the spiritual riches of the Church’s ancient Roman liturgy, the priests of the Fraternity seek to sanctify those entrusted to their care. The Priestly Fraternity instructs and trains its priests to preserve, promote, and protect the Catholic Church’s authentic liturgical and spiritual traditions in over 16 countries worldwide. The Fraternity has over 200 priests and 125 seminarians studying in its two international seminaries in Bavaria, Germany and Denton, Nebraska.

About EWTN

Founded by Mother Angelica, the EWTN Global Catholic Network, now in its 28th year, is available in more than 150 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.

On the Fridays of Lent, The faithful receive a plenary indulgence, if they recite the prayer before a crucifix, the indulgence is a partial indulgence any other time.

In addition, on any of the Fridays of Lent, one can devoutly recite after Communion the prayer “En ego, O bone et dulcissime Iesus” before a crucifix. From the context, it is imperative to do so after receiving Communion, during thanksgiving, to receive the plenary indulgence.

In Latin

En ego, o bone et dulcissime Iesu,
ante conspectum tuum genibus me provolvo,
ac maximo animi ardore te oro atque obtestor,
ut meum in cor vividos fidei,
spei et caritatis sensus,
atque veram peccatorum meorum paenitentiam,
eaque emendandi firmissimam voluntatem velis imprimere;
dum magno animi affectu et dolore tua quinque
vulnera mecum ipse considero ac mente contemplor,
illud prae oculis habens,
quod iam in ore ponebat tuo1 David propheta de te,
o bone Iesu: Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos:
dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea.
Amen.

In English

Look down upon me, good and gentle Jesus,
while before Thy face I humbly kneel and,
with burning soul,
pray and beseech Thee
to fix deep in my heart lively sentiments
of faith, hope and charity;
true contrition for my sins,
and a firm purpose of amendment.
While I contemplate,
with great love and tender pity,
Thy five most precious wounds,
pondering over them within me
and calling to mind the words which David,
Thy prophet, said of Thee, my Jesus:
“They have pierced My hands and My feet,
they have numbered all My bones.”
Amen.

Alternate Version

Behold, O good and sweetest Jesus,
I cast myself upon my knees in Thy sight,
and with the most fervent desire of my soul
I pray and beseech Thee to impress upon my heart
lively sentiments of faith, hope and charity,
with true repentance for my sins
and a most firm desire of amendment.
Whilst with deep affection and grief of soul
I consider within myself and mentally contemplate
Thy five most precious wounds,
having before mine eyes that which David,
the prophet, long ago spoke concerning Thee,
“They have pierced My hands and My feet,
they have numbered all My bones.”
Amen.

Detraction
February 2004

It is no small offence to deprive a man of his good name, but that is precisely what we do when we commit the sin of detraction. Saint Thomas captures the essence of that sin with a crisp two word Latin phrase, mordere famam, which could be rendered fairly accurately as “chewing up a reputation.” The detractor’s unseemly intention is to attack the good name of his victim, and thereby to lower the man’s estimate in the eyes of others.

To fill out the definition of detraction we need to add the element of secrecy. The detractor sets out to defame another in secret. What this means, specifically, is that (a) the victim of the detraction is absent, and (b) he is ignorant of what is being done to him in his absence. Detraction is secret, then, only with respect to its victim. Beyond that, it can be very much a public affair. Given the realities of modern communication, someone may be detracted before an audience numbering in the thousands or even the millions. Saint Thomas explains that one of the reasons the detractor goes about his detracting business in the absence of his victim is that he lacks the courage to denigrate the man to his face.

It is just the fact that a man’s reputation is attacked in his absence that distinguishes detraction from contumely. In spelling out that distinction in precise terms, St. Thomas calls attention to two ways by which we can wound people by our words. We can do so behind their backs: that is detraction. Or we can do so to their presence: that is contumely.

Quite often, when people are called to task for detracting someone, they will defensively retort by saying, “But it’s true!”—as if that somehow justified what they were doing. It doesn’t. The fact that the bad things we say about others in their absence are true does not mean that our saying them does not constitute detraction. Granted, we can detract people by lying about them, in which case we would only be compounding the evil we are perpetrating, but usually the information which is grist for the mill of detraction is true information. And it is just that which makes it so damaging.

Regarding detraction in terms of its effects, the principal one to be considered is the harm which is done to the good name of the person who is the victim of the detraction. Just what is this “good name” (“nomen bonum,” in the Latin of St. Thomas) that the detractor seeks to undermine, and which suffers damage at his hands? We say that every man is entitled to his good name. This means, at the most basic level, that every person deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. In other words, every person should be able to expect, in justice (i.e., with regard to what is due to him as a person) to be regarded by others as possessed of elemental human integrity and common decency, and to be respected accordingly. Any person living and working in a public forum of one sort or another (and that would include every one of us), is entitled to assume that others think well of him. A man’s good name guarantees his status as a respected member of a community.

All of us, or some of us at any rate, have things that are very much part of our factual history, that are considerably less than edifying, and that we would very much prefer not to be made public. If the things in question are serious enough, the fact of their being made public could reduce our moral standing in the eyes of the people with whom we deal on a daily basis, and that, in turn, particularly if we hold a position of authority to which important responsibilities are attached, could diminish the effectiveness of our work.

It was especially because of its potential for adversely affecting the detracted person’s ability to continue to function productively in society that prompted St. Thomas to regard detraction, taken in itself, as a serious sin. If I deprive a man of his good name by revealing something about him which should not be revealed, I can, because of my disclosures, prevent him from effectively fulfilling the duties which accompany his state in life. Generally speaking, detraction has the effect of disrupting the peace of a community, because it sets people against one another. It brings about alienation and even hatred. Saint Thomas uses rather strong language is discussing these effects, comparing a detractor to a murderer. The detractor kills friendships; he poisons goodwill.

I directly commit the sin of detraction when I speak ill of a person with the specific intention in mind of either tarnishing, or destroying, the reputation of that person. But I can also commit the sin of detraction indirectly. I do that when I find myself in a situation where an absent party is being roundly detracted and I sit there with a sinister glint in my eye, maintaining, as St. Thomas pointedly puts it, “a malicious silence.” If the reputation of a person is being wantonly attacked in my presence, I have an obligation to come to the defense of that person’s reputation. Sometimes it is simply cowardice that explains my silence, which is bad enough. But if I am silent because I share the attitude of the detractor toward the one being defamed, then I am complicit in the sin.

To be sure, bad-mouthing people behind their backs is not always a serious sin. There might not be the kind of malice in such talk which would qualify it as genuine detraction. Saint Thomas acknowledges that we human beings have very loose tongues, and we love to gossip. How easily we talk about people in their absence—in itself not a bad thing—and how often that talk tends to be negative rather than positive! Saint James is to be carefully heeded as he warns us of the multitude of difficulties our wagging tongues can get us into.

Does it always constitute a case of detraction if we reveal something bad about a person in that person’s absence? No. In fact, there might be circumstances which positively demand that we do so. Saint Thomas speaks of the requirements of public justice in this respect. For example, if someone knows that an acquaintance of his is engaging in clandestine criminal activity, he has a responsibility to bring that to light. But the point to be made here is that such revelations should be made to the proper authorities, those who are in a position to do something about the information that is given them. It would be wrong to disseminate such information indiscriminately.

Why do we succumb to the sin of detraction? Apart from simply referring the whole matter to the mystery of evil, we could suggest a more concrete explanation by taking note of St. Thomas’s description of detraction as “the daughter of envy.” More times than not, I seek to drag down the reputation of another person through detraction because I am envious of that person’s reputation, and believe that somehow it takes away from my own. In my envy, I manage to convince myself that if I should succeed in lowering his reputation, my own would by that very fact be increased. Of course, such thinking is wonderfully irrational. And it could not be otherwise. As St. Thomas never tires of reminding us, sinful behavior is at bottom irrational behavior. Detraction, like every other sin, is a direct affront to reason.

Dr. Dennis Q. McInerny’s articles have been published in the FSSP North American District Newsletter many times through the years and will soon be published in the upcoming book Perennial Wisdom Volume II by Fraternity Publications.

Hypocrisy
by Dr. Dennis Q McInerny
January 2004

To bring up the subject of hypocrisy is almost automatically to bring up the subject of the Pharisees, for it was the Pharisees whom Our Lord roundly castigated again and again for their hypocritical behavior. Indeed, so close is the connection in our minds between hypocrisy and the Pharisees that we regularly use the term “pharisaical” as a pointed synonym for “hypocritical.”

When we consult St. Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of hypocrisy, we discover that he sees it, regarded generally, as virtually identical with what he calls simulatio. My Latin dictionary provides an illuminating list of definitions for that word, as follows: “a falsely assumed appearance,” “a false show,” “feigning,” “shamming,” “pretence,” “insincerity,” “deceit.” The sum total of the meaning conveyed by that list gives us, I think, a pretty good idea of the nature of the subject which is before us.

We are all capable of acting hypocritically at times, which is just how we act when we attempt to put ourselves forward as something which we are not. But the hope is that none of us are full-time hypocrites. A person who qualifies for the undesirable status of hypocrite would be someone who has become habituated to deceitful behavior. It is a way of life for him. Those who are acquainted with the very high regard St. Thomas had for truth will not be at all surprised to learn that he unhesitantly identifies hypocritical behavior as sinful behavior. Hypocritical behavior is not necessarily mortally sinful, but it can be so. What makes all hypocritical behavior sinful, either mortally or venially, is the fact that it is in its essence an affront to the truth. The hypocrite is, at bottom, a liar.

A lie, St. Augustine tells us, consists in a radical discrepancy between what a man knows and what he says. The liar knows X is Y; he says X is not Y. The hypocrite lies not only with his tongue, but with all of his actions. We can say without being melodramatic about it that the hypocrite’s whole life, everything he does, represents an ongoing lie. The purpose of lying is to deceive. The purpose behind the hypocrite’s elaborate program of calculated deception is to make people believe that he is someone other than he truly is. And, of course, the deceit is aimed in only one direction: the hypocrite intends that people should think him better than he truly is. No hypocrite pretends to be worse than he actually is. To be sure, some people do pretend they are worse than they actually are, but that represents an altogether different problem, which is called false humility.

All sin is sad, but there seems to be something especially sad about the sin of hypocrisy, for it amounts to being nothing more than a concentrated and sustained exercise in shallowness. The committed hypocrite is singularly lacking in depth. There is not much inwardness at all to him. His every effort is dedicated to preserving surface realities, to maintaining a fake facade. He is a consummate actor, but he performs in a drama which, if played out to the end, can be counted as nothing other than a tragedy. For the hypocrite, the show must go on, because, for him, the show is all there is. In castigating the Pharisees, Our Lord called them “whited sepulchres.” They appeared beautiful from the outside, but inside there was but dead men’s bones—that is to say, spiritual lifelessness.

Can a person be designated a hypocrite if he sincerely believes himself to be what in fact he is not? For example, am I a hypocrite if I sincerely believe myself to be a saint, and conduct myself according to that belief, when, in fact, I am the farthest thing from being a saint? According to St. Thomas’s interpretation of the nature of hypocrisy, that would seem not to be an instance of the sin. To understand his reasoning here we must recall that one of the definitions for simulatio which we cited above was insincerity. So, if I sincerely suppose myself to be a saint, I am certainly sorely deluded on that score—and that in itself brings with it a whole host of problems—but I would not be a hypocrite.

For St. Thomas, the genuine hypocrite is one who knows that he is not what he publicly purports to be, and who knowingly sets out to deceive. The hypocrite is devious, but he is not deluded as to the true state of his soul. We can better appreciate this point by keeping in mind the fact that the hypocrite is essentially a liar. That is the core of his identity. A liar cannot really be a liar if he thinks, when he lies, that what he is saying is the truth. Just as the actor on the stage who is playing Hamlet knows that he is not really Hamlet, so the hypocrite, who, let us say, is acting the role of a virtuous person, knows that he is not really a virtuous person. But just as a talented actor can convince an audience that he is really Hamlet, so a dedicated hypocrite can convince the people with whom he associates that they are dealing with a really virtuous person.

The simple fact that there is not perfect harmony between one’s external behavior and one’s inner moral state does not in itself make one a hypocrite. It is only with the perfect that there is perfect harmony between the internal and external man. In discussing this point, St. Thomas suggests the example of a young man who is new to the monastic life and whose edifying external behavior does not reflect his still quite imperfect internal state. But he is not trying to deceive anyone by behaving as he does. Rather, he intends that the systematic efforts he gives to the performance of praiseworthy external actions will have a salutary effect on his internal actions. In other words, he acts as virtuous people act because he earnestly wants to become virtuous himself. To imitate virtuous behavior in order to gain virtue is not to act hypocritically. In fact, it is to act prudently. This way of proceeding was to be highly recommended by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal, some 400 years after the time of St. Thomas.

We are all very alert to the hypocrisy we perceive in other people, considerably less so to the hypocrisy that resides in ourselves. But our reaction in this respect is scarcely limited to the sin of hypocrisy. We typically have eagle eyes for the failures of our fellows, but turn into veritable bats when it comes to seeing how we ourselves fall short of measuring up to the mark. This observation is not to be taken as an invitation to complacency with regard to the real existence of hypocrisy, nor to the very great danger it poses, especially for the Church. But we should have a lively awareness of the large difficulties that attend the accurate identification of hypocrisy. It is one thing to know the correct definition of hypocrisy, it is quite another to be able to specify with certitude an actual instance of it.

To see how that is so, let us remind ourselves that hypocrisy is essentially lying. To know with certainty that a liar is a liar, we have to know that the liar knows that what he is saying is not true. In other words, we have to be able to read minds as well as lips. Reading the minds of others is not only very tricky business but, from a spiritual point of view, extremely risky business. And, in the final analysis, it is not the kind of business any of us should ever want to get into. We would all do well to follow the sage advice of St. John of the Cross, and devote our energies toward the difficult task of developing within ourselves a permanent attitude of tranquil unconcern about the state of soul of other people. Each of us has a full-time job on his hands just trying to keep his own house in order.

Dr. Dennis Q. McInerny’s articles have been published in the FSSP North American District Newsletter many times through the years and will soon be published in the upcoming book Perennial Wisdom Volume II by Fraternity Publications.