A Tribute to Blessed Pope Paul VI

Blessed Pope Paul VI and the Development of Peoples

“Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.”
He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?” Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.”

Then he told them a parable. “There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
He asked himself, ‘What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?’
And he said, ‘This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.
There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you,
you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’
But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’ Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God.” (Luke 12: 13-21)

The Gospel passage for today was a constant inspiration to the thought of Blessed Pope Paul VI in his development of the Church’s social doctrine.  This passage reminds us of three fundamental themes of Paul VI in his social encyclicals – the universal destination of goods, integral human development, and solidarity.  Today we will present three passages from his landmark encyclical “Populorum Progressio” (1967) that highlight these three themes:

1. Universal Destination of Goods:  “If the world is made to fashion each individual with the means of livelihood and the instruments of his growth and progress, each man has therefore the right to find in this world what is necessary for himself.  The recent Council reminded us of this:  ‘God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people.  Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.’ (Gaudium et Spes #69)  All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.  They should not hinder but on the contrary favor its application.  It is a grave and urgent social duty to redirect them to their primary finality….

“To quote St. Ambrose: ‘You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person.  You are handing over to him what is his.  For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself.  The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.’ (Da Nabuthe, c. 12, n. 53 P.L. 14, 747) Cf. J.R. Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l’empire romain, Paris:  de Boccard, 1933, pp. 336f.)  That is, private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right.  No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.  In a word, ‘according to the traditional doctrine as found in the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians, the right to property must never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.’  If there should arise a conflict ‘between acquired private rights and primary community exigencies,’ it is the responsibility of public authorities ‘to look for a solution, with the active participation of individuals and social groups.’” (Populorum Progressio #22-23)

2. Integral Human Development:  “But neither all this nor the private and public funds that have been invested, nor the gifts and loans that have been made, can suffice.  It is not just a matter of eliminating hunger, or even of reducing poverty.  The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough.  It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion, or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man.  This demands great generosity, much sacrifice, and unceasing effort on the part of the rich man.  Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times.  Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized in favor of the most destitute?  Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development?  Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?  Or to leave this country, if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development of the young nations?”  (Populorum Progressio #47)
3. Solidarity:  “To wage war on misery and to struggle against injustice is to promote, along with improved conditions, the human and spiritual progress of all men, and therefore the common good of humanity.  Peace cannot be limited to a mere absence of war, the result of an ever precarious balance of forces.  No, peace is something that is built up day after day, in the pursuit of an order intended by God, which implies a more perfect form of justice among men….This road toward a greater humanity requires effort and sacrifice; but suffering itself, accepted for the love of our brethren, favors the progress of the entire human family.  Christians know that union with the sacrifice of our Savior contributes to the building up of the body of Christ in its plenitude:  the assembled people of God.

“We are all united in this progress toward God.  We have desired to remind all men how crucial is the present moment, how urgent the work to be done.  The hour for action has now sounded.  At stake are the survival of so many innocent children and, for so many families overcome by misery, the access to conditions fit for human beings; at stake are the peace of the world and the future of civilization.  It is time for all men and all peoples to face up to their responsibilities.”  (Populorum Progressio #76, 79-80)

 

Gradualism: Rooted in Scripture and Tradition

Gradualism:  Rooted in Scripture and Tradition

“He had to pass through Samaria.  So he came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.  Jacob’s well was there.  Jesus, tired from his journey, sat down there at the well.  It was about noon.

“A woman of Samaria came to draw water.  Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink.’  His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.  The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?’  (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.”  Jesus answered and said to her, ‘If you knew the gift of God and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.  The woman said to him, ‘Sir, you do not even have a bucket; where then can you get this living water?  Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this cistern and drank from it himself with his children and his flocks?’  Jesus answered and said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’  The woman said to him, ‘Sir, give me this water, so that I may not be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.’

“Jesus said to her, ‘Go call your husband and come back.’  The woman answered and said to him, ‘I do not have a husband.’  Jesus answered her, ‘You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.  For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband.  What you have said is true.’  The woman said to him, ‘I can see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain; but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.’  Jesus said to her, ‘Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews.  But the hour is coming, and is already here, when true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.  God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.’  The woman said to him, ‘I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when he comes, he will tell us everything.’  Jesus said to her, ‘I am he, the one who is speaking with you.’

At that moment his disciples returned, and were amazed that he was talking with a woman, but still no one said, ‘What are you looking for?’ or ‘Why are you talking with her?’  The woman left her water jar and went into the town and said to the people, ‘Come see a man who told me everything I have done.  Could he possibly be the Messiah?’  They went out of the town and came to him.  Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, ‘Rabbi, eat.’  But he said to them, ‘I have food to eat of which you do not know.’  So the disciples said to one another, ‘Could someone have brought him something to eat?’  Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.  Do you not say – in four months the harvest will be here?  I tell you, look up and see the fields ripe for the harvest.  The reaper is already receiving his payment and gathering crops for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper can rejoice together.  For here the saying is verified that one sows and another reaps.  I sent you to reap what you have not worked for; others have done the work, and you are sharing the fruits of their work.’

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in his because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me everything I have done.’  When the Samaritans came to him, they invited him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days.  Many more began to believe in him because of his word, and they said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.’”  (John 4: 4-42)

This passage is instructive because there are three levels of action that must be seen all at once and in relationship to each other:

1. Jesus and the woman at the well.
2. Jesus and his disciples.
3. Jesus and the Samaritans of the village.

The woman at the well represents the first level of gradualism.  Note the highlighted words in the passage:  they represent her gradual realization in the identity of Jesus.  Her first statement was true, but both incomplete and intended as a racial slur – Jew.  The next two statements are also true, but incomplete – sir (Jesus as a human being).  This represented development to a title of respect.  The third title represents a leap to a new level of understanding – Messiah – for it is at that point that the woman leaves behind her water jar (her material understanding of Jesus).  The final stage is one in which both she and the entire community come to affirm Jesus’ final identity as savior of the world. 

The woman is instructive for many reasons.  First, she is a public sinner who has been in multiple marriages; the very fact that she is out at midday drawing water indicates this reality.  Second, this conversation takes place outside the village –a place on the margins, a place of vulnerability; but also a place that is not circumscribed and limited by law so that the work of God can truly enter into the woman.  It is the place where she encounters God, and the village, the place of law, is seen as mission territory.  Third, Jesus is in relationship with the woman throughout the entire scene, inviting her to partake of the living water – the life of grace – in spite of her sinful past. 

Most instructive is the fact that the woman, sinner though she is, comes to be the missionary who goes back into the village and brings others to a relationship with the Lord Jesus.  The entire action of the story is parabolic:  Jesus goes to a village of people hated by the Jews and chooses a woman from among these outcasts who is an outcast of outcasts – and she becomes the means to bring others to the kingdom of God.

Meanwhile, the disciples remain locked in a lack of understanding, a condition that persists throughout their time with Jesus.  They remain trapped in material understandings of Jesus, represented by the fact that they insist that he eat and wonder where he got food.  How often do we find this lack of understanding among them?  And yet here again gradualism exists:  Jesus remains in relationship with them and they continue to grow in their understanding and love of God. 

Finally, we have the Samaritan village, a group of people thought utterly cut off from God by the Jewish people.  And yet we see that God has had a continual relationship with them and they to Him, albeit imperfect.  What is more, Jesus chooses to come to this group of outcasts to offer salvation.  There was no need of Jesus to enter this town; he could have done what every other Jew did and take the long way around.  But that long way around is not the way of salvation.  It is instead our mandate as followers of the Lord Jesus to go directly to the outcasts and marginalized and establish a relationship with them.  And gradually, over time, God invites the person to an ever deeper relationship with him, just as he has done in each one of our lives.

Yes, Jesus says to the healed person, “Go and sin no more.”  And each time we celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation we hear those words, and what is more we promise in the act of contrition that we will sin no more.  Yet we find ourselves back in the confessional time and time again throughout our lives, and we will find ourselves there at the moment of our death.  None of us is a finished product; all of us are in the status viatoris – pilgrims on the way.  The Church invites us to a pastoral posture – a pedagogical posture – of gradualism.  And this is not new.  It has been there in the history of the Israelites, the lives of the disciples in the Gospels, the woman at the well, in the very life of the Church in the development of doctrine, and in every one of our lives. 

Let us not be miserly in our fishing.  Let us not cast out one reel or line.  Let us instead heed the command of Jesus and cast our nets wide for a big catch.  And let us be the field hospital where the sick are tending to the sick – all overseen by the Divine Physician, the Chief Resident of our hearts and souls. 

Marriage and Social Justice: Reflections for the Synod on the Family - Part III

Marriage and Social Justice:  Reflections for the Synod on the Family - Part III

“Three days later there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee.  The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.  When they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the wedding was all finished, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’  Jesus said, ‘Woman, why turn to me?  My hour has not come yet.’  His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’  There were six stone water jars standing there, meant for the ablutions that are customary among the Jews:  each could hold twenty or thirty gallons.  Jesus said to the servants, ‘Fill the jars with water,’ and they filled them to the brim.  ‘Draw some out now,’ he told them, ‘and take it to the steward.’  They did this; the steward tasted the water turned into wine.  Having no idea where it came from – only the servants who had drawn the water knew – the steward called the bridegroom and said, ‘People generally serve the best wine first, and keep the cheaper sort until the guests have had plenty to drink; but you have kept the best wine until now.’

“This was the first of the signs given by Jesus:  it was given at Cana in Galilee.  He let his glory be seen, and his disciples believed in him.”  (John 2: 1-11)

In our previous reflections we have noted the primary and ordinary understanding of our participation in the Eucharist as a communion or participation in the consummation of our relationship with the Lord Jesus.  This communion represents the fulfillment of the ideal image of marriage and the ideal relationship with God to which we are called both individually and communally.  The above passage, however, represents both that ideal and another idea of the Eucharist that is part of the Catholic understanding of the sacrament – food that purifies us and food that is necessary for the journey.

Most reflections on the wedding feast at Cana correctly remind us that this scene represents an eschatological fulfillment of Messianic expectation.  The abundance of wine that Jesus provides to the beleaguered couple is God’s overflowing abundance to the human race in the coming of the long awaited Messiah.  In a sense the wine did not run out, but rather God fulfilled the promises of long ago and provides an overfilling of the stone water jars of purification.  This wine, symbolic of the blood of Jesus, is that which purifies us from sin and restores our relationship with God.  The reception of communion, then, is not merely a reflection of our ideal image of relationship with God in consummation, but it is also a way in which that relationship can be cleansed, renewed, and restored. 

Jesus’ multiplication of the wine at Cana looks ahead to Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves and fishes in John 6, wherein the biblical text clearly connects these miracles to Eucharistic realities.  Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist reflects the idea of communion as food necessary for the journey of life.  The manna that the Israelites ate in the desert on their journey to the Promised Land foreshadows the Eucharistic bread that is Jesus’ body.  It is indeed food for our journey to the promised land of the Kingdom of Heaven.  The necessity of receiving this food in order to have life cannot be overstressed.  The Israelites would not have been able to survive their journey in the desert without the life giving manna from heaven.  At the same time, we cannot survive the journey of live without receiving Jesus, the bread from heaven.  “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you.”

So, we have seen three important ideas regarding the Eucharist – three dimensions that all have to be kept in a delicate balance:

1.  The Eucharist is the consummation of our relationship with God, a reflection of the ideal image of marriage and union with God and one another.
2. The Eucharist is the purification of our sinful selves, as the wine (Jesus’ blood) replaces the water of purification within those stone jars, and our reception of Jesus’ blood then purifies us from sin.
3. The Eucharist is food necessary for the journey in this life to the kingdom of God, just as manna was necessary heavenly food for the Israelites journeying to the Promised Land.

In the conversation regarding the reception of communion by Catholics in irregular marriages, it seems that some have placed a great deal of emphasis on the first aspect of the reception of communion, and while this aspect is important it is not the only aspect of the sacrament.  On the other hand, some have insisted on placing greater emphasis on the other two aspects of the reception of communion.  If the goal of our pastoral outreach to Catholics in irregular marriages is restoration and a gradual return to the ideal within the lives of those experiencing brokenness, then it perhaps might be more proper to emphasize aspects two and three in order to arrive at the first aspect in the life of the person.

This approach means, however, that we keep all three aspects in mind and make all three an aim within the life of every Catholic to appropriate each one in our spiritual lives.   

Marriage and Social Justice: Reflections for the Synod on the Family - Part II

Marriage and Social Justice:  Reflections for the Synod on the Family - Part II

In the first segment of this reflection I used the image of the marriage of Joseph and Mary as a transition into this second reflection, for we can learn a great deal from the only other text in Matthew’s Gospel that relates to marriage:

“This is how Jesus Christ came to be born.  His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.  Her husband Joseph, being a man of honor and wanting to spare her publicity, decided to divorce her informally.  He had made up his mind to do this when the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit.  She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins.’”  (Matt. 1: 18-21)

This text provides us with two considerations relevant for our topic:

1.      The actions of Joseph.

2.      The relationship between Joseph and Mary vis a vis the societal institution of marriage.

1. The biblical text describes Joseph as being a man of honor, and his initial decision to quietly divorce Mary is seen in this context.  Joseph intended to dismiss her quietly so that she would not be exposed to the Law, which, as we saw earlier, would have left Mary vulnerable and without societal protections.  Presumably, Mary would have returned to her father’s protection and remained in that state for the remainder of her years, as no man would have married a woman who bore a child out of wedlock. 

The biblical text also makes clear that Joseph was at that point unaware of the unique nature of this conception.  It was only by a revelation from an angel that he could know this fact.  What is more, God calls Joseph to do something beyond the realm of justice in taking Mary into his house.  This calling represents an additional ideal over and above the original ideal of marriage we saw earlier.  Joseph was not required by the Law to receive Mary into his house as his spouse, but God called him beyond justice to embrace Mary fully as his spouse.

2. This text also sheds light on the institution of marriage in that ancient society that contained within it three distinct stages:  betrothal, marriage, and consummation.  Betrothal was a formal event in which the man and woman were pledged to one another, often in arrangements made by their parents.  This pledge was legally binding and could only be broken through a formal process of the Law akin to divorce.  The betrothal represented the intention to marry in an official ceremony at a later date.

The second stage – the marriage ceremony itself – represented a second distinct event, for it ratified and confirmed the original betrothal commitment in a public ceremony that often was celebrated over several days.  The entire community would come together to celebrate and be with the couple on this public occasion of exchanging marriage vows.  The marriage was now publicly ratified and sealed by the witness of the entire community.

3. The final stage of marriage was the consummation of the marriage which was, of course, private in nature and took place within the bridal chamber after the public marriage ceremony.  The consummation of the marriage is the final ratification of the marriage covenant and represents the couple’s ongoing communion with one another in their life together as a married couple. 

Consummation also reflects the desire to be a fruitful marriage union that is open to new life.  It reflects the idea that sexuality is not an end in itself but a means of both celebrating communion with one another and in the marriage bearing fruit in the new birth of children. 

It is within this social context of marriage at the time of Jesus that we can arrive at a needed reform in the Church for today that will assist us in developing a coherent pedagogy on marriage that is both relevant and effective in the life of God’s people.  The restored order of the sacraments of initiation serve as a reflection and mirroring of the stages of marriage noted above:

Baptism signifies the betrothal of the soul to God.  The person is pledged to the service of God and promises lifelong fidelity to this relationship with God.  Confirmation then represents the marriage ceremony where the original pledge is sealed, confirmed, and ratified by the bishop and the entire community.  We can then better understand why we can receive baptism and confirmation only once, for we can only be betrothed and married only once in the original understanding of marriage. 

Finally, the Eucharist represents the consummation of the relationship between God and the person.  It is a physical encounter that is intimate and unitive – hence the reason we call it communion.  Such an encounter is also fruitful and open to new life within the relationship between God and the person.  We can then better understand why we can celebrate and receive the Eucharist more than once. 

The restored order of sacraments can then help us in our teaching on the sacrament of marriage, for it can help us return to these various stages of the marriage commitment, stages that we mirror and reflect in our sacramental celebrations as the corporate people of God.  For the Church is the bride of Christ just as Israel is the bride of God.  Our sacramental celebrations must reflect this relationship in an authentic way so that we can better reflect our relationship to God in our individual marriage commitments.  A reorientation of our sacraments of initiation and the theology behind it will help renew our understanding of all the other sacraments, as well as renew our understanding of moral theology, seen more in relational terms since the Second Vatican Council rather than in juridical/legal terms. 

This reform within our sacraments still represents the ideal image of marriage to which we are called.  Celebrating the sacraments of initiation will help us be more faithful to that ideal image of marriage.  We still must deal with situations in which the less than ideal exists and how we might reach out to restore and heal what has been broken.

Marriage and Social Justice: Reflections for the Synod on the Family - Part I

Marriage and Social Justice:  Reflections for the Synod on the Family

“Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the part of Judaea which is on the far side of the Jordan.  Large crowds followed him and he healed them there.

“Some Pharisees approached him, and to test him they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’  He answered, ‘Have you not read that the creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said:  This is why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become one body?  They are no longer two, therefore, but one body.  So then, what God has united, man must not divide.’

“They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’  ‘It was because you were unteachable,’ he said, ‘that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.  Now I say this to you:  the man who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of immorality – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’”  (Matt. 19: 1-9)

This text is the source of the Church’s teaching and constant theological reflection on the sacrament of marriage.  The words of Jesus contain for us normative teaching for our lives, and this text provides us with two fundamentally important ideas for us to consider:

1.  The Lord Jesus calls us to live by the ideal image of marriage, and that ideal is patterned on our understanding of God and God’s relationship to us.
2. The fact that this teaching is directed to men divorcing their wives provides us with an important aspect of marriage as related to social justice that we must consider.

 

1.  The ideal of marriage that Jesus proposes is rooted in the very order of creation.  The words Jesus quotes are from the creation story of the Book of Genesis, words that will be used to relate God’s own understanding of His relationship to His people.  Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures we find God being likened to the bridegroom in relationship to His people Israel, Israel being seen as the bride of God.  The very notion of covenant is one that is rooted not in property contract, but rather in contract that binds persons to one another. 

God has declared throughout the Hebrew Scriptures that He will be forever faithful to His bride Israel.  Even if Israel should break covenant with God, God would remain faithful.  In fact, the infidelity to the covenant of God is often referred to as adultery in the Hebrew Scriptures.  All sin, therefore, represents an adulterous act against our God.  As a result, our marriage relationships need to be seen in this ideal light.  We are called to be like God – unswervingly faithful to our spouse within a relationship where the very idea of divorce is unthinkable.  This is the ideal to which we are called, for our marriages are an image, reflection, and an imitation of the relationship that God has with each one of us personally and communally as a people. 

2.  It is noteworthy, however, to note the fact that the command of Jesus, which was the command of God from the beginning, is addressed to men.  Only men had the ability to apply for and receive a writ of divorce.  Women did not have any such recourse.  This arrangement reflects social realities where men only were considered citizens, and thus only men could receive the benefit of Law.  Women, children, and slaves received protection from the Law only by being connected to a man who was a citizen.  As a girl, a woman was protected by being connected to the household of her father, and so marriage was vitally important for women in order to receive protection from the new man who would take her father’s place in being her legal protector.

If a woman became unattached to a man through death or divorce, this represented a very precarious situation for her and her children.  They no longer had legal protection in society.  They were vulnerable, and often faced dire poverty and the temptation to sin in order to provide for herself and her children.  For this reason God commands Israel to protect widows, as it was a requirement of God to protect the most vulnerable in society.

Consequently, divorce represented an injustice to women and to any children of the marriage.  The divorced woman had no recourse.  She was an outcast in society.  She was exposed to the Law, for it did not protect her in this society.  Not only did divorce represent a departure from the ideal as an image of God’s relationship to us, it also represented an injustice to the woman and children who now do not have any protection in society. 

The woman abandoned by her spouse finds poignant expression in the Book of Lamentations, where Israel reflects on her perceived abandonment by God.  It is an utterly dire situation.  The prophet could describe it with such vivid detail because it was the experience of a woman in society abandoned by her spouse. 

Today, our situation is somewhat different.  Women do have legal protection and status in society in their own right; so do children.  Women can file for and receive a writ of divorce.  However, it is still the case today that divorce still leaves women extremely vulnerable in society.  Women are the ones still likely to be the ones to raise the children alone and without a partner.  While women have greater opportunities in the workforce, they still make less than men for the same work, and many women are forced into minimum wage jobs to provide for herself and her children. 

We are still called by the Lord Jesus to live by the ideal of marriage and to heed the injustice that happens with divorce.  But this is not all.  We must still deal with the reality of divorce and how we might respond to the brokenness in a way that leads us back to the ideal gradually and pastorally.  God does not abandon us in our frail conditions, and as people of God we must not abandon people in their broken conditions.  We must ever reflect on how we can restore what has been broken and regain the ideal to which we are called.