Theological debate tends to divide, as each side in the intellectual debate attempts to prevail with its cherished argument being stamped as “Orthodox.”
In this regard, the Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan wrote something to this effect: “The orthodox in one generation had better be careful, as in the next generation they may be the heterodox. And, the heterodox in one generation also had better be careful, as in the next generation they may be the orthodox.”
Thomas Aquinas comes to mind.
Seemingly unaffected by this important debate, the saints continue living the Gospel, even today.
Marielle Wakim, an editor at Los Angeles Magazine, forwarded to me a feature article appearing in its May 2013 edition concerning one of these saints among us. Reading the article, I thought of Pelikan’s admonition.
From the profile aired years ago on 60 Minutes, readers of The American Catholic may be familiar with “G Dog,” “Father G,” “G,” or to those who’ve met him more recently, “Pops.” He’s Fr. Gregory Boyle, SJ, founder of Homeboy Industries, which he launched 25 years ago in Los Angeles and has built into the world’s most successful gang rehabilitation and re-entry program.
Founder, Homeboy Industries
“G” exemplifies a man on a mission—a saint—who has accomplished with real human beings what no government agency could ever accomplish.
A man of prayer, “G” rises each morning at 4:30 in his room at a Jesuit-owned Craftsman bungalow in East L.A. for one hour of prayer and meditation. Yes, during the day “G” may drop the “F-bomb” in contentious situations and, yes, “G” enjoys single malt (Laphroaig). On weekends, “G” celebrates Mass and counsels detainees at youth probation camps, performs baptisms, weddings, and quinceañeras, and answers ex-gang members’ distress calls. Thursday is supposed to be “G’s” day off, but spending at least 100 days each year away from Homeboys on speaking tours, forget that.
One of those whose life has been changed by meeting “G” is Mario Cisneros, who said:
I was running around, back and forth to jail, and I got shot in the stomach and still I’m not stopping—not asking myself “What’s wrong with this picture?” Finally my little brother, 15 years old, gets shot—they killed him. “Is this the time?” I said no, and I kept going and the gangs were at war, back and forth, back and forth. Little by little we’re just decreasing the population of our neighborhoods. And then finally I got tired of it. God’s giving me these passes, and I better take advantage of them….So I walk through the doors of Homeboy Industries and it’s such a beautiful place. It’s the best place I’ve ever been. You can feel the love whenever you walk in. When Father G walks up to me and says, “You ready?” I’m ready.
Once a high-level drug dealer with a gang, Hector Verguo—a Protestant who now takes the seat behind the Executive Director’s desk when “G” travels, told his fiancée that Homeboy would always come first for him:
Since I’ve been at Homeboy, I got to see God at work. You see miracles happen here, like a miracle factory. And when you see it happen in front of you, you know that this is supernatural—this is God.
While “G” has been eminently successful in building Homeboy into an enterprise that rehabilitates gang members, addicts, and the like by giving hope who believe themselves to be hopeless, this “saint” isn’t the best of mendicants. Perhaps that’s why Marielle Wakim forwarded the article to me…to generate some donations for Homeboys Industries.
Whatever. It’s the Lord’s ongoing work of salvation and the May 2013 Los Angeles Magazine feature about “G” and his mission is inspiring, even if “G’s” theology might be “radical” or “heterodox,” depending upon which side of the debate one supports.
To read the Los Angeles Magazine’s article featuring “G,” click on the following link:
http://www.lamag.com/features/2013/05/21/saint-of-the-hood/page/1
I am glad to see Hector Verguo has turned his life around, but he’s a “Protestant”. Doesn’t sound as if souls are being saved.
Jaroslav Pelikan converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy in 1998.
Catholic social teaching emphasizes providing for people’s needs as an expression of one’s love of God (and neighbor). The most effective catechesis is that witness. For example:
#31c Deus carias est. “Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends. But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church’s name will never seek to impose the Church’s faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God’s presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. He knows—to return to the questions raised earlier—that disdain for love is disdain for God and man alike; it is an attempt to do without God. Consequently, the best defence of God and man consists precisely in love. It is the responsibility of the Church’s charitable organizations to reinforce this awareness in their members, so that by their activity—as well as their words, their silence, their example—they may be credible witnesses to Christ.”
“Catholic social teaching emphasizes providing for people’s needs as an expression of one’s love of God (and neighbor). The most effective catechesis is that witness.”
That’s why it isn’t a government responsibility, at least not at the national, federal level. Individual members of a neighborhood, town or village may enact measures for social justice, but government is demonstrably incapable of doing so, and when given the money to do so, that money perverts and corrupts government to the point of what we see in the Obama Administration. Starve government and give to the poor. That’s true social justice. It helps the needy and neuters tyranny.
“Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism.”
Though Caritas in Veritate notes that charity without truth is mere emotionalism. Which is why the quote you cite also notes “…that by their activity—as well as their words…” Activity and words. And not words alone but truthful ones.
Reading the article, one sees that those in the program had broken families. Drugs and alcohol destroying the basis of society. This in part because the truth of a materialist culture, including the denial of the proper role of sexuality, is the ultimate root of the problems the good priest is trying to help. But if he does not address these issues truthfully, he ultimately is no more than other materialists. And does no good by these young men.
Clearly truth without love is not Christian. But neither is love apart from truth.
Very good read! Thank you for sharing this. It’s good to read stories like this. It really makes you say that God really loves you no matter who you are and what you believe in. When you reach out to God, He will not leave you hanging. He will embrace and welcome you. Your life will really change for the better.
“I am glad to see Hector Verguo has turned his life around, but he’s a “Protestant”. Doesn’t sound as if souls are being saved.”
I agree.
This narrative doesn’t fit my definition of “saint.”
Has Father persuaded any to convert? Has he convinced any to repent of their sins, Confess, do penance, amend their lives, and through good works glorify Almighty God?
Maybe the author omitted it. Does Father lead them in daily Rosary or Eucharistic Adoration?
I see this as a paean for an effective social worker.
Social justice (where’s the umlaut?) uber alles.
T. Shaw is correct. All the good works in the world, all the filled bellies, all the clothed naked, all the satisfied thirsty mean nothing without repentance and conversion. Yes, Matthew 25:31-46 is part of the Gospel. So is John 12:1-8:
1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. 3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. 8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”
The Motley Monk made a good point.
I just wanted to point out that Fr. Boyle has done a yeoman’s job in helping those in need of hope; but not that many converts, that’s all.
What kind of converts do you expect? Most of these young men are supposed to be Catholic to start with! If they have conversion of life and start going to church, the evangelism is done.
As for Father choosing a Protestant young man, I would assume this young man also started out as nominally Protestant. Given the large number of Protestants, Pentecostals, etc. in HIspanic neighborhoods, it’s canny to have a Protestant on staff. (Though it may just amount to him having been there, trustworthy, and willing to work.) Mother Teresa never stopped Protestants, or even Hindus and Muslims, from helping in the work; nor did she provide help only to Catholics. But somehow nobody doubts that she was working to serve bodies and save souls.
If the article were about Father’s conversion record, no doubt we’d hear a lot about it. But it’s not, so we don’t.
“Mother Teresa never stopped Protestants, or even Hindus and Muslims, from helping in the work; nor did she provide help only to Catholics. But somehow nobody doubts that she was working to serve bodies and save souls.”
Yes, but she did so faithful to the teachings of the Church. Not denying them.
To put it another way, people are praising Father’s work with gang member and its success in helping them But Mother Theresa herself use to say “God has not called me to be successful; He has called me to be faithful.”
That is because God calls us to be one with Him. This does not mean material success – even a noble success like working with gang members. He calls us to being in Him – the have His life in us through grace.
But this does not occur through the denial of Him and the truths he has revealed and teaches through the Church. It occurs through assent to them, even if they are beyond are understanding.
Putting faith in anything else is mere idolatry. Even if the idol is a social good.
“I am glad to see Hector Verguo has turned his life around, but he’s a “Protestant”. Doesn’t sound as if souls are being saved.”
I’m confused by that statement. Are we arguing that protestants aren’t saved?
When Jesus gave his speech about feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, caring for the sick, etc. in Matthew 25:31-46, his audience was the disciples, that is to say, the Body of Christ. We are called as part of our penance (if you will) to do good for others for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Every time we abdicate our responsibility and evade our accountability to do this our sacred duty onto nanny govt, we sacrifice on the alter of political expediency our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and our adoption as sons and daughters of the great King. It is NOT the job of govt to help the poor. That’s OUR job as Christians.
That being said, let’s remember John 12 where Mary (sister of Martha) was anointing Jesus’ feet with perfumed oil costing 300 denarii, a year’s wage. Judas Iscariot saw this and said that the oil could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. And what does Scripture say right afterwards? Jesus pointed out that we’ll always have the poor with us, and Mary did this in preparation for his burial, for we would not always have him. Furthermore, the writer of the Gospel goes on to explain that the REAL reason Judas advocated selling the oil wasn’t because he cared a darn thing for the poor. He was like every liberal politician today who has spiritually succeeded him. He said this because he used to steal from the disciples’ purse. Read it. That’s what verse 6 says: Judas was a thief.
Remember also the story of the feeding of the 5000 in John 6. Afterwards Jesus and his disciples crossed the Lake to Capernaum on the other side. The crowd awoke the next morning and saw Jesus gone, so they followed on foot. When they caught up with him, they asked why he departed. What did Jesus say? It’s in verses 26 and 27: “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” Note Jesus did NOT give the crowd a second handout. He did NOT make them addicted to and dependent on free handouts.
The social justice types in the Church have reduced the Gospel message to feeding bellies. That is NOT the goal. Jesus said so. The goal is saving souls from Satan and hell. Yes, as Christians we must care for the poor – back to Matthew 25 again. And yes, it’s nigh unto impossible to attend to one’s spiritual needs when one has an empty stomach. That’s why Jesus fed the 5000 with food first in John 6. But instead of paying attention to their spiritual condition once their bellies were full, they expected another free handout and Jesus said “No!” That began the Bread of Life discourse.
This isn’t confusing at all once one reads and studies what is plain as day in Sacred Scripture.
Would we blame a paramedic for not doing advanced surgery on the way to the hospital? Perhaps he’s making the way for other physicians of souls to do their work later. I can find nothing to fault Fr. Boyle for. Sometimes you have to prioritize with the resources you have. Sometimes it remains for others to complete the work that has been started. Rather than fault Fr. Boyle, I would say others are also needed to complete the work, which can take a lifetime. These are men who have done and seen much. It can require multiple physicians to handle the worst injuries. I’d say encourage and expand on his work, not complain because he didn’t turn them into Aquinas scholars.
I did a quick search on key words to see if I could find where he said something that dissents from the Faith, and I couldn’t find anything.
“I did a quick search on key words to see if I could find where he said something that dissents from the Faith, and I couldn’t find anything.”
I would agree with that other than his comments that he would not recite the Baltimore Catechism when asked in school. An insight into an independent soul or code for “I reject teachings of the Church.” I really can’t tell.
The response is to the comment in the post “…even if “G’s” theology might be ‘radical’ or ‘heterodox,'”. Well no. To continue your analogy. I would not blame a paramedic for not doing advanced surgery. But I would blame him if, instead of placing an IV, administering fluids and giving oxygen, he placed leaches in the hope of draining off evil spirits. By the same token, if Father G is showing the value of the sacraments, through example and word teaching the love of Christ etc., God is in fact working through him. But if he is teaching these young men that if they are in a committed relationship its okay to sleep with their girlfriends and, if one is open to children in these relationships, one can contracept now to prevent conceiving and, “Oh, she’s pregnant. Well, its a tough private decision that the mother has to make.” Again I don’t know if he’s saying these things or other such. But if he is, and I’ve heard many a “good” priest do so, then no, he’s not doing God’s work. He’s just another materialist.
Salvation is God’s work. But men must cooperate in faithfulness, not heterodoxy.
The collect of Thursday’s Mass:
Grant, we pray, almighty God, that, always pondering spiritual things, we may carry our in both word and deed that which is pleasing to you. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
We are body and soul. To take care of one while denying the other is not in accord with Catholic anthropology. So we cannot only retreat to the spiritual. But, neither can we care for the body while neglecting the soul. In fact, as the collect shows us, the spiritual is what is ultimately of primacy. For we are ordained to a supernatural and not natural end. So, the good that we do in this world must be informed by the spiritual in truth.
The reading from Thursday’s Mass also talks about teaching children not to sin. Jesus says such men who teach others to sin will have a millstone placed on their neck and they will be cast into the sea. I do not know if Father G is doing such. But if heterodoxy is his way in this life, Jesus himself points out the risk for the next.
I’m puzzled by the speculation that “he might be heterodox”. Yes, there are heterodox priests. There are heterodox social worker types who use the Church as a means of realizing their Marxist ideals, but that doesn’t warrant an internet witch hunt because someone is giving jobs to former gang members. Last I heard we wanted people like that to turn their lives around, stop gang-banging and be productive members of society.
Yes, as a priest he needs to bring them to heaven. It seems to me that what he is doing is a remarkable first step in that direction for these men and women.
“I’m puzzled by the speculation that “he might be heterodox”. ”
Again, I am not sure either. It is the subject of the post however, and if he is such he is not a saint.
“Yes, as a priest he needs to bring them to heaven. It seems to me that what he is doing is a remarkable first step in that direction for these men and women.”
Indeed he is if that first step leads to Heaven. But if he is heterodox, that first step is not in that direction. And that is wrong.
“Whoever stays in him sins not: whoever sins has not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. …”
I think if we plan to judge the perceived transgressions of this good man, we might have to provide evidence.
“I think if we plan to judge the perceived transgressions of this good man, we might have to provide evidence.”
“If” is the key word since its not clear that anyone is judging Father G. They are only judging the comment that heterodoxy does not matter if one is doing good.
Leave a Reply
” “If” is the key word since its not clear that anyone is judging Father G. They are only judging the comment that heterodoxy does not matter if one is doing good. ”
A valid point. Of course, it depends how broadly one defines heterodoxy. If one were espousing pure Marxism that would be blatant heresy, but the church itself has been a bit heterodox relative to it’s own traditions of the past.
No. It has developed its doctrines and that development can be traced. That is quite different from saying certain things that have always been taught are now denied.
Sorry to be so late posting on this, but I have come to believe that “S.J.” now stands for “Social Justice” – a PERCEIVED Social Justice, which condones, among other things, abortion – as evidenced by the pro-abortion garbage coming from students and speakers at Jesuit schools. So sad to me, as one who grew up with Jesuits frequently in our home, attending a parish run by jesuits, and having jesuit-educated brothers.