Why is it that so many have difficulty looking upon the Cross of Christ and His suffering? Many argue that Jesus is risen therefore why dwell on His suffering?
However, "[I]t is true and even tautological to say that the Cross is the crux of the matter." G.K. Chesterton. The lessons of the Cross are absolutely critical to living a truly christian life. The cross teaches us not only how to live but how to live with meaning and purpose. A christian is not truly a christian if they do not take up their cross.
Unfortunately, the purpose and meaning of suffering is lost on the West. Ayn Rand, the darling of modern atheistic thought rejected the Christian notion of suffering and said: "It's not that I don't suffer, it's that I know the unimportance of suffering, I know that pain is to be fought and thrown aside, not to be accepted as part of one's soul..."
The West fights against and throws aside suffering and even those that suffer. This "Schiavo-esque" view rejects all suffering as utterly detestible. We simply don't want to watch the poor soul suffer, so we relieve them of their misery and their life and call it "death with dignity". This explains our embrace of euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, stem cell research, our "termination" of babies and those that are not perfect. The irony is that our culture attempts to avoid suffering at all costs but in doing so has become the "culture of death".
Fr. Pablo Straub says the Devil's one commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Suffer". Our culture has certainly bought this diabolical line. The prevailing culture tells us to gratify our every desire and not to suffer for any reason. It tells parents not to have another child--it's too expensive and difficult; it tells us to indulge our every sexual whim and to embrace sterile sex; it tells women that foregoing a career and staying home to raise children is dull, unfulfilling, and irrelevant; it tells pregnant women that carrying a child for nine months will ruin their life.
Christians need to reject the lies of our culture and reclaim the power of Christ's Cross and our own crosses. "Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Cor 12:10)
We can co-operate with God in a profound way by enduring our troubles through the power of His grace. God will strengthen us and, in turn, our cross can become a most powerful prayer. St. Paul enunciated the idea of the redemptive suffering. "I find joy in the sufferings I endure for you. In my own flesh I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His Body, the Church" (Col. 1:24).
The Church does not and never has glorified suffering for its own sake; however it does glorify God by the loving acceptance of suffering when His will entails it. "One ounce of patient suffering is worth far more than a pound of action." J. P. Camus.
The Angel of Fatima told the three children to "Offer prayers and sacrifices constantly to the Most High . . . Make of everything you can a sacrifice, and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners . . . Above all, accept and bear with submission the sufferings which the Lord will send you."
It frightens one to think what humanity loses when it ceases to carry the cross and suffer in a manner that glorifies Christ and indeed becomes prayer. Our small acts of sacrifice united to Christ's Cross can achieve the conversion of entire peoples and nations. When we understand suffering and that bearing our cross has unimaginable power, life takes on a profound meaning and purpose. We will cease to become the culture of death and will truly dignify life and death.
"He who knoweth how how to suffer will enjoy much peace. Such a one is a conquerer of himself and lord of the world, a friend of Christ and an heir of heaven. Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ.
"Europe
will return to the Faith, or she will perish.
The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the
Faith."
Hillaire
Belloc, Europe
and the Faith.
The
following is excerpted from Joseph Ratzinger's speech
entitled "If Europe Hates Itself" given prior to his
becoming Pope.
"[W]hat is our culture, what’s left of it? Is the
civilization of technique and commerce spread
victoriously throughout the world actually European
culture? Or was this not perhaps rather born, in a
post-European way, from the end of the ancient
European cultures?
"Europe, precisely in this its hour of maximum
success, seems to have become empty inside, paralyzed
in a certain sense by a crisis in its circulatory
system, a crisis that puts its life at risk,
resorting, as it were, to transplants that cannot but
eliminate its identity. To this interior failure of
its fundamental spiritual powers corresponds the fact
that, even ethnically, Europe appears to be on the
way out. There is a strange lack of desire
for a future. Children, who are the future, are seen
as a threat for the present; the idea is that they
take something away from our life. They are not felt
as a hope, but rather as a limitation of the
present."
"As regards the possible future of Europe, there are
two opposite diagnoses."
[1] "On one hand there is the thesis of Oswald
Spengler who believed he could define a kind of
natural law for the great cultural expressions: there
is a moment of birth, the gradual growth, the
flourishing of a culture, then the on-come of
weariness, old age and death His thesis was
that the West had reached its final epoch, which is
moving inexorably towards the death of this cultural
continent, despite all efforts to avert it...."
[2] "Arnold Toynbee ...points out the
difference between material-technical progress on one
hand and real progress on the other, which he defines
as spiritualization. He admits that the
West—the western world—is in crisis, and he sees the
cause for this in the decline from religion to the
worship of technique, of nation, of militarism.
Ultimately, for him, the crisis means
secularism. If we know the causes of the crisis,
then we can find a way to cure it: the religious
factor has to be reintroduced.
"So the question is: is this diagnosis correct? And
if so, is it within our power to reintroduce the
religious moment, in a synthesis of residual
Christianity and mankind’s religious heritage? In the
end, the question between Spengler and Toynbee
remains open, because we cannot see into the
future... Thus we are faced with the question:
how are things to go ahead? In the violent
turbulence of our time, is there a European identity
that has a future and for which we can commit
ourselves with our whole being? I would
just like to indicate briefly the fundamental moral
elements, which to my mind should not be missing.
"The first element is the 'unconditionality' with
which human dignity and human rights must be
presented as values that precede any jurisdiction on
the part of the state. These basic rights are not
created by the legislator, nor conferred on the
citizens, “but rather exist in their own right, are
always to be respected by the legislator, are given
previously to him as values of a superior order.”
This validity of human dignity, previous to every
political action and to every political decision,
refers back ultimately to the Creator: only He
can establish values that are founded on the essence
of man and that are intangible. That there be values
that cannot be manipulated by anyone is the real,
true guarantee of our freedom and of man’s greatness;
Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the
Creator and of the condition of the image of God that
He conferred upon man.
"[T]here are very real threats to these values:
whether we think of cloning, or of the conservation
of human foetuses for organ donation, or of the whole
field of genetic manipulation—no one can ignore the
gradual erosion of human dignity that threatens us
here. Added to this are the growth in the traffic of
human persons, of new forms of slavery, trafficking
in human organs for transplant. Good ends are always
adopted in order to justify what is
unjustifiable."
"The second point in which the European identity
appears is marriage and the family. Monogamous
marriage, as the basic structure of the relationship
between man and woman and, at the same time, as the
cell of the formation of the state community, is
derived from biblical faith. This has given Western
Europe as well as Eastern Europe, its own particular
face and its own particular humanity, precisely
because the form of fidelity and self-denial set out
here had always to be conquered, over and over again,
with much effort and suffering. Europe would no
longer be Europe if this fundamental cell of its
social structure were to disappear or be essentially
changed.
"[W]e all know how threatened marriage and the family
are at present—on one hand by eroding their
indissolubility through easier forms of divorce, and
on the other hand by means of a new and more and more
widespread lifestyle, the cohabitation of man and
woman without the juridical form of marriage. In
stark contrast to all this is the request for
communion of life between homosexuals, who
paradoxically now demand a juridical form having the
same value as marriage. This tendency marks a
departure from the system of mankind’s moral history,
which, notwithstanding all the diverse juridical
forms of marriage, always recognized that marriage
is, in its essence, the particular communion of man
and woman that is open to children and thus to the
family. This is not a question of discrimination, but
rather the question of what the human person is, as
man and woman, and of how the togetherness of man and
woman can be given a juridical form. If on one hand
their togetherness is more and more detached from
juridical forms, and on the other hand, homosexual
union is seen more and more as having the same value
as marriage, then we are before a dissolution of
man’s image that can have only extremely grave
consequences."
"My last point is the religious question. I do not
want to enter into the complex discussions of recent
years, but to focus on only one aspect that is
fundamental for all cultures: respect for what the
other holds sacred, and in particular respect for the
sacred in the highest sense, for God, something that
we can legitimately suppose to find even in one who
is not disposed to believe in God. Wherever
this respect is denied, something essential in a
society is lost. In our present-day society,
thank God, whoever dishonours the faith of Israel,
its image of God or its great personalities, is
fined. Whoever scorns the Koran and the basic
convictions of Islam is fined, too.
"Instead, with regard to Christ and to what is sacred
for Christians, freedom of opinion seems to be the
supreme good, and to limit this would seem to
threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in
general. Freedom of opinion, though, finds its limit
in this, that it cannot destroy the honour and the
dignity of the other; it is not freedom to lie or to
destroy human rights.
"The West reveals here a hatred of itself, which is
strange and can be only considered pathological; the
West is laudably trying to open itself, full of
understanding, to external values, but it no longer
loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only
what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no
longer able to perceive what is great and
pure."
