Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5—October 18, 1973
The Christian
View of Failure
BY DR. THOMAS FRANCOEUR
Even when our self-image is sound, when we place value on
the important things of life, and when we set realistic goals for
ourselves, there are still times when we are convinced that we
have failed as individuals.
To understand this happening and to accept it, we have to
view failure in its proper perspective. We must see it as relative.
Again, we must be cautious about norms, and, indeed, about the
source of these norms
Just as in success, we cannot listen to unthinking points of
view where our nature, in its possibilities that surpass the
ordinary, is so often overlooked. Just as success may be seen
against a distorted image of man, so may failure seem a hopeless
condition if pictured as the end of things when all the while the
rich, productive nature of man is ignored.
There is already the condition for further productivity when
we find ourselves asking: “What went wrong?” This question is
the root of hope, the evidence that man believes in himself, in
the richness of the divine 0ft of life.
The research scientist may labor for years only to find his
experiment a dead end. The child may discover that his dam in
the sands at the seaside just won’t hold. The mother may try
many times, in vain, to lead her young child to a happier
disposition. But in every case we see the possibility of the
human heart starting again.
If we turn to the question of what went wrong, we generally
learn something very fundamental about the design of our
natures. We always operate on whatever evidence or whatever
forms of resource and insight we have at the moment. We just
can’t do more than that!
So we venture forth, choose work, handle relationships, shape
our lives and the lives of others as best we can. Later we may see
where we did not choose the “best” way. But that insight came
later.
At that later date, filled with determination and energy that
comes from knowing our great potential and calling, we make
adjustments, and move on. This process of seeing weaknesses,
correcting, and moving on, repeats itself throughout our
lifetime. We move gradually, correcting our position all the
while. Christ makes it very clear that this is what He expects of
us and knows we will accomplish: “ .. .and greater than these
will you do.”
Failure may be seen as an end, or as a beginning of better
things. This latter view is the Christian pattern.
This so-called failure leads us to discover many things, to find
new strengths. It also keeps our eye on the fact that success and
failure must be measured when the race is over, not after a few
laps. Our being forced to reassess, reexamine, calls us to look to
mystery with an eye of simple faith time and again. It
underlines for us the immensity of goodness, the demands of
deep loving, and of our smallness.
Paul exhorts us to put on the mind of Christ. This is
humbling, also vitalizing, because it says what we can do in spite
of seeming limitations. It shows failure as a step to fulfillment.
We can find peace in this view if we dwell and ponder on its
reality, if we continue to search in prayer, if we convert a
possible passivity of failure into a hopeful creativity.
(NC PHOTO)
“WHAT PUZZLES so many of the clergy today is
why so many (young people) completely ignore the
church, but when it comes to being married and
buried, they want a minister.” A young couple walk in
a park on an overcast day.
“THE CHILD may discover that his dam in the
sands at the seaside just won’t hold. The mother may
try many times, in vain, to lead her young child to a
BY FATHER JOSEPH M. CHAMPLIN
An Episcopalian priest sought help recently from “Dear
Abby” about a situation which arises frequently in
contemporary society His words:
“A mother wrote that her daughter wanted to be married in
the park by a justice of the peace. She says her daughter
doesn’t believe in anything, and neither does the young man.
Your answer was absolutely right. A civil ceremony is the only
appropriate one.
“What puzzles so many of the clergy today is why so many
BY STEVE LANDREGAN
If the Pharisees were the “liberals” of Palestinian Jewry in
New Testament times, the Sadducees were the “conservatives.”
The Sadducees, or party of the High Priest, emerged in the
time of the Maccabees when the Pharisees separated themselves
from the Hasmonean rulers. The priests took Zadok or Sadok,
the High Priest under David as their patron or spiritual father,
and their name is probably derived from his, although some
scholars claim it finds its root in the Aramaic word “saddik”
which means righteous.
Little is known about the Sadducees except that which is
found in the New Testament and in the writings of Josephus.
They were the party of the priestly aristocracy. Their supporters
included the wealthy land owners and merchants.
Under the Hasmonean dynasty they were the ruling party
although more a religious party than a political one. They were,
of course, politically powerful and also controlled the Temple
and the Temple worship. The House of Annas dominated the
Sadducean party during the time of Herod the Great and the
Roman occupation, which included the time of Christ. With the
destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the party disappeared and
only Pharisaic Judaism remained.
Doctrinally the Sadducees were opposed to the Pharisees
because the priests denied the immortality of the soul, the
resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and
only accepted the Torah, or Five Books of Moses, as
authoritative. They disagreed with the Pharisees on all these
points.
The antipathy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was
not entirely doctrinal but rested to a considerable degree upon
the Sadducees’ resentment of what they considered the
(NC PHOTO)
happier disposition. But in every case we see the
possibility of the human heart starting again.” A
mother tries to console her weeping son.
completely ignore the church, but when it comes to being
married and buried, they want a minister.
“I am a retired Episcopal priest and admit that I have
officiated at many such weddings and funerals, but I am still not
sure whether I was showing Christian charity or moral
cowardice by doing so.”
Abigail counseled: “Dear Priest: I would be inclined to say
you showed Christian charity.”
His Catholic colleagues in the ministry often face the same
dilemma today.
Pharisees’ lay intrusion in the field of priestly privilege. To
them, Jesus was another lay upstart threatening their
domination. The cooperation of the Sadducees with the
Pharisees in plotting against Jesus was a rare joint effort of the
opposing groups.
Indeed, the Sadducees were the only group with sufficient
political clout in Palestine to effectively silence Jesus. They did
so through the office of Caiaphas, the high priest, and the
Sanhedrin which they controlled.
Paul, who was himself a Pharisee, once used the
disagreements between the Pharisees and Sadducees to distract
attention from himself before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23: 6-8).
John the Baptist condemned the Sadducees along with the
Pharisees, calling them a “brood of vipers” (Mt. 3:7). Jesus
warned his followers to “be on the lookout against the yeast of
the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Mt. 16:6).
At one time the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus in a question
designed to make belief in the resurrection look ridiculous (Mt.
22: 22-23).
As with the Pharisees, it would be unfair to label all
Sadducees as political opportunists or religious hypocrites.
Many undoubtedly opposed Jesus on the basis of a sincere
religious belief and an inability to identify Christ with the image
of a kingly or priestly messiah they had been led to expect.
The policy of the Sadducees in peaceful coexistence with
Rome and other foreign rulers, a policy that was generally
shared by the Pharisees, put both sects at loggerheads with the
Zealots, or extreme nationalists, who saw all foreign rule as
odious.
Next week we will explore the Zealots and the road to
destruction along which their extremism led the Jews.
Religious Education
& Personal Failure
BY FATHER CARL J. PFEIFER, S.J.
The “American Dream” is usually marked by success. Hard
work, honesty, a few lucky breaks lead to success after success.
There is little place in the American dream for failure.
Americans place a premium on success - usually measured in
dollars, power and pleasure.
Curiously it seems that while society is programmed for
success, most of us seem programmed for failure. At least that
seems to be the point of Dr. Thomas Harris in his remarkably
popular best seller, “I’M OK - YOU’RE OK.”
Harris maintains that “very early in life every child concludes,
“I’m not OK.” He - and others who accept the principles of
transactional analysis - believe that this basic decision is
permanently recorded in your personality and will influence
everything you do. The corollary, of course, is that the child
concludes that parents and others are “OK.” From very early,
they contend, each of us is internally convinced: “I’m not OK -
You’re OK.” We are thereby programmed for failure, or at least
a sense of failure even when we succeed.
The immense popularity of Harris’ book - and that of his
teacher and co-worker, Eric Berne, GAMES PEOPLE PLAY -- at
least suggests that hundreds of thousands of Americans find
these insights interesting and helpful. What I find interesting is
that Harris turns an apparently negative view of man’s position
as programmed for failure to one of realistic hope for success.
In his view it is possible to recognize the failure-oriented
stance of “I’m not OK - You’re OK” and to reverse it. The
negative decision about oneself can be changed to the positive
and creative position that “I’m OK - You’re OK.” Ultimately
true success in life - even in the face of objective failures --lies
in maintaining a healthy sense of personal dignity in a world of
basic moral values. Harris goes so far as to describe this positive
stance of self-acceptance and acceptance by others in Christian
language as the state of “grace.”
Perhaps no clearer example of Harris’ ideal is Jesus Christ. In
many respects Jesus was a disappointing failure. He was
condemned and crucified as a political criminal. His friends
abandoned him. There seemed little evidence of a “kingdom”
being found at Calvary. Soldiers threw dice for all his
possessions - the clothes that had been stripped off his back.
:Hardly a resounding success.
Yet Jesus seems to have maintained a profound awareness of
his unconditional acceptance by His Father. In the final
moments of his tragically short life he trustfully placed himself
in His father’s hands. To use Harris’ terms, Jesus had the
unshakable conviction that despite his failure he was “OK” -
accepted and loved by His Father. The Gospels show him
fearful, anxious, anguished but with a clear sense of his worth
and firm stance toward basic values. He turned failure into
success.
His followers, who had abandoned him, experienced
something of the same healing acceptance. They experienced in
their lives, soured by disillusionment and shame, something of
God’s unconditioned favorable regard. Only Judas seems to have
been unable or unwilling to overcome the gnawing conviction,
“I’m not OK.”
Whether one accepts Harris’ theories and language or not, his
popular book can stimulate our thought as teachers and parents.
Each of our students or children needs to be gradually helped to
the personal recognition of God’s warm personal love. Each
needs to believe in God’s grace or favor to them. All of us need
to be enabled to appreciate our personal value and dignity,
which ultimately is not measured by dollars but by God’s
creative love. All need to grow in the conviction: “I’m OK -
You’re OK.”
As parents and religious educators we can come to recognize
- and help others recognize - that success and failure have
deeper, more realistic norms than found in the American dream
of success. The presence of Jesus and His spirit in our lives
assures us that true success in life can be found even in apparent-
failures.
Marry
An engaged couple, for example, have not been to a Sunday
Eucharist or received Holy Communion in several years nor do
they indicate any significant intention of reversing that trend in
their married life. Yet they wish a Nuptial Mass with all the
trimmings for their wedding ceremony.
Another young man and woman profess little interest in a
religious service, but opt for a priest and a church marriage to
please their parents and avoid further hassles.
How does the responsible priest react with such couples?
Refuse them outright? Go ahead, make the best of a bad
situation, feeling uncomfortable in the process but hoping his
personal kindness and a beautiful ceremony may leave pleasant
memories in their hearts and sow seeds for some future
conversion? Confront them, as one Detroit priest did, and point
out the inconsistency of their request, risking permanent
alienation in an attempt to have this couple come to grips with
the faith questions at issue?
The revised rite of marriage urges, in its introductory
guidelines, that officiating clergy keep in mind two basic
principles which are very much to the point here.
First, there should be no “we marry anyone without
questions” approach.
The document states: “Priests should first of all strengthen
and nourish the faith of those about to be married, for the
sacrament presupposes and demands faith.” (Article 7).
Secondly, the clergy should seek to keep alive weakly
flickering flames of faith in couples, not stamp them out by a
harsh and inflexible attitude.
The ritual directs: “Priests should show special consideration
to those who take part in liturgical celebrations or hear the
gospel only on the occasion of a wedding, either because they
are not Catholics, or because they are Catholics who rarely, if
ever, take part in the eucharist or seem to have abandoned the
practice of their faith. Priests are ministers of Christ’s gospel to
everyone.” (Article 9).
Like in so many similar life situations, these norms do not
offer the concerned priest a handy, precise set of rules to follow
in doubtful cases. He must judge what will be best for all in the
given circumstances.
I would be inclined, however, to agree with “Dear Abby” and
generally favor the solution which seeks to win such couples
over through friendly preliminalry discussions, their
involvement in preparing the nuptial liturgy and a personal,
moving ceremony on the wedding day itself.
(All Articles On This Page Copyrighted 1973 by N.C. News Service)
Know Your Faith
- >
To Marry or Not to
Sadducees: The Priestly Party