Pope Benedict on Homosexuality: Part One

       The book Light of the World consists of a series of broad ranging conversations between  Pope Benedict XVI  and Peter Seewald. It's about various controversial issues affecting Church and World. In Chapter 14, titled "Overdue Reforms ?", Seewald  quotes two statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, and then asks Pope Benedict if these two views in the Catechism are not contradictory. 

      Here is Seewald's first quotation:...the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible...They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.  The Catechism calls us to treat homosexuals with the respect and acceptance that is their due, simply because they (and we) are human beings. Then comes the second statement: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as great depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  Here the Catechism clearly says that homosexuality is not a "natural" or "normal" way for human beings to act, and in fact is a disorder, so much of a disorder ("intrinsically") that there is no way to justify homosexual acts or make them right. So Seewald asks: "Doesn't the second statement somewhat contradict the respect for homosexuals expressed in the first one"?

         Seewald seems to be asking how can you accept and respect a person (first quotation) if you think what he/she is doing is wrong, sinful, seriously disordered, and  in fact, a great depravity (second quotation). Worth asking, no? When I find a person's actions to be deeply repugnant,  my feeling of repugnance usually extends itself automatically to the person as well.  Seewald's question, however, is not  phrased in a way that is emotionally charged. He keeps the question theoretical: "Is not one perspective incompatible with the other? Here's Pope Benedict's answer to that question: "No." Well, that is both clear and blunt; no hedging or qualifying, just a straight out negative. He goes on to explain: "It is one thing to say that they are human beings with their problems and their joys, that as human beings they deserve respect, even though they have this inclination, and must not be discriminated against because of it. Respect for man is absolutely fundamental and decisive."

             I love that explanation. We human beings are concrete, specific individuals, not theoretical constructs, and the pope recognizes that fact.  He tells us that every human being deserves to be accepted and respected simply because he/she is, i.e. exists! The pope offers more than a theoretical answer, because both acceptance and respect involve our real feelings and actual emotions towards concrete people. He is pointing out that our value as  humans doesn't begin with our activity or productivity, but springs simply from being. We have no right to reject or despise any member of the human race since our very existence is good. That makes sense to me. A newborn baby doesn't just need love,  it has a right to love, and a right to demand it. What's the basis of that right? The newborn's very existence. If my, or our, worth depended on actual accomplishments, very few of us would be worth anything at all. An embryo, a fetus, an unborn baby, even a new-born,  would be worth nothing. Acceptance of  and respect for one another on the very basis of our common existence, is the decisive starting point for all of our interactions with one another. 

        The pope continues his train of thought: "At the same time though, sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual." This is the affirmative thrust his"No" leads to. Sexuality has a positive meaning and direction which we do not arbitrarily assign but has been built into the structure of sexuality. That is his second point, which he builds on the foundation block of his first statement. The reason why he can disagree with, and disapprove of, homosexual activity even though he has a very real acceptance of, and respect for, homosexuals as human beings is congruent with the meaning and direction he sees in sexuality. In fact, it is out of respect and acceptance for homosexuals that the pope affirms an obvious truth and says that homosexuality is a disorder. Since homosexuality is itself disordered,  both  the acceptance of, and respect for, anyone who calls himself homosexual require that this truth be made clear. Indeed, why would you lie to someone you accept and respect, no matter what the disorder? Presumably, the more serious the disorder, the greater the need to face the truth instead of colluding with an illusion or a deception. 

        Since the fall into original sin,  our human nature itself is in a state of disorder. The disorder in us begins when we do. The Creator made us male and female, as the Scriptures say. (True, God made us without any disorder originally, but a look in the mirror, and a look around us at the world we live in, both  provide objective proof that Adam and Eve have passed on to us the skewed human nature they acquired by sinning. This is not surprising, for how could they pass on anything else?)   Men are disordered, women are disordered, and so are our male-female relationships.  As individuals and as couples, we will never be  a complete whole, because both our individual wholeness, and the wholeness that comes from our  male/female relationships, does not start off in right relation to God. We carry that disorder into all we do, and all we develop into,  as we journey through life. 

 

    Our basic disorder cannot be overcome by our own efforts. Because of the Fall, we have no way to stand outside ourselves and evaluate ourselves objectively. The righting of our relation to God occurs by his grace and mercy working in us. But God does not work in us without us, i.e. without our asking him to, and asking freely and profoundly. This asking is not merely a matter of choosing Option A instead of equally valid Option B, but desperate begging. Our asking is "de profundis", a need born of the misery we find ourselves in. Only the Creator who mercifully sustains us even as he lets us experience our interior disorder can put us in right relation to himself. 

   

     Why not simply view homosexuality as one more disorder among the countless others, and let it go at that? Because sexuality is foundational. Sexuality affects the very ground of our being. Our sexuality with its male-female components, constitutes the core of who we are. Certainly  many disorders abound in us, and they are all interrelated,  but since our core being is disordered, so are our perceptions of our selves, and our perceptions of our relationships. Our disordered core-being is male/female, masculine and feminine, two halves of the whole each of us is,  even though one half predominates.   I am not equally half man and half woman, but a male with both masculine and feminine qualities, or a female with both masculine and feminine qualities. How the two halves become more or less integrated, or  or become more out of balance,  in any person male or female, is and remains mystery. 

      To call this process mysterious is not an attempt to escape its complexity, but to respect it. Science should study the phenomenon of attraction and sexual identity, and discover all it can about it: same sex attraction, other sex attraction, or attraction to both sexes. No matter how thoroughly science explores all the other related causes of homosexuality, I do not believe it will never be able to find one that is primary. Science will, I believe, learn more and more about the specific causes it studies. But the danger, I believe, in learning more and more about specific causes is that we also move further and further away from ever getting around to see how all the causes interrelate. The presence or absence of a certain gene, the help or harm from mother or father during early in childhood, or is the result of the psychic wound because of abuse,  the predisposition we have in us because of our genetic structure, the influence of our formation and schooling, society and culture,  etc., can all be studied ad nauseam.  An either-or explanation will never be sufficient, and no amount of studies will ever be complete or definitive. Even if all finite factors could be exhaustively studied and comprehensively understood,  science has no instruments to measure free will and grace. Both are impenetrable to the scientific eye. This does not prevent science from striving to learn all it can about the causes it can measure, but  should serve to increase science's appreciation of the mystery we are.

.

        Our Creator is a Father who loves us even when he does not approve of us.   So acceptance of others by us never means denial of any disorder, nor does it presume any who accept us think we are free from disorder!  Nor does acceptance mean approval of the activity that a disorder  provokes. Disorders are counter-productive, and end up being harmful to the self as well as to others. Acceptance and respect should be the starting point from which the person with any disorder is to be related to and dealt with, by family, friends and neighbors, doctors and lawyers, social workers and therapists, prison guards and or parole officers, etc. But the strange thing in our society and elsewhere is that homosexuality is no longer recognized as a disorder. Why is that? Why is gayness is mainstreamed, normalized, and legalized as an alternative life-style? I suppose one reason is that,  over time, we can be brainwashed and socially conditioned to see the abnormal as normal. Bombardment through the media, training in the schools, political lobbying, legislation, and cultural pressure has succeeded in making commonplace what was startlingly odd in society not so long ago.

       But Pope Benedict has not lost track of the true nature of sexuality He, Benedict, continues: "We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species." By appealing to Evolution, which science sees as free from the taint of Religion,  he is able to point out what science has loss sight of, or refuses to respect: namely that sexuality is geared by its nature to reproduction. Any honest scientist who deals with plants,animals, humans, or genes and cell structure would have to agree with that observation.  Even an atheist who was a scientist has to admit this. Only then does he introduces Religion: "The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the determination of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality's intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age."  Posterity, children, and future generations: it is so obvious that these are intrinsic to the meaning and direction  of sexuality, that it should not even have to be stated. How would our ancestors of long ago ever have gotten beyond  mere rutting, if that was all nature had designed them to do?  

Einstein: on Science and Religion

   1."In the temple of science are many mansions."

   2. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

   3. "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle;  or you can live as if     everything is a miracle."

      Those statements  by Einstein amaze me, almost as much as the startling statements  Fr. Giussani comes out withf. The two are very different men, but have such great minds.They are open to, and in love with Mystery, and much in agreement with each other.
       Why do these three statements of Einstein attract my attention? The only way to find out is to start answering my own question and see what I come up with. Of course, the answers anyone ever gets depend in part on the questions one asks, and those questions probably depend on the way one's brain is wired. That said, my musings may not be what Einstein had in mind when he made his statements, but his words are worth pondering  over anyway.

      1. " In the temple of science"....a temple is God's dwelling place. Science is godlike in the minds of many scientists and people. They worship it. They place their faith in it. Yet this temple of science has many mansions, not  just one God dwelling therein. I presume Einstein is saying that each branch of science thinks of itself as its own authority, and maybe that its method sets the proper standard for "doing science" or that scientific doing is necessary for intelligent, well ordered living. Maybe one branch of science thinks it sets the standards for all the other branches?
            I think Einstein is poking fun at scientific arrogance and conceit. At whose arrogance and conceit in the concrete? At anyone dumb enough to make a god out of science, or attribute to science divine authority. That will include scientists and  us non-scientists, the laypeople, who think we are living smartly and scientifically. Who am I,  a non scientist, to criticize a whole field of endeavor I know next to nothing about?  No one special. But neither is the scientist who speaks his mind about God or religion any expert in that field. So I claim the same right to self expression he has, and I appeal to the great scientist Einstein to give some weight to my rambling.

        Shouldn't the scientific method be followed? Followed where? In thinking? In living? In teaching? Much depends on what the scientific method is, no? Surely, it should be followed within the scope of the science where it applies.Can anyone tell me what the scientific method is? Or what its limits are? That second question regarding limits is,  I think,  what the rest of  Einstein's quote implies: there "are many mansions." Each specific science has its proper place in the temple, where it is appreciated and valued, along with all the others. But none of them sits on the throne as god . Why? Because each science belongs to a particular field. How many sciences are there? How many different fields? I would bet that even scientists cannot answer that question. Is not the science of genetic engineering  a new beginning? Cloning was once science fiction. Now it is a legitimate field in its own right. One day it may be possible to create a servile work force, or  an aggressive warrior class, out of animal and computer parts. What would that science be called? What about the field of science that combines human, animal and computer parts, or just animal and human? No matter what the number of sciences is, that number would have to be qualified by the words "at the present time" or "up to now." Because another discovery would explode  into a new science.
        I think science has to narrowly focus its vision more and more to specialize, to study the microcosm, and find more and more in less and less. I think the scientist surprises himself by discovering the macrocosm in the microcosm. The increase in knowledge is a great boon, but also makes any attempt at a universal perspective more and more unattainable.It is a wonderful benefit to humanity that we discover new means of combating sickness and disease. But each new discovery  that improves life also complicates life, posing new questions as to how it should be used, what norms guide its usage, who sets the standards and applies the norms, or does anybody at all?
        The norms don't come from science itself, that's for sure. Scientist are capable of doing science, that's  also for sure. But of monitoring their own scientific field and the application of its  discoveries? That's NOT like leaving a child with his toys, telling him to go and play, and then chiding him for hurting himself, because the damage done when anyone runs amok with science's toys is  astronomical.
       Should governments and politicians should decide the norms that set the limits of science? Big business? Moralists? The press? The voters? The scientific method? The democratic process? Is there any way for science to answer the question? I bet Einstein would say no to all of the above.
               
      2. "Science without religion is lame"...Why? Lame means to be physically disabled, unable to walk as one would with two good legs. Why can't science walk without religion? It has no where to go, no direction to head in, nothing leading it, guiding it, nor propelling it. So how does it progress? It limps along like it always has, growing incrementally, accidentally, by providence that turns misfortune into a blessing, by inspiration, by blind luck, by stumbling on a breakthrough through a hunch,  instinct, or the "scientific method". What difference would religion make? Religion in what sense? How did Einstein mean the word?
       Religion meaning a sense of God behind it all, behind the universe, the Intelligence, the Mystery, behind the complexity, the order, the beauty, the wonder of all that is. I think this is the sense in which Einstein is using the word, "the religious sense", so to speak. He is not referring to any specific religion like Judaism, or Christianity or Islam, ( I do think he would  never be a polytheist).)
       How does this religious sense help science, and cure its "lameness"? It give science the right attitude with which to do its work, the attitude of wonder, which leads to gratitude and joy.  That's all, but that's a great deal. A scientist who is capable of wonder has his mind and heart open to Mystery, to receiving what Mystery is doing in creation, through creation, and with creation. Such a scientist can be in harmony with what beyond his mental grasp at the moment and be blessed with discovery. The know-ability, the intelligibility of creation is more accessible to such a man, because of the inner sympathy the man experiences with what he is studying.
       Religion without science is blind... meaning what, exactly? Religion can devolve into an empty form or a meaningless practice. Dogmatism means the Mystery is reduced to formulas. Ritualism, that religion is a matter of the correct actions and  precise words. Moralism, faith in God is seen as an ethical code or correct manners. Science, since it probes deeper and deeper into Creation, gives Religion an ever greater grasp of God's greatness, intelligence, goodness, wisdom, power, etc. A simple example may make the point more clearly. Early man was able to see the stars, and when able to count, probably numbered them at a few hundred. When, because of telescopes, man was able to see more and more of the sky above, he estimated the stars at a few thousand. As science progressed, galaxies were discovered that revealed a universe beyond imagination. The horizons of religion extend further and further into the infinite expanse of Mystery, giving man even more to wonder about and question, thanks to science. This happens with the macrocosm of the universe, and also in the case of the microcosm of the cell. Science opens man's eyes more and more widely the more broadly and minutely it explores creation.
      3. "There are two ways to live", Einstein says. Why only two? Why not loads of different ways, given man's infinite capacity for choice? Because all the variety reduces to one of the two at root: either there is a God behind it all,and that means everything is miraculous, even the natural is supernatural, or there is no God and therefore nothing is miraculous, and nothing matters. Matter does not matter. Science does not matter. There is no reason to get out of bed in the morning. No reason to do anything at all.
          Let's take the first alternative Einstein offers: "live as if nothing is a miracle". This reduces to living by instinct. Not by reason, but instinct.Why not by reason? Because reason has already been rendered unreasonable due to its elimination the supernatural. Whatever its use, reason becomes a function
of self preservation, ego enhancement and self aggrandizement. A lot of mental effort may go into that way of living, seemingly highly intelligent,  but for the mind to flourish,  it has to do more than function on the level of animal cunning. Reason feasts and fulfills itself when it goes beyond itself into the reality it cannot measure, Mystery.
        Look at the second alternative: live as if everything is miracle. Everything. Waking up in the morning. Breathing. Walking to the bathroom. Daydreaming while showering. The people you run into. The conversations at work. The work itself. The food you eat. Your friendships. The tiredness you feel at the end of the day. The sleep that restores you. The misunderstandings, disagreements, arguments and conflicts you have. The wounds you give and receive in relating to others. None of that could happen if there is not Mystery behind it all, in it all, sustaining it all, while each of us thinks we are each doing everything on our own. If all we are and do is not the gift of Mystery, including our freedom to do nothing and even to do evil, then there is no meaning to it all, no meaning at all. But awareness of the Mystery Present is the blessing that bubbles into joy, gratitude, appreciation, and peace, as well as humble, ongoing wonder which results in further illumination for  both science and religion.

Czeslaw Milosz: on belief and unbelief

       "A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death - the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murder, we are not going to be judged."

       

       What a wonderful way of exposing the self deceit of atheism, or of some atheists, at least. "There is no pie in the sky after you die", they like to tell believers. "Faith is a false comfort".  But,"So is atheism", believers can reply: "You can give yourself permission to do whatever you want, without any fear of falling into the pit down below after you go. That's why you believe there is no hell to go to".
       Atheism is something to believe in, a faith, a doctrine, a justification for one's behavior, attitudes, philosophy of life, ambitions, dreams, etc.But it is in no way an equal alternative to intelligent faith in God. Atheism narrows the horizon to whatever the atheist decides to fit into his comfort zone, and excludes anything that would break that little world apart. Atheism is a plow horse with blinders on, focused on one thing only, plowing ahead at what he is driven to do, unable to let himself perceive the Beauty and Mystery that are around him.

Same-sex "marriages"?

Recently I expressed my computerized views on Facebook. Someone had made a posting congratulating President Obama for his courage in publically supporting same-sex marriages. I made a brief comment about also acknowledging the courage of those who oppose such unions. Later when I revisited the posting to see where the conversation was going, I found the response  that I should not allow my Catholic Faith to cross the barrier that separates Church and State. Nor should I try to impose my beliefs on those who do not have the same religious perspective I do.  I typed in that my view on same-sex marriage does not rest on my religious or faith beliefs. I believe my opposition to such unions is grounded on the truth of things, on reality, and I would therefore hold this view even if I were not Catholic, nor a priest.

 Among many other comments on the posting was the opinion that the State had no right to step into the arena of marriage. That seemed true to me, and I “liked” it. A day later when I looked to see where the ongoing discussion had gone, I discovered that it was not there.   Nothing was there.  No record of all the pro and con comments on the topic of same sex marriages. I am not skilled in using the computer, and maybe I just could not find the posting because of my ineptness. I hope that is the case.  I hope the topic is not such a hot potato that cannot be reasonably discussed online.  I hate to think that the cliché “You can’t discuss Politics or Religion in public” might be proving true in this instance. There is nothing more important for a citizen of any country to be concerned about than Politics and Religion. Their relationship to one another is of supreme importance.

As an American exercising my civil rights, and concerned about my homeland, I want to state four truths I believe any person of any religion has a right to hold.

1.   MARRIAGE PREDATES THE STATE. Men and women had to be having children in large numbers and for many generations before the State came into existence. That’s just the way it is.

2. THE NATURAL FAMILY IS THE BASIC UNIT OF SOCIETY. The individual is not the basic unit of society.  If you believe differently, all you have to do is show me the individual who can reproduce by himself or herself without involving another.  Again, this truth seems self evident to me, like “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line”.

 3.  The State has as its primary purpose and duty to protect the natural family and support its citizenry in building a civilization that enables the family to flourish.

4.   A nation is as strong or as weak as its family life.

None of those four points is difficult to understand. The first two are so obvious I don’t know how anyone could deny them.  Perhaps the last two would require more thought and discussion before acceptance, but I believe they follow as logical conclusions of one and two.

If civil discourse and a general consensus are not possible on at least the first two points, then all truly is lost.  A good friend of mine believes our country has reached precisely this point where reason is dead, logic means nothing, common sense is nonsense, emoting has replaced thinking,  and the divisions between us are so wide and multiple that mere civil discourse is an unattainable goal. In his opinion, as a nation, we are “coming apart”. Perhaps the next presidential election will show us how far along we are in that process, and if the coming apart is reversible or not.

Christ and Codependence

                                                              

PART ONE

Why am I writing about Christ and Codependence?  Or, for that matter, why should you bother to read it? The best answer I can give is that Christ is the Way out of Codependence. However, for some readers, that may seem like the worst answer. They would probably ask me:  “Why bring Christ (and therefore ‘religion’ of some sort) into a discussion of Codependence? Certainly we can study the topic without Him”.  Am I being narrow-minded, arrogant or sectarian, trying to sneak in my religious views where they don’t belong and impose them on others?  I don’t think so. I know Christ and Codependence don’t fit together in everyone’s minds, so I need to explain what I am doing and why.

One reason is that I write from a Faith perspective. From that perspective Codependence is something that Christ is constantly confronting in us whether we are aware of it or not. Becoming aware can be a step forward for us so we do not offer him so much resistance.  Since my religious Faith creates that perspective in me, it would be unfair of to expect me to jump out of my skin and try to write as if I were a non believer.  Secondly,  looking at the issue of Codependence from a  Christian Faith Perspective broadens and deepens my horizons by opening the topic to the dimension of Divine Mystery instead of focusing on the issue narrowly, say, from the perspective of one brand of Psychology or another. Thirdly, Christ is involved in issues of codependence in one situation after another all the time throughout the four Gospels. Fourthly Christ is not just one more player in the arena of Codependence because I or anyone else decides to mention Him, but because of whom he is. He is the Creator of all that is.  He is the Logos, the Cause, Rationale, and Goal of all that exists.  “In him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. (Colossians I: 16-17) We all appear as blips on his radar screen even if we try to keep him out of the private Ego Bubble that makes up our little world.

 For example, suppose I jump off the Empire State Building, a) because I a depressed and suicidal, or b) because I am insane and think I am able to fly. It really doesn’t matter what I think or how I feel. The Law of Gravity will automatically take effect. No matter what my state of being, I will fall to my destruction. My accepting, rejecting, or ignoring the Law of Gravity, doesn’t influence its operation. The same is true of Christ. He is the Word, “through whom all things were made and without whom was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3). There is nothing that is a part of us that he is not in touch with, and nothing that does not touch him. Everything finds its origin, meaning and fulfillment in him. He is the Alpha and Omega. All that our human nature goes through is caught up in his Incarnation, redeemed by his Crucifixion, and drawn up with him to the Father in his Resurrection and Ascension. This includes the Cosmic Laws that guide the stars, sun, moon, and planets, as well as those which govern us ensouled bodies.

If I had been born in a different time or place, I might have been a pantheist, an atheist, an agnostic, or a believer in any of many different gods. I am sure that no matter when or where I was born, I would have been codependent!

 I am happy to be here now and be the person I am. But the fact is that (as is the case with every other human being,) I could very easily never have been born, and in that case the world would exist quite nicely without me. I am not necessary to the world for its operation. My existence and thinking may matter little in terms of the dynamics that govern creation in general and human existence in particular. The same is true of every one of us. But because I am alive now and have both Faith and Reason now, I would be foolish not to make the best use I have of both. My hope is that by doing so I will cooperate with Christ in his work of freeing me from my codependence and, Deo Volente, even be of some help to others.

PART TWO

 As a Roman Catholic priest, I have often wondered why we Catholics, lay, religious, and clergy, do not make more progress in our spiritual lives. My experience tells me that generally we Catholics are more likely to be spiritual pygmies than spiritual giants.  One of the reasons is that we are caught up in codependent behavior patterns that render us incapable of true spiritual growth. Much of the time, our Christianity may be more counterfeit than genuine, in spite of our sincerity.   For example, I can think I am praying to Christ correctly, or following him as a disciple, or keeping his commandments, yet that will not actually be the case.  Instead, I will be caught up in my own codependent style and unconsciously attempt to catch Him up in it too. In fact, real conversion, discipleship, and prayer are not possible until I grow in self knowledge and wake up to my codependent style.  

The instance of the two brothers fighting over money in Luke 12:13 is an example of this problem. One of the brothers tells the Lord: ‘’Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” The man sees Christ as some kind of authority figure that he can appeal to, and is asking him for help in getting the property he thinks he has a right to.  On the surface, it seems like a fair enough request.  The brothers know that Christ has a reputation for being a caring, loving person who can work wonders to help people out of difficult situations. He does what is right and good to everyone.  So Christ’s response must have come as a surprise to the brother. “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?”   (vs. 14)  He refuses the request, and says he does not have to involve himself in their dispute. They must have been surprised by his response. Probably they changed their minds about him. He definitely was not the “nice guy” they thought he was.

 Christ does not feel obliged to fulfill the man’s expectations.  He is not going to take the side of one of the brothers over the other.  It is not a question of which brother is in the right, because from Our Lord’s perspective both are wrong.  Christ warns the two of them:  “Beware of all covetousness.” They’re both in the wrong, because both are acting out of their desire for more. Neither is really interested in justice, just in winning the fight.  That is why Christ won’t get involved in their squabble. He won’t collude with them and play their game by their rules.

 What does this have to do with codependency? Everything!  It is a great example of the way we relate to Christ out of our codependent style with one another and expect Him to go along with us. But He who is the Truth is going to expose our falsity. The two brothers are into aggression as a way of getting what they want.  This has probably been going on since childhood, and now it is a fixed style they are more or less locked into whenever they relate.  Even when they are civil or polite, the underlying aggression is there, like a tiger ready to pounce, when the opportunity presents itself.  But neither brother has enough self knowledge to be aware of this habitual behavior. The self deception, or blindness in Biblical terms, is a component of codependent life style.  So each thinks (probably in all sincerity) he is seeking justice, when he is basically looking for his own advantage.  Even if they both agreed to let Christ mediate their dispute, his decision would not bring about harmony or peace between them.  Their fighting would continue, no matter what He decided.   The real solution is for each to realize that covetousness, self seeking greed for what the other has, is in their hearts and moving them to be fighting with each other over everything.

 Christ is not a Mr. Fixit with quick one-step solutions to our problems. He calls us to a new way of being that begins with conversion, and deepens as the conversion takes us over more and more completely.  In our struggle for independence and control, we would like to reduce conversion to a simple, one-step process. (Been there, done that!  In fact, still there, still doing that!) Conversion includes the crucifixion of our Ego, and the Ego has such a grip on us that it colors all we do, including our relating to God.