Living a Christian Moral Life in Twenty-First Century America:

by Mark S. Latkovic, S.T.D.

“We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism”
(Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995, no. 21). 

“It is urgent, then, that Christians should rediscover the newness of the faith and its power to judge a prevalent and all-intrusive [secular] culture” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 1993, no. 88).
I. The Present Context: Evangelization and Anti-Evangelization, Faith and Secularism

A. The “New Evangelization” and Christian Life Today
What will it take to live a truly authentic Christian moral life in twenty-first century America? Pope John Paul II has tried to answer this question with his call for a “new evangelization” or even a “re-evangelization” of countries or persons formerly Christian in belief and practice but now only so in name (cf. Redemptoris Missio). In speaking this way, the Holy Father was obviously not implying that we should preach a new Gospel or a watered-down version of the old Gospel, much less conform our own lives to a new Gospel. 

In his 1994 bestseller, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II states that the expression “new evangelization” was first popularized by Pope Paul VI in his 1975 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, “as a response to the new challenges that the contemporary world creates for the mission of the Church” (p. 114). However, in its essentials, evangelization remains “the Church’s living teaching, the first proclamation of the faith (kerygma) and instruction, formation in the faith (catechesis) . . . and also the entire wide-ranging commitment to reflect on revealed truth . . .”(Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 107). 

Thus, the Gospel we are called to proclaim and live —albeit in the changed and changing circumstances of the first century of the third millennium—is, in fact, the same Gospel our Lord preached when He gathered a few fishermen on Lake Tiberius two-thousand years ago. Today, however, Christians in Western societies are, as John Paul recognizes, confronted by the “culture of secularism” or unbelief, which often stands diametrically opposed to the vision and values of the Gospel and the “culture of faith.” Just reading a newspaper, watching television, listening to contemporary music, or strolling through the mall shopping on a Saturday afternoon is evidence enough of this radical opposition, however subtle it may otherwise sometimes be. 

Therefore, how we communicate and live the Gospel in our present-day affluent American society takes on a peculiar character: unlike in recent, previous centuries, we can no longer presuppose in evangelizing—despite the incredible advances in communication technologies—that people have at least a general familiarity with the Gospel message. As the Pope states in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, “Generations come and go which have distanced themselves from Christ and the Church, which have accepted a secular model of thinking and living or upon which such a model has been imposed” (p. 113). In many respects, the Holy Father describes our own country’s situation vis-à-vis the Christian world-view and value-system.

Consequently, the Christian faithful are challenged to live a life which witnesses to the truth of the Gospel and of the Catholic Church, in a culture whose world-view often questions, ridicules, or rejects the teachings of the Faith. For instance, who among us has not felt like an alien when taking a stand against some aspect of the “culture of secularism?” If only this experience were like watching an episode of The X-Files and getting a sense of what it must be like to actually be an alien. But in our case, unfortunately, this is not fiction. We do not need The X-Files federal agents Scully and Mulder to uncover the aliens among us. We have already found them. And they are each one of us. Yet, in a sense, if we are following Jesus, this is how we should feel to some degree, depending on how much our culture accepts or rejects Christian beliefs and practices. As Hebrews 13:14 states, “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come.”

If Christians have lost this sense of alien-ation, maybe they have also lost the sense of just how far the culture is “slouching towards Gomorrah,” to quote Judge Robert Bork. As a Catholic newspaper columnist recently put it: “In our own day we have sunk below the level of pagans. We have not only embraced all their moral errors—they accepted divorce, contraception, abortion, infanticide, homosexuality, and suicide—but we have also gone beyond the point of feeling any moral horror at all” (Benjamin D. Wiker, “Sub-Pagan Winter Groans for New Christian Spring,” National Catholic Register, January 7-13, 2001, p. 9). And not only do we evince no moral horror, but we call these practices “human rights”!

Of course, part of the blame for this current state of affairs must rest with Christians themselves, who are at times more concerned with comfort than with conversion. As the Pope writes in his Lenten Message for 2001, “Some Christians think they are able to do without . . . a constant spiritual effort because they do not heed the urgency of confronting themselves with the truth of the Gospel. So as not to disturb their way of living, they attempt to empty and make innocuous words such as: ‘Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you’ (Lk 6:27).” But these words, “if taken seriously,” according to the Holy Father, “demand a radical conversion” (Message of the Holy Father for Lent 2001, no. 2).

Without trying to sound apocalyptic, this all amounts to nothing less than a matter of life and death because it is first of all a matter of the eternal salvation of each and every one of us. The Holy Father powerfully explains this point: “Against the spirit of the world, the Church takes up anew each day a struggle that is none other than the struggle for the world’s soul. If, in fact, on the one hand, the Gospel and evangelization are present in this world, on the other, there is also present a powerful anti-evangelization which is well-organized and has the means to vigorously oppose the Gospel and evangelization. The struggle for the soul of the contemporary world,” he adds, “is at its height where the spirit of the world seems strongest” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 112). Note, too, in these words “evangelization” and “anti-evangelization,” a foreshadowing of what the Pope would describe so brilliantly in different terms one year later in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, as the struggle of the “culture of life” against the “culture of death.” 

B. Two Questions and “Two Cultures”
Let me now use these thoughts of our Holy Father on evangelization and anti-evangelization as a springboard, if you will, to ask two questions that will form the basis of the rest of my remarks. Hopefully, they will provide for us the “opportune occasion for a profound re-examination of life” (cf. John Paul II, Message of the Holy Father for Lent 2001, no. 1). First, negatively speaking, what are the things that one especially needs to avoid, i.e., the things one must not do in order to live a good and holy Christian life today—specifically, amidst the “culture of secularism”? Second, positively speaking, what are the things that one especially needs to do in order to live a good and holy Christian life today—specifically, amidst the “culture of secularism”? 

In describing the “things to avoid” and the “things to do,” we will, in effect, describe the essential moral features of the two “cultures”: what I am calling the “culture of faith” and the “culture of secularism.” It is the “culture of faith”—the one we profess membership in—which is in a daily battle for the soul of the world. A world whose culture or ideology we have called “secularism” because it is characterized by a “practical atheism”: if not actually denying God in theory (as some do), many live as if there were no God (cf. Veritatis Splendor, no. 88). Or, they put their “faith” in the “twin gods” of secular humanism—science and technology—as the answer to the many problems that beset the human family. Rather than look to God for help, the “culture of secularism” relies on man and the scientific method (cf. Humanist Manifesto I and II, 1933, 1973). 

But we can also say that the world the Pope describes is one whose possible openness to the Gospel message must never be written off, since there are many true and good things to be found in it. As Pope John Paul II himself affirms in Crossing the Threshold of Hope: “If the world is not Catholic from a denominational point of view, it is nonetheless [still] profoundly permeated by the Gospel. We can even say that the mystery of the Church, the Body of Christ, is in some way invisibly present in it” (p. 112, my emphasis). Thus, according to John Paul, “there are no grounds for losing hope” (ibid.). 

Therefore, Christians must not only critique the culture and avoid capitulation to its various sinful practices, they must also, relying on their faith and hope, transform the culture for Jesus Christ. This implies that Christians must do something: they must consistently and courageously live their faith. But they must also avoid something. And it is to this topic that I first turn.

II. What Must We as Christians Avoid?
My comments here are not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of everything that a Christian must avoid to be saved. Rather, I will simply highlight those general “negative” moral features of a Christian life that, because of the context of the “culture of secularism” in which we live, call for particular attention, emphasis, and renewal. For the Christian, in speaking of the things to avoid or the things one must never do, we know that our Faith has sin primarily in mind.

A. Sin and the Need for Mortification
As Christians, we know that sin is as old as man himself. Because of it, “human persons are doomed to suffering and death, and their desires are distorted . . .” (Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life, 1993, p. 78). And the roots of all sin, as moral theologian Germain Grisez reminds us, “are in the quest for status, possessions, and enjoyment—in pride, avarice, gluttony, and lust” (ibid., p. 349). So, as they say, “there is nothing new under the sun.” But, Grisez adds, “these perennial roots of sin assume particular forms in contemporary, materialistic culture, which leaves little or no room for heaven and assigns ultimate value mainly to things which here and now mitigate painful feelings or provide sentient satisfaction” (ibid.).

Thus, in our society today, pride takes the form of self-assertion and individualism; avarice takes the form of consumerism; and pleasure-seeking serves pride and avarice and also uses them (ibid., pp. 349-350). These forms of sin explain our own culture’s characteristic negative moral features. Given this reality, and our duties as Christians to read the “signs of the times” in the light of the Gospel (cf. Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 4), the contemporary situation calls for the appropriate Christian response—one that directly addresses the particular problems of our culture. How, then, am I to live a Christian moral life (cf. ibid., p. 351)? 

Although the Church has a large body of social doctrine, which attempts to map out the response of the whole Church to the contemporary situation, my emphasis here is on the type of personal moral and spiritual life—in its most general form—that we need to develop in order to meet the challenges of the “culture of secularism.” 

The great and holy Thomist theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., has in many ways set forth just such a “spiritual plan of life,” as relevant today (if not more so) as when he first articulated it, in mid-twentieth century, in his masterful two-volume work, The Three Ages of the Interior Life: Prelude of Eternal Life. Garrigou-Lagrange anticipated, in many ways, the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the “universal call to holiness.” 

Since we are treating the things we need to avoid, we turn to what Garrigou-Lagrange teaches us about the need for mortification as the means for dealing with sin (cf. Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, chapter 4 on repentance, the sacrament of reconciliation, and the struggle against sin). Fr. Garrigou–Lagrange turns to our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) as the best expression of His teaching on the interior and exterior mortification required of the Christian. He notes that Jesus insists on death to sin and its consequences, by drawing our attention to our supernatural end—the Kingdom of Heaven. And thus, if we wish to enter it, we must be “perfect,” as our “heavenly Father is perfect” [Matt 5:48] (The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Vol. 1, 1947, p. 281). But, Garrigou-Lagrange comments, “this precept requires the mortification of all that is inordinate in us, of the inordinate movements of concupiscence, anger, hatred, pride, hypocrisy, and so on” (ibid., pp. 281-282). However, as Christ also teaches, the spirit of mortification ought not to be merely a form of self-perfection or an end in itself, but rather: “death to sin and its consequences out of love for God” (ibid., p. 283, my emphasis). 

With respect to the Pauline teaching, Garrigou-Lagrange reduces St. Paul’s reasons for mortification to four: “(1) because of the consequences of original sin; (2) because of the results of our personal sins; (3) because of the infinite elevation of our supernatural end; [and] (4) because we must imitate our crucified Lord” (ibid., p. 285). These four motives of mortification (and I have simply listed them) are reduced further to two by Garrigou-Lagrange: “hatred of sin and love of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ibid., p. 298).

Thus, the answer to a world that lives as if there were no God (what we have called the “culture of secularism”) is “the love of Christ crucified, which leads us to resemble Him and to save souls with Him by the same means as He used” (ibid., my emphasis). This implies, furthermore, as Garrigou-Lagrange expresses it, that our “world is not so much in need of philosophers and sociologists [valuable though they may be!], as of saints who are the living image of the Savior among us” (ibid., p. 297). 

B. Specific Sins to Be Avoided
What now of sins to be avoided by the Christian? Let me approach this topic from the standpoint of the roots of sin that today, as we have seen, seem especially characteristic of our culture—pride, avarice, and pleasure-seeking—and the specific sins (with their damaging effects) that these things give rise to.

Pride. Pride, in particular, can be very ambiguous and for this reason all the more spiritually dangerous. For while the notion of the inherent worth of every human person and his healthy self-love clearly has a foundation in the Gospel, when this notion is removed from its context, it is “perverted to rationalize sin.” Thus, as Germain Grisez argues, “post-Christian humankind is susceptible to a distinctive moral pathology: egoistic individualism, which exalts the well-being and satisfaction of individuals above every community, even the family” (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, p. 349).

Grisez points out that pride, in this form, is not only expressed as the quest to achieve positions of power in society, but, also, “and even more arrogantly, it is seen in every individual’s effort to be his or her own sovereign” (ibid.). Thus, the perversion of freedom is manifested in the attitude that I can do whatever I want to; at least as long as I do not physically harm anyone (cf. Evangelium Vitae, chapter 1). This attitude leads to a rejection of authority and also to a rejection of the demands of social justice. Grisez incisively captures this attitude when he writes: “Other people [especially those one has no personal feelings for] are to be ignored except to the extent that they are relevant to one’s own purposes or can be made so. Then they are to be dominated and manipulated, so that at least they will allow one to gain one’s ends and at best will serve one’s purposes” (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, pp. 349-350).

This prideful attitude can manifest itself in such specific sins as abortion and euthanasia, and also in other forms of violence such as murder. Prostitution, racism, and unjust discrimination are further manifestations. But so also are certain forms of genetic engineering. An example of the kind of arrogant thinking which underlies the desire to tamper with our genes is a comment by James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA for which he won a Nobel Prize, who has argued that if genetic intervention could be used to “cure what I feel is a very serious disease—that is, stupidity—it would be a great thing for people” (Quoted in Dinesh D’Souza, “Staying Human: The Danger of Techno-Utopia,” National Review, January 22, 2001, p. 36). But what genetic “cure”will be available for a statement such as this? 

Avarice. Avarice is another root of sin particularly evident today, and made all the more problematic given that we are capable, by human ingenuity, of providing goods and services on a scale never before imagined. These material goods are used rightly when they meet genuine human needs and the basic or real goods that correspond to them—goods such as life, health and knowledge. Avarice, however, is “the will both to have material goods beyond those needed to achieve good purposes and fulfill one’s responsibilities, and to use the excess for emotional gratification—to compensate for a sense of insecurity or personal inadequacy—or some other illegitimate goal” (Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, p. 350, with reference to S.T., 2-2, q. 118, aa.1, 6).

Avarice’s destructiveness lies in its power to create artificial needs, i.e., demands for things “which give transient emotional gratification but provide little or no real benefit to the consumer in terms of fulfillment in any basic human good” (ibid.). Moreover, this “consumerism” or “materialism” that avarice fosters, leads persons to waste resources without regard for the basic needs of others. Thus, this attitude of wanting to have “more and more,” while it may be good for the economy, is not good for our souls. It leads to a dulling, if not outright rejection, of the Gospel’s warnings regarding the absolutizing of wealth. How different is this attitude from the one that would want to use our country’s enormous wealth and resources to help alleviate poverty.

Pleasure-seeking. Finally, pleasure-seeking is a root of sin that would probably be on everyone’s “Top Ten” list of the things that make us happy. This has always been the case. Faced with pain or pleasure, we human beings naturally gravitate toward the latter. However, as Grisez notes, “modern technology offers new opportunities for pleasure-seeking, not least by providing more resources and leisure.”

Moreover, he points out, “the abuse of drugs, both legal and illegal, offers new sensory satisfactions and makes it possible to suppress feelings which ought to motivate efforts to deal with guilt and other evils” (ibid.).

The forms of sin that pleasure-seeking takes today often involve the abuse of our sexual powers, in such acts as masturbation, fornication, adultery and homosexual behavior. But, of course, illicit pleasure-seeking is not limited to sexual sins. There are many other forms of behavior that involve the willingness to do things for the sole purpose of satisfying one’s appetite for pleasure —apart from any good this behavior might serve or apart from any concern for anyone this behavior might harm, e.g., the abuse of alcohol. However, I should add, Christians are not opposed to pleasure per se—after all, it is a gift from God—but only its sinful forms, i.e., the kind of pleasure that accompanies an immoral act.

These sins and their roots are the “culture of secularism’s” gravest moral evils (cf. ibid., pp. 351-352). We must struggle to overcome them in ourselves and in the world. And we must use such effective traditional means to deal with these sins as the sacrament of penance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; self-denial, retreats, service to others, and the Eucharist. 

The Ten Commandments, as interpreted by the Church, point out the sins against God and man that one needs to avoid in this culture or any other. For remember, the second tablet of the Decalogue is the revelation, by God Himself, of all those negative “Thou Shall Not” precepts that both point out our fundamental duties and protect our fundamental rights. 

However, these precepts or commands also indicate the basic starting points of the kind of “positive” moral and spiritual plan of life that one must develop. By identifying the sins or vices to avoid, they implicitly indicate the corresponding virtues that one must acquire if one is to lead a good and holy Christian life in the “culture of secularism.” So, let me turn now to the things that we need to do and the virtues we need to form.

III. What Must We as Christians Do?
Here, too, I do not intend to provide a comprehensive treatise on those things a Christian needs to do in order to be saved. Unlike the negative moral precepts—which although absolute, are few in number—affirmative moral precepts are too numerous to count and often depend on the situation.

In general, I will sketch out particular attitudes, actions, and virtues that, in light of the predominate sins of our affluent American culture, seem especially needed today in order to live a good and holy Christian life. But first, I will speak of our need to have a life based on faith in Jesus and ordered by one’s “personal vocation,” as the necessary foundation both for a Christian life and for our response to the evils of the “culture of secularism.”

A. Faith, Personal Vocation, and the Response to the Culture’s Sins
In a homily delivered in Germany in December of 1980, Pope John Paul II stated:
Very few of us can still let ourselves be carried along today in the practice of faith simply by an environment of deep faith. We must rather decide consciously to want to be practicing Christians, and to have the courage to distinguish ourselves, if necessary, from our environment. The premise for such a decided testimony of Christian life is to perceive and grasp faith as a precious chance of life, which transcends the interpretations and praxis of the environment (Quoted in Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, p. 27, footnote 46).

This implies that today, as never before, all of our major commitments must be consciously made in order to live out one’s faith. If we do not do this, faith, as we know all too well, is “easily reduced to a single isolated interest among many, and the other interests, cultivated without reference to faith, eventually choke it out” (Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, p. 27, note omitted).

The Second Vatican Council responded to this modern crisis of faith by outlining a bold program which stressed how all the Christian faithful—not just priests and religious—“are called to holiness by a personal vocation to dedicate every part of their lives—family, school, work, citizenship, leisure—to the Lord Jesus: to His gospel and to works of love” (ibid., with reference to Lumen Gentium, nos. 39-42, among other citations). This personal vocation or calling is our “unique share in the Church’s mission, a personal way of following Jesus” (ibid., p. 113). Indeed, our personal vocation is Christ saying in a special way to each of us as members of His body, the Church, “Follow Me” (cf. John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, 1979, no. 71).

Hence, to live a good and holy Christian life in twenty-first century American culture, we must find, accept, and faithfully carry out our personal vocations. Assuming that each of us has already discovered the fundamental elements of our personal vocation, our task now is more and more fully to integrate every aspect of our lives with this vocational life plan. So that nothing lies outside this commitment, so that nothing remains unshaped by faith, hope, and love—not family, work, friendships, entertainment, or hobbies. 

If Christians can do this, we will help to overcome one of “the more serious errors of our age”: the separation of faith from (daily) life and culture, so deplored by the Council Fathers at Vatican II (cf. Gaudium et Spes, no. 43). And we will thus help to renew the Church as well as the face of the earth. As Grisez wonderfully expresses it, “To the extent that this is not just a lovely ideal but a living reality, the whole of one’s life will make Jesus’ light shine before humankind and give glory to God. Then all one is and does will flow from God’s self-gift in the Lord Jesus and one’s baptismal faith in him” (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 1: Christian Moral Principles, 1983, p. 754). 

The Second Vatican Council took up this same theme when it spoke of the particular vocation of the lay faithful to be “leaven” for the world as we work in the world. “[T]he laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven.” The Council Fathers noted that the laity “are called by God so that exercising their proper function and being led by the spirit of the gospel they can work for the sanctification of the world from within, in the manner of leaven. In this way they can make Christ known to others, especially by the testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope, and charity” (Lumen Gentium, no. 31).

I have gone on at length about the role of personal vocation for two reasons. First, for the simple reason that we face more choices today than earlier peoples and thus we are also challenged as never before to ensure that our entire life is informed by a personal vocation. However, in our pluralistic and secular society, people of faith, like ourselves, often associate and cooperate with those without faith, and thus tend to acquire a secular outlook toward various activities, e.g., the practice of “dating.” And none of us are immune from this process of “faith erosion,” especially when the culture exerts a pull that seems as strong as gravity. In this situation, Christian life will be prevented from its proper integration, if commitments are made which do not positively express faith (cf. Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 1, p. 695). 

Second, I have treated personal vocation in this extensive way because I am convinced, with Germain Grisez, Pope John Paul II, and the Fathers of Vatican Council II, that a commitment to it will promote growth toward perfection—both for the individual and for the society in which he lives. Although holiness is not guaranteed by personal vocation, “one who is not radically unfaithful [to it] is almost compelled to make progress” (ibid., p. 701). 

Moreover, in order “to live out a vocation, one must place oneself in the service of the source of the vocational commitment, living faith; but growing integration with living faith is precisely what is meant by progress toward holiness. The effort leads one to challenge the residual elements of other systems by which one may have structured one’s life” (ibid.). 

Finally, as Grisez points out, when we live out a personal vocation, “the meaning of the Christian [virtues] becomes clearer and more definite, and the dynamics of Christian transformation become operative as one confronts problems in accord with these Christian norms,” e.g., the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (ibid; see C below).

With faith and personal vocation serving as a solid foundation, let me now briefly address the kinds of specific attitudes, actions, and virtues that seem especially needed in our society today, so influenced is it by the “culture of secularism.” To do this, we must begin with the Sermon on the Mount. 

B. The Sermon on the Mount: On the Attitudes to Develop, Actions to Be Done, and Virtues to Be Formed
Earlier I noted that the Sermon on the Mount is considered to be the summit of Jesus’ moral teaching. It would seem to follow, then, that if we want to know how to cooperate in our own salvation and the salvation of our culture, there is no better place to look than the Sermon the Mount. But is its teaching relevant to living good and holy lives in the “culture of secularism”? Is not its guidance outdated for our complex, modern society? And, finally, is it not unrealistic to expect that its demanding teaching can be lived out?

In returning again to the Sermon on the Mount for guidance, we are only doing what many in the Christian Tradition, such as St. Augustine, have always done: give it pride of place as the master synthesis of Jesus’ moral teaching on those things necessary for us to reach the Kingdom of God (cf. Servais Pinckaers, The Sources of Christian Ethics, 1995, pp. 134-167). Indeed, insofar as Christ Himself has fulfilled the words of the Sermon in His own life “we can perceive the sentiments of His heart.” As the moral theologian and spiritual writer Fr. Servais Pinckaers, O.P., explains, “The Sermon on the Mount is the most faithful portrait of Christ we posses, and by the same token the most perfect life model we could be given” (Pinckaers, The Pursuit of Happiness—God’s Way: Living the Beatitudes, 1998, p. 19; cf. Veritatis Splendor, no. 16).

Moreover, as Pinckaers argues, “the Sermon . . . contains within itself the potential to create, direct, and transform history: the history of the People of God, our personal history, and even the history of all humanity. At a time when Christians are committed with renewed concern to the destiny of men and society, they need to give special attention to the Sermon . . . if they would avoid drifting along like straws in the current of history, a history which they should rather be redirecting, so as to shape it to God’s plan” (ibid., p. 12). Thus, it seems right to reflect on the moral instruction contained in the Sermon.

But we should avoid understanding the Sermon as presenting a code of law like other laws, which then leaves us on our own in trying to observe it. On the contrary, Pinckaers informs us, the New Law, as opposed to the Law of Moses, consists principally in the action of the Holy Spirit within the human heart; and thus, the very text of the Sermon takes on new meaning. “It is no longer made up of sheer imperatives, but reveals to us what the Holy Spirit wants to accomplish in our lives” (ibid., p. 16). Rather than a catalogue of impossible demands, the Sermon is the revelation of the Holy Spirit’s designs for us. Understanding the Sermon in this way, its sublime teaching appears not only livable, but also suitable for our age.

For, in truth, the Sermon deals with fundamental and universal human problems and sins (e.g., anger, lust, adultery, lying, and one’s relationship with enemies), Jesus’ response to them (e.g., the Beatitudes or Christian virtues), and the means for dealing with them—e.g., grace and prayer (the “Our Father”). All of this teaching is centered on doing everything for the right end—the Kingdom of God; and for the right reason—the love of God.

C. The Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount as the Christian Program of Personal and Social Moral Transformation
My treatment of the Sermon on the Mount’s moral teaching will focus on the Beatitudes (see Mt. 5: 3-10; my treatment here is largely based on Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 1, chapter 26). The Beatitudes are the most appropriate response to our culture’s greatest and most prevalent sins. The Beatitudes indicate the mind of Jesus on the attitudes, actions, and virtues necessary if we are both to renew our culture and to enter into the Kingdom of God. By living the Beatitudes, we become more like Jesus and more worthy of His Kingdom. But what do the Beatitudes tell us to do? What virtues do they express and embody to help us overcome the “culture of secularism’s” characteristic sins? 

First, to overcome the Promethean pride, which leads to the exaltation of oneself at the expense of our neighbor, the Christian is called to live the beatitude, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The corresponding virtue expressed by this beatitude is humility—a humility that can recognize in another the “image of God,” and then treat that person according to his dignity.

To overcome avarice, which leads us to ignore the pleas of the poor and to squander resources, the Christian is called to live the beatitude, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” The corresponding virtues are Jesus-like mercy, generosity, compassion, and service to others. The beatitude, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted,” is also appropriate, since it refers not only to our mourning the death of a loved one, but also to the necessary virtuous attitudes we are to have towards the world in general: detachment and “death to sin.”

To overcome the pleasure-seeking, which leads us to see and use others and ourselves as mere objects for gratification, Christians are called to live the beatitude, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The corresponding virtue is single-minded devotion to God, which includes a sense of sin and a process of continuing conversion, especially in those areas where we might tend to overindulge: sex, food, drink and sleep.

I would also add that in order to carry out our personal vocations faithfully, we need to live the beatitude, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” The meek person recognizes his personal vocation, knows its limits, sees God’s will, and accepts it with resignation and love. We should also add the beatitude, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” This beatitude is necessary so that we have the faithfulness and heroism characteristic of the martyr, yet required of every Christian, who must be ready to suffer martyrdom at any time if it is required to witness to the truth of our faith. 

Finally, to overcome the violence, vengefulness, and fear of our society, we need to live the beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God,” as well as the beatitude, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” In the former, the corresponding virtue is the conciliatoriness that seeks the redemption of enemies; in the latter it is self-oblation, the offering of one’s whole self to God as a living sacrifice. Thus, in a sense, this last beatitude serves as a wonderful “summary” for all of them. 

Conclusion
Each of us as Christians, in accord with our personal vocations, is called fully to live the Beatitudes in our daily lives. They are, in truth, extensions of the Ten Commandments that Jesus Himself affirms and definitively interprets in the Sermon on the Mount. Not the same as the Ten Commandments, to be sure, but not contrary to them either. Rather, the Beatitudes are the fulfillment of these commandments. And thus, I can think of no better spiritual program for our own lives and for the “culture of secularism” than the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. 

By following Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, we can be confident that the “culture of faith” can not only overcome the “culture of secularism,” it can convert it! And by doing so, we will cooperate with God in building His Kingdom—a future reality, yes, but one already present in mystery, already present in embryonic form, within the Church on earth (cf. Lk. 17:21). 

Dr. Mark S. Latkovic is Associate Professor of Moral Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.

N.B. One can also read with profit on this theme a much more extensive treatment in Aidan Nichols, O.P., Christendom Awake: On Re-energizing the Church in Culture (Eerdmans, 1999).