The Onesiman Interface: The Sacral Investiture of the Indigent as an Individual Aid to Social Sin

The Onesiman Interface

The Sacral Investiture of the Indigent as an Individual Aid to Social Sin

1. Introduction

2. The Problem of Social Sin

3. Philemon and Christian Power Dynamics

4. Christo-analogical Interchange in the Letter to Philemon       

5. Sacral Investiture of the Indigent:  Modern Application

6. Conclusion

Introduction

Any reader of the letter to Philemon will know that Onesimus is useful to Paul.  What’s harder to comprehend is how this letter is useful to us, especially as moderns.  Most Christians probably know little concerning this short book in the Bible.  Most scholarly works simply note that it is probably the only authentic personal letter we have of St. Paul, and that in it he makes a decent pun concerning Onesimus name when describing him as useful.  The casual reader will probably recognise it only as a New Testament work that seems to explicitly endorse slavery, which is so off putting that a reader may find it hard to see any value in the book at all.  But Onesimus was useful to Paul, Paul claimed that he may be useful to Philemon, and the preservation of the letter in the canon implies that he may also be useful to us.  The careful reader will find many useful things in this short letter that are applicable in practical ways today.

The purpose of this paper will be to demonstrate how the precepts of the letter to Philemon hint at a solution to a rather difficult problem for the modern Catholic mind, “how do I as an individual combat or react to the structures of social sin?”  The individual emotional response to such a large problem is overwhelming.  Couple that with increased awareness of social sin as a reality in the new millennia and conditions are right for a bit of anxiety concerning moral action.  This paper will explore how the letter addresses this sticky problem, and go on to offer practical applications for today.

After a brief recounting of the problem of social sin we shall turn to the letter of Philemon and analyze Paul’s advice to him concerning Onesimus by framing the letter as strategic advice for combating the problem of social sin.  We will then use a sacral analogical interpretation of the letter to learn skills for particular type of application of Paul’s advice to Philemon, that is, how to make the actions he advises “sacred actions”.  Then we will go on to apply the same strategy to the modern world and expand it to harmonize with a sacramental understanding of everyday life in such a way as to make our action concerning problems of social sin a sacred affair.  This is an extremely important skill for a Catholic, otherwise our social justice action is synonymous with the secular variety, and that should not be the case.  Though objectively the result of both secular and Catholic social justice seeks the same end for the world, the disposition of the practitioner and the motivation for practicing are quite different as we shall see.        

The Problem of Social Sin

The Catholic Church makes a distinction between personal sin and social sin.  Personal sin concerns use of one’s intellect and will to do acts contrary to God’s will for us.  This is the classic understanding of sin, however the Catholic Church also talks about evil in the world as a result of the sinful activity of humans and one way that happens is social sin.  Saint John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliation And Penance lays out three relevant ways of understanding social sin.  The third way is most relevant to our purposes regarding how the Letter to Philemon can be helpful for us.  

The third meaning of social sin refers to the relationships between the various human communities. These relationships are not always in accordance with the plan of God, who intends that there be justice in the world and freedom and peace between individuals, groups and peoples. Thus the class struggle, whoever the person who leads it or on occasion seeks to give it a theoretical justification, is a social evil. Likewise obstinate confrontation between blocs of nations, between one nation and another, between different groups within the same nation all this too is a social evil. In both cases one may ask whether moral responsibility for these evils, and therefore sin, can be attributed to any person in particular. Now it has to be admitted that realities and situations such as those described, when they become generalized and reach vast proportions as social phenomena, almost always become anonymous, just as their causes are complex and not always identifiable. Hence if one speaks of social sin here, the expression obviously has an analogical meaning. However, to speak even analogically of social sins must not cause us to underestimate the responsibility of the individuals involved. It is meant to be an appeal to the consciences of all, so that each may shoulder his or her responsibility seriously and courageously in order to change those disastrous conditions and intolerable situations.

With social sin what is happening is the organized effort of personal sin in a collective action.  In such a case there is no one person directly responsible for the sin.  Instead the entire group is seen as bearing the guilt collectively through their personal investment, in as much as they are willfully and knowingly involved.  If the structure is massive and anonymous enough, for example encompassing a whole culture, then certainly people will be participating in such activities with minimal knowledge, thus limiting their personal culpability, but certainly not minimizing the detrimental effect of the actions.   

The story of the Tower of Babel is a ready demonstration of social sin.  It is relatable chiefly in that it is the first sin in the Bible where no single culprit is named.  The humans involved do everything collectively so as to make a name for themselves, but by the end they have confused their language and cannot even communicate effectively.

There are manifold modern examples and Saint John Paul II goes on to make a list of some prominent ones in his exhortation, two of which will concern us directly, slavery, “Hidden attacks and pressures against the freedom of individuals and groups” and poverty, “An unfair distribution of the world's resources and of the assets of civilization, which reaches its highest point in a type of social organization whereby the distance between the human conditions of the rich and the poor becomes ever greater. The overwhelming power of this division makes the world in which we live a world shattered to its very foundations.”  Each of these can be engaged in on the individual level as a sin against social relationships, but take on a new quality when they become bound to social institutions.

Perhaps one way of understanding the difference is to analyse the effects and consequences of actions and how they relate to the individual involved.  With regards to personal sin, the effects and consequences are often immediate and more importantly these effects and consequences are directly under your control.  So, for example, when one illicitly takes the life of another, it is assumed that they willfully did this with some knowledge of the illicit nature of their action.  This gives the actor in this situation direct control over the effects and consequences of their potential choice regarding the murder.  If they choose to do otherwise, the murder does not happen.  Also the consequences are directly personally perceivable.  When one murders, like Cain, one is put on the run, either from authorities or possibly psycho-spiritually from one’s own sense of guilt.  If one is caught, then one is directly blamed, and directly punished as the actor.

When discussing social sin, the personal action by means of will and intellect is still there.  People act in a social setting and those actions have an effect, social sin hints at a dynamic that is not quite as directly controlled.  So for example, voting is a morally important act for the individual, but it is an act that is set against the backdrop of societal structures.  The individual vote has moral implications for the individual voter, and the individual voter will face them judgment on his exercise, however the effect and consequences are most obviously played out in  social context.  The aggregate of all individual votes are what make the effect happen, thus it is hard to lay the blame for the election of a morally reprehensible candidate on any one person.

Similarly, economic participation is shot through with injustice and sin.  To knowingly and purposefully buy clothing that was produced in a sweatshop is to personally sin, but there is a structure that makes the sweatshop possible, the ownership of the shop, the distribution process, the governments that protect the unjust practices, the stores that act as mediums for the goods, all of these things work in concert to produce something that the individual cannot easily control simply by one’s personal choice.  By the individual refusing to buy the clothes, the effect of the structure of sin is not destroyed.  Further, if one analyzes the entire system of human economic activity it becomes hard to ignore how inextricably the sinful is interwoven into the necessary.  

This leads to the most stressful and demoralizing aspect of social sin, the fact that it is inescapable.  Humans are social creatures and “it is not good for man to be alone.”  But as concupiscence plays out on the individual level it manifests into the social structures formed by individuals.  It becomes hard to find any facet of society not touched by sin since all facets of society are shaped and sculpted by humans.  As human civilization becomes more and more interrelated and complex, so to the structures that we build, which are shot through with sin.  It makes one want to not even look into the wider implications of our actions, because we like to retain the illusion that we are masters of sin.  We like to think that if we try hard enough we can negate all the effects of sin, simply by our personal choices.  But given the nature of social sin, for this to be truly effective, one would need to completely withdraw from any semblance society, which is contrary to the gospel.  Jesus gathered twelve friends and by this reaffirmed that societies are good and valuable.  This leads one to two possible angles on how to deal with social sin as a structure, investment in catholic social teaching as part of a collective working for social justice and/or a beatitudnal reorientation.  

Catholic social teaching demands that one be socially conscious and make choices with an eye toward forming the most just society.  It involves sociological concerns and centers around seven principles, care of creation, life and dignity of the human person, solidarity, rights and responsibilities, family and community participation, dignity of workers and lastly the option for the poor and vulnerable.  Catholic social teaching recognizes the limit of individual control regarding the effects of the structures of social sin.  But instead of despair, the council is bonding together and acting with social justice.  Thus when you act together as one, the good effect of your individual wills collectively combats the structures of sin that exist.  

This seems like an obvious and simple solution until one remembers the complexity of the interwoven structures of sin in society.  Few people have time, organizational capacity, or emotional vigor to dedicate their lives to every cause that threatens humanity.  One or two arenas of dedicated social action is enough to consume an individual lifetime.  It is tempting to seek perfection in society, but that ignores the lack of control an individual has over the effects of social sin.  If an individual believes they are in a position to fix all of society’s ills, they are most likely a demagogic totalitarian.  This means that individual Christians will be participating in the structures of social sin even as they bond together to combat it.  The stress, therefore, is, how can a Christian do this with such an awareness and at the same time seek to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect?

This leads to the second angle on how to deal with social sin, that is the individual beatitudinal reorientation.  This is the skill Paul advised to Philemon.  It is the skill of living within the structure and even participating in the structure aware of the problems, but on an interpersonal level, one is acting as upright as possible so as to minimize the aggregate effect of personal sin, as well as to at least neutralize, if not sacralize, the structure of sin as it manifests in your personal relationships.

For the rest of this paper, first we shall analyze Paul’s advice to Philemon concerning Onesimus and how it plays out according to our second strategy to combat social sin.  We will also use a saral analogical interpretation of the letter to learn skills for particular application of Paul’s advice to Philemon.  Then we will go on to apply the same strategy to the modern world and expand it to harmonize with a sacramental understanding of everyday life in such a way as to make our action concerning problems of social sin a sacred affair.      

Philemon and Christian Power Dynamics

The letter of Philemon is derided at times because Paul seems to send a slave back to his master in order to continue in a state of slavery.  America has a very contentious relationship with its recent past concerning slavery.  Thus this letter, in as much as it is noted at all, is often viewed through the lense of this social justice issue.  American history regarding slavery and the legacy it has left on our society is lasting in its negative effects.  For the majority of the span of human history systems of slavery have been in place that have kept most of humanity in the possession in one form or another to other humans.  In the first century Roman world slavery was an economic staple.  As much as two thirds of the population were slaves.  Slaves were often freed, and if freed formerly they were granted citizenship.  But life as a slave was as cruel a fate as it would have been in any other time or place, including beatings, branding, and the ability of the master to slay a slave without civil condemnation.      

It is completely understandable that Paul sending a slave back to his master is not warmly received by most Christians given the similarly morally abhorrent situation of our recent past in this country.  A Christian desire for social justice brings to bear as the iconic image of Jesus bringing liberation, not Paul sending Onesimus back to Philemon.  Even in Christian circles where the liberation of Christ is seen as a “spiritual liberation” it is still often believed that physical, political and economic liberation better facilitate such spiritual liberation.  To gain a wider view of the complexity of the letter to Philemon, it may help to note that a correlation between social relationships and spiritual liberation can be drawn from Paul himself.  He states in Galatians chapter 3, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  This summons the question, how can we have the apostle sending a slave back to his master and seeming to bolster the oppressive slave economy of the Roman empire?

It was as tough a question then as it is now.  When you have a sinful social structure that is all encompassing and seemingly impossible to escape and you want to make individual choices that are morally appropriate, but at the same time any of those choices will lead one directly back into the hands of social sin itself, what do you do?  One could extricate one’s self from society, but in the Christian religion this too is a sin.  Christianity is not a religion that involves a solitary quest.  The early Christian hermetic monastics in Egypt quickly formed communities because Christianity is necessarily a communal endeavor.  “It is not good for man to be alone.”  As was noted, Jesus came to engage in community with us and in that he gathered twelve friends around himself in order to complete his mission.  Since solitary contemplation is not the Christian way, how do you act in society for good effect without engaging in the structures of social sin?  

Paul’s advice for Philemon is fairly easily extracted.  It involves a beatitudinal reorientation.  Philemon cannot run his house effectively without the utilizing the typical Roman socio-economic structures.  To completely divest himself of these structures would basically cause a dissolution of his house.  This would be tragic for Philemon himself, but the modern reader may take the moral high ground and say, “so what?”  Philemon should be willing to suffer the loss of his slaves in order to live on a higher moral plain.  What the modern Christian should notice, but may not, is that Paul addresses this letter, “to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house.”  What this reminds us is that Philemon is the “head of a house” in a much larger sense than the modern American nuclear family.  And not only that but Christianity at this time meets and gathers in “house churches”.  So the structure of the Church at this time demands that Philemon maintain his house in an orderly way so as to facilitate the “parish” so to speak.   

Thus, Paul advises that Philemon to take Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.”  The beatitudinal reorientation keeps the same names as the structures of society, which are shot through with social sin.  It is a recognition of the individual will’s inability directly effect the consequences of social sin. But at the same time a beatitudnal reorientation invests the individual moral agent with an alternate worldview to operate under until the world is healed. Therefore, when acting after such an adjustment, the personal relationship between the two actors would be quite different than society would expect.  So from the outside view there is a master / slave relationship, but the actual relationship is mutual edification and respecting human dignity and mutual subservience to Christ.  Paul bolster’s the angle of mutual edification by pointing out how useful Onesimus has been to him.

Christian Power dynamics demand that the greater serve the lesser, and it is off this basic Christian teaching that Paul is offering his advice.  It must be remembered that according to Paul in his letter to the Philippians, Jesus “ though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”  This is a high-christological reframing of Jesus’ admonition to the sons of thunder in Matthew chapter 20, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.  But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;”  This same sentiment is reiterated in 1Peter 5:3 and demonstrated by Jesus at The Last Supper in John’s gospel when he washes the disciples' feet.  

Paul is introducing this same understanding of power dynamics to Philemon in his particular situation.  The focus on this type of power-dynamic leads Paul to attempt to re-orient Philemon to not see Onesimus as someone to be cruelly punished as a slave under the Roman imperial power structure, but as a brother seen through a relationship of Christian love.  An interpersonal focus is Paul’s advice to Philemon on acting against social sin. It is through this lens that, as was noted earlier, Philemon must see Onesimus “as a man” meaning a creature made in the image and likeness of God.  And “in the Lord”  meaning as a Christian.  The Roman relationship names abide, master / slave, but the relationships themselves are completely revamped, sacralized as it were, and conformed to the Christian worldview and reflecting Christian power dynamics.  And this theme of a sacralization of an existing secular institution is perfectly suited to the concept of a “house church” and is perfectly in keeping with the job of the laity as re-emphasized in the Second Vatican Council.  

This sacralization actually seems to play a key role in the letter to Philemon.  Such a short letter displays an amazing amount of fodder for bringing the sacred to the secular.  It can even be seen in a few passages already quoted.  What does Paul mean when he says that Philemon is to regard Onesimus as beloved “as a man and in the Lord” or in Galatians where Paul asserts in the kingdom “all are one in Christ Jesus”.  Such phrases are usually taken as an ontological or associative marker, meaning that in Christ we are all ontologically one being, or that being in Christ we are associated with each other in his Church.  But for the rest of this paper we are going to explore how such language can be taken as a sacramental marker and how such language is used in the letter to Philemon as a redefinition of relationships using a sacramental understanding of the cosmos.  Then the paper will take that same methodology and apply it to modern times in a practical way such that the modern lay person can utilize this letter as a guide to perform the spiritual task at hand, to sacralize the secular world in order to bring about a healing of social sin one relationship at a time.   

Christo-analogical Interchange in the Letter to Philemon       

The Letter to Philemon is the shortest of Paul’s Letters and one of the shorter books in the Bible.  For this reason it is easily overlooked as anything important.  But it must be remembered that in his day Jesus, being of no account, was also easily overlooked.  It may be interesting as a historical letter or anthropologically concerning the culture of Rome, Christianity and how they intersect.  But there are also great spiritual lessons to be gleaned from this letter.  For this portion of the paper, I will be applying a basic interpretive tool to the letter in order to glean theological and moral meaning from the text.  I will be interpreting the narrative of the letter analogical.  As a caveat, to successfully render an analogical interpretation one need not adhere to the author’s intent, the cultural or historical milieu of the writing, or even linguistic turns in the original language as long as the translation is official (For our purposes the New American translation is always used).   Eisegesis is acceptable as long as what is read conforms to the overall flow of Christian belief, narrative, and myth.  Interpretation by analogy is tricky, because it is easy to eisegeticaly insert one’s own opinion as opposed to being open to the spirit, but we can pray for success and a garnering of healthy information.

After the interpretation of the content of the letter we will be unpack and apply what lessons we can to current structures of social sin.  From that, a means by which one can react as an individual to the injustices of social sin according to the beatitudinal reorientation will become more clear.  The methodology I will be using is normally reserved for parables or narratives as opposed to letters.  I do not primarily intended to detract from the historical nature of this letter by treating it like a parable, however, history in scripture, and in general as a discipline, is not randomly or haphazardly preserved.  Normally definitive events or events that help give some kind of meaning or moral guidance are kept in memory.  There is a reason we know so little about the shoe sizes and shoe tying technique of all the great people of history.  

Keeping all this in mind, I am going to try to tease out meaning from the narrative of this letter.  This may be problematic in that the narrative here must be reconstructed unlike a parable where the narrative is the form itself.  However, there are some pretty generally accepted facts about the circumstances of this letter that, if interpreted by the appropriate means, could yield useful results beyond what is presented in the manifest content.  

The primary analogical methodology we are going to apply will be a christo-analogical interchange.  It is fairly standard to have a regular way one analogically interprets a parable in terms of analogically inserting God or Christ.  When Jesus says, “A man had two sons . . .”  The pious reader almost immediately sees “the man” as either God or Christ and the sons as themselves, their neighbors, Christians, sinners or the like depending on how the narrative plays out.  This makes absolute sense given that God made us and is our father, and the faithful are children of God.  But it is a healthy trick to be able to switch hit your analogies in order to be able to garner an exponentially greater amount of fruit from any given parable.  This skill revolves around being able to interchange God or Jesus with the reader and the neighbor or sinner.

For example, the parable of the dishonest steward is one that has a standard easy application, yet can be unpacked a bit more by means of christo-analogical interchange.  Here is the parable in Luke’s Gospel

Then he also said to his disciples, “A rich man had a steward who was reported to him for squandering his property.  He summoned him and said, ‘What is this I hear about you? Prepare a full account of your stewardship, because you can no longer be my steward.’

The steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do, now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me? I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg.  I know what I shall do so that, when I am removed from the stewardship, they may welcome me into their homes.’

He called in his master’s debtors one by one. To the first he said, ‘How much do you owe my master?’  He replied, ‘One hundred measures of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Here is your promissory note. Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.’  

Then to another he said, ‘And you, how much do you owe?’  He replied, ‘One hundred kors of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Here is your promissory note; write one for eighty.’

And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.

Jesus’ commentary on the parable revolves around how people trust and use wealth as opposed to trusting God and friendship.  Offhand it is easy to interpret the dishonest steward as the reader and the rich man as God.  This is an easy and accurate interpretation because everything we have belongs to God, in what we have and what we do we are simply his stewards.  If debt is a stand in for mercy then this parable is a simple retelling of a common theme of Jesus’, “the measure with which you measure will be measured back to you” or “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  This interpretation also gives credence to the shocking last line where the steward is commended by his master with no comment as to how or why.  Of course God would commend mercy.  

However, when applying an analogical interchange, what if the rich man were God, the steward was my neighbor and I was the debtor?  If someone offered me mercy or forgiveness, yet it seems beyond his ability to offer that, do I trust that God is merciful?  Do I trust that God can offer forgiveness through people who are fallible and flawed?  Do I trust that God will commend the “unjust steward”?  Or will I stay wrapped in guilt, bordering on sinning against the Holy Spirit.

Again, what if the reader is the rich man and the steward were a neighbor?  Now the parable is no longer about God’s mercy, but about our ability to see the good in others.  This man has misappropriated my wealth, and now has used more of it to win friends upon his discharge.  The question is why would I commend him?  It boggles the mind.  The commentary of Jesus helps us understand that this parable is about attachment to money.  If I can’t find a reason to commend the steward, perhaps I am too attached to money.  I can’t see that having friends is more important than sheer wealth, that real relationships are more valuable than symbolic metal.

Each of the interchanges run thematic similarities, but the simple shift gives new emphasis to each part of the issue at hand.  Since the general relationships to be healed are between God neighbor and self, an analogical interchange can be a useful tool for exploring various angles of these relationships.

In the Letter to Philemon there is a standard narrative that we can use in exactly the same way to explore the issues of personal action in the midst of a sinful social structure.  The story runs thusly, a slave escaped his master, possibly by means of some minor theft.  He took up residence with a spiritual advisor of his master who was on a journey.  That spiritual master sends the slave back asking the master to treat him like a brother.  Our task is to apply a christo-analogical interchange, and play out all of the possible relationships in order to explore each implication.  The special thing about this story is that the spiritual advisor, Saint Paul,  happens to be an apostle, and therefore, according to Catholic theology, already has the ability to stand in persona Christi.  In a standard parable, the skill of placeing Christ in as a character would be practiced narratively and simply analogically, but in this case a character theologically has the ability to stand in for Christ sacramentally.  What is also interesting about this letter is that Saint Paul opens the letter with a statement of purpose which perfectly lends itself to our interpretive method of christo-analogical interchange.  He states in verse six that his purpose in writing the letter is, “so that your partnership in the faith may become effective in recognizing every good there is in us that leads to Christ.”  So Paul, the apostle who could clearly analogically/narratively stand in for Christ, seems at the outset to be advising a way that the two other characters need to be able to recognise how they lead each other to Christ.  This leads us back to our original question, who is standing in for the person of Christ in this story?  Only this time our methodology is not simply narrative, but sacral in nature, which will make it all the more interesting.        

As noted, if one applies an analogical interpretation, Paul easily stands in for Christ in this letter.  He is an apostle and therefore one sent to represent Christ in the world.  Much like how a current bishop, a successor to the apostles, is the local sacral stand in for Christ and "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood," (CCC 893) so a founding apostle would be for a community he founded.  The view of Paul standing in persona Christi to his community is further bolstered by his constant statements that reflect attitudes and relationships he has towards the recipient of the letter that Christ has toward his people.

For example, Paul takes a divine attitude in that he asserts in verses 8 and 9 that he could order Philemon to take Onesimus back, but would rather urge out of love that Philemon do what is right.  Given Paul’s biography and relationship to the Law of Israel, this is certainly how he sees God as relating to us.  God is sovereign and could command us to the complete depletion of our free will, but rather sends his son who takes on the form of a slave and demonstrates true love.  This tact by God is much more demonstrative and persuasive.  It uses human will as opposed to bending it.  This is Paul’s desire in the situation.

A more interesting is a series of statements by Paul in verses 17-19 where he very much takes on the actor in persona Christi.  

So if you regard me as a partner, welcome him as you would me.  And if he has done you any injustice or owes you anything, charge it to me.  I, Paul, write this in my own hand: I will pay. May I not tell you that you owe me your very self.

There are three resonant concepts here that bring Christ himself to mind.  First verse 17 most definitely brings to mind Matthew 25, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”, but more interesting is verse 18 where he employs a redemptionist mentality while acting as a mediator between Onesimus and Philemon.  Like Jesus who pays our debt, Paul insists on Paying Onesimus’ debt in order to bring peace.   Lastly he presses his desire to redeem by reminding Philemon that he owes his very self to Paul.  The natural assumption is that this is a baptismal claim, something to the effect of, “I baptised you, therefore the salvation of your soul was a result of my action.”  But this is set in bold language.  The only person we owe our “very self” to is God.  Acrostically we can link Paul’s baptismal role with the priestly function of standing alter Christus and the analogy starts to gel.  The moral takeaway is that we should be able to stand in for others, pay their debts and offer peace between broken relationships. For the lay person, this is standing alter Christus.

Another interesting way that Paul is standing in the role of Christ in this letter is the vague expectations Paul places on Philemon.  He seems to want Philemon to accept Onesimus back with a beatitudenal reorientation, properly disposed, while in name at least he stays a slave.  At the same time Paul seems to hint that Philemon should let Onesimus remain in his own service.  Lastly, by suggesting that he should do more, Paul seems to imply that Philemon could even free Onesimus.  All of these things in concert are what Jesus demands us to do regarding our neighbors.  We are to welcome them as dignified fellow children of God, even when all are trapped in the confines of the sinful structures fabricated by society.  We are to at the same time give them over to Christ, because we do not own people, only God does.  And lastly if we are strong enough in nature, we can completely buck the system, sell everything we own, or are familiar with, and set what we see as under our control free.  It is in these passages that we learn the various ways that a person can act individually in an appropriate response to social sin.              

Now we can apply the christo-analogical interchange and switch our analogical characters.  What if Philemon was playing the part of Jesus?  It’s not an easy sell because he is a slaveholder and it presents discomfort to think of Jesus that way.  But Paul does introduce himself as, “a slave of Christ Jesus” in his letter to the Romans.  So in some sense we are owned by the Lord when we devote ourselves to him.  Also, one way we established Paul as the analogical stand in for Jesus was his role an apostle, which would bill him as “one who is sent” to stand in for Jesus as a bishop does for his diocese.  Philemon however seems to be running a house church.  If he is indeed in charge of such a house church, could it be that he is some sort of presbyter?  In which case, anachronistically, he could be sacramentally standing in the person of Christ by his vocation.

If this is the case we now have a story of how to pray for those who have somehow turned away.  Christ in this story is seen as a distant judge, not unfitting imagery at certain points in Christian history, who needs to be suplicated.  Onesimus is a Christian who has turned away and Paul is the Church who fosters a relationship, and prepared the sinner to return to the master.  

Such an interpretation is hard to have considering Paul’s language regarding how Philemon owes him his very self, and how Paul “could” order him.  But Christ did assure Peter that what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and on this earth the Church is the mystical body of Christ.  So in these ways, maybe sense could be made of those statements.  That Paul as Church could be so demanding of God concerning mercy harkens back to the prayer of Abraham concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses concerning the Israelites worshiping the Golden Calf.  In each case an appeal is made to the good reputation of God’s justice and mercy.  “Answer my prayers for mercy, or what will people think of you?”.

Paul does seem to want Philemon to accept Onesimus back the way Jesus accepts us.  He does not want him to lord his authority over him, but take him back as a brother.  This is Christ like perfection toward one who has sinned.  In this case, he could be asking him to be a sacral stand in for Jesus.  It is fairly obvious that he is urging Philemon to treat Onesimus as Jesus would, but, it’s a further push demanded of a Christian who holds a sacral world view not just to treat as Jesus would but to “be Jesus” to others.  This can come in the form of a priest standing in persona Christi, but the sacral plug in is also available to all of us as will be discussed below.

In this interpretation we remember that by helping others return to Christ, we are returning property to it’s rightful owner, yet at the same time they remain in the Church to help us.  It is an interesting diabolically sinful quirk to want to take credit for someone’s reform and somehow then claim them as your own.  Paul seems alludes to this attitude while explaining to Philemon why he is asking instead of demanding in this letter.  If Philemon stands in for Christ, and Onesimus is one who has strayed it is a valuable lesson on how to pray for the sinner who repents, and how to regard them after such a repentance, not as your own property, for having helped, but still useful as a fellow Christian.      

This analogical view also casts interesting light on verses 15 and 16 where Paul states, “Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.”  If one takes Philemon as standing in as a Christ in the form of a presbyter, or simply doing so because Paul asked him to, these line are teaching an interesting lesson concerning theodicy.  It is an interesting question as to why we are separated from God in the first place.  Why does God allow sin?  A standard Christian answer is that God allows sin so that we can truly love God by our free will and not simply love God as automatons.  In this passage, Paul show how separation can cause a development of a deeper relationship.  It seems that somehow over time of separation Onesimus developed as a man, and developed “in the Lord” and that Philemon should welcome him back as such.  

This leads to our last analogical interchange, what if Onesimus is the stand in for Jesus?  When Paul says to accept him “in the Lord”  what exactly does he mean?  It seems like a trite phrase Paul uses to remind people that they are fellow Christians, so they should be nice to each other.  But this is a world where there are few Christians and one would not need such a reminder.  It could also be a way that Paul is reminding Philemon that they are one in the Body of Christ, a similar reminder, but with more ontological gravitas, which communicates a strict oneness. One last possibility is that Paul is urging Philemon to treat Onesimus as a sacramental, a physical thing used in a devotional way that conveys graces that more properly dispose one to reception of the sacraments.  In effect Paul is asking Philemon to see Onesimus as standing alter Christus.

Onesimus is a runaway slave and not a bishop or priest in any way according to our narrative.  As an analogy, you can make anyone you want Christ, but in our analogical interpretation, we have seemed to move from a bishop situation, to a priest situation, so would onesimus be a laity situation?  If so, it may be appropriate to note here how the laity can also stand “alter Christus”.  By exploring this phenomenon, we will set the groundwork for how to bring this letter into modern times and use it as a road map for an individual response to the problem of social sin by means of beatitudinal reorientation.

To understand the laity’s role as priest, one only needs a brief sketch on the three types of priesthood and the distinction between them.  Each type is involved in the act of sacrifice to God, keeping in line with the ancient Jewish priesthood.  That priesthood sacrificed goods of value, animals and grain for instance, as a communication form with the deity that spoke of our dependence and gratitude and God’s goodness and acceptance.  

For Catholics, Jesus, being the first order of priest we are going to discuss, is the summation of this and all other theocentric sacrificial systems.  Jesus’ sacrifice is the giving up of his life for the love of God and neighbor.  Jesus’ sacrifice is the perfect sacrifice because instead of giving up one thing of value, he gave us everything of value, his every experience.  It must be remembered also, that Jesus’ death is only the culminating act of his sacrifice.  His sacrificial death is only understood in light of his sacrificial life, that he gave up his entire will throughout his life to live for the Father.  This is significant because anyone else may in a moment of extreme grace give up their life for love of God and neighbor, but the entirety of a life lived as a living sacrifice is unique to Christ.

The next type of priesthood in the Catholic Church is that type that is ordained into the sacramental system of the Church.  Jesus is the one who instituted the sacraments, but they are carried out in his body, the Church, through the span of history by the ordained priesthood.  By their ordination, they become vessels by which Christ, through the sacraments, conveys grace.  During a sacramental ritual, the priest stands in persona Christi not just in a dramatic or theatrical way, but in truth by his ordination.  The human priest himself is inconsequential in this position, but his physical body is a necessary part of the outward sign of the sacramental ritual.  Because of that they may also stand alter Christus in an informal way in a church community, this time dramatically or theatrically, because in the Catholic Church they have made a sacrifice of themselves and decided to live for the institutional church, putting off marriage and personal wealth.

This small personal sacrifice by the priest and his ability to stand alter Christus in the Church community apart for sacral ritual leads us to how the laity is understood as holding a priestly office in the Catholic Church.  In the view which Paul has of the Body of Christ, all of the faithful form a temple of living stones, made sacred by their sacrificial acts to Christ in their daily lives.  Any giving up or releasing to the deity puts one in the position of a sacrificial actor, that is, a priest.  Thus during the eucharistic prayers, when the ordained priest says the collect, “pray brothers and sisters that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father”, the “and yours” is a recognition that, though there is a ritually ordained priest functioning here according to the sacramental system, there is also a community of priests whose daily sacrifices are also on the altar being offered to God.  As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says in article 901,

Hence the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives."

If we are taking Onesimus as standing alter Christus analogically, he is making a great sacrifice, he is returning to a state of, what he hopes is, nominal slavery and humbling himself to another out of love for Christ.  In this analogy, again, Paul stands for the Church, reminding us all that importance of Christian power dynamics.  Philemon is standing in for anyone who is invested with some type of authority or status over another.  Onesimus is standing in for any person in a lowly state who must submit themselves to a fellow human being.  In this he is Christ in that Christ came as the lowliest person and according to the power structures of this world, anyone who saw him need pay him no account.  In the end he was tortured to death and most people who witnessed this did not seem to see a problem with this fate.

Our moral takeaway with this type of interpretation is that we can meet each other as Christ, even when we are not ordained priests.  And especially when one person is subject to another, the one who controls the power dynamic according to “the world” has a chance to act for the world a second time and treat Christ as Christ should have been treated, because the one standing before them is standing alter Christus  The relationship formed may have the same names as the worldly power structure, but layered underneath that is a sacramental relationship, where the greater serves the lessor, who stands alter Christus in order to give the powerful one a chance to “make it right” for humanity.  As Paul says, Philemon should welcome him back as a man and “in the Lord”.  Though usually when pondering Onesimus’ usefulness it is assumed that it is some sort of economic service, maybe he’s a scribe or something?  It seems that Onesimus is quite useful to Philemon in a way that’s value is beyond measure, he gives Philemon a chance at personal redemption by standing in for Christ and a chance he gives Philemon a chance to offer service to Christ for the world.    

This, then, leads to the skill we hope to obtain with this letter, a beatitudinal reorientation in an attempt to be able to act against social sin on an individual level.  If we can learn to reinterpret the power structures at hand at each individual interaction, then each interaction gives a chance to bring the sacred to the secular and redefine the nature of power structures under a sacred model.  This methodology works in concert with the social justice initiatives by means of collective action in the Church.  But, by investing in a sacral understanding of our relationships, and allowing the downtrodden we meet personally everyday to stand in for Christ for us, not just dramatically, but as a sacramental, a physical devotion that offer grace that disposed one to reception of the sacraments, we can render those power structures meaningless for ourselves in our lives and possibly for those who we meet as Christ in that interaction.  Once again, this beatitudnal reorientation allows one to personally respond to the structures of social sin by use of the individual will.  It grants the ability to be in the world, but not of the world.      

Sacral Investiture of the Indigent:  Modern Application

The sacral beatitudnal reorientation we are going to discuss as a skill here can be applied to any given worldly power differential.  It can apply to racism, class, economy, gender, nationality etc.  The skill is an interpersonal skill, the ability to regard another as bringing Christ to you, the ability of another to stand alter Christus.  Just like slavery in Rome, we are called to both change the structure while abiding in the structure under a new sacralized form.  We are called to be in the world but not of the world.  For our ponderance of this skill we will use the indigent beggar as an example.  But before we go into the skill of seeing the indigent as Christ among us, it may help to know how they are especially able to stand alter Christus.

Jesus himself seems to place the poor in the position of priest in his various comments and conversations with the apostles.  Jesus claims in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor, which definitely puts them in some odd way on par with the King of Kings.  But a more interesting source when considering the special priesthood of poverty is the anointing at Bethany as it is presented in Mark’s Gospel

When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.  

There were some who were indignant. “Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil?  It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’ wages and the money given to the poor.” They were infuriated with her.  

Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me.  The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me.  She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial.  Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

Here we have an anointing similar to Leviticus 8:12 where Aaron is anointed high priest.  After he is anointed his sons are brought forward by Moses and dressed as priests, but interestingly not anointed.  What I am suggesting here is an investiture of priesthood of a particular kind for the impoverished.  This kind is certainly not of the variety that officiate the sacramental system in the institutional church.  That variety is unique and its investiture ritual well documented.  Instead, what I an suggesting is an investment of the poor, by Christ, of the ability to stand in his stead.  Like the priesthood in the institutional sacramental system of the Catholic Church, this ability is effective regardless of the character of the individual indigent.  The individual indigent functions similarly to a priest in the institutional sacral system, he is an empty vessel through which Christ can convey grace.

Leviticus 8:12-13 states, “[Moses] also poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him, to consecrate him.  Moses likewise brought forward Aaron’s sons, clothed them with tunics, girded them with sashes, and put skullcaps on them, as the Lord had commanded him to do.”  In both of these stories you have a high priest anointed with oil.  But interestingly in the Jesus story, the setting is in a leper’s house and the anointing is done by a woman and the anointed is a homeless indigent.  The setting is indicative of all kinds of social outcasts.  It is in this context that Jesus and some attendees have an interesting back and forth concerning the poor and this woman who anointed him.

When it is brought up that the oil could have been sold for the poor Jesus links the anointing to his death, but also points out that the woman has done him a good service regarding that, and that the poor you will always have with you to visit good deeds upon.  Jesus’ death is a horribly brutal affair, and as was pointed out above, he was of no account according to worldly structures.  This was such a horrible abuse because he is the incarnate Word of God, to who all of these that abuse him owe their very existence.  Once the abuse is done can it ever be undone?  Perhaps so, When he reminds the listeners that they may always do good for the poor, he seems to be clothing them in himself (Gal 3), the way that the sons of Aaron are clothed after his anointing.  By reminding the reader that “you will always have them you will not have me” it seems that Jesus is self aggrandizing, but perhaps he is giving us a second chance, the way Onesimus is a second chance for Philemon to welcome the outcaste as Jesus.  Both Onesimus and the poor are quite useful to all who are around them.

The true connection here is made in the account of the Judgment of Nations in Chapter 25 Matthew’s Gospel,

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’  

Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?  When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’  Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

From this account it seems an opportunity was missed.  When the Son of God came in the flesh, humanity had an opportunity to collaborate with God and worship in his physical presence.  Instead, humanity decided to pronounce judgment and act out of hatred and violence.  The story of the Judgment of nations assures us that God always gives us an opportunity to repent.  Jesus has left the poor to stand in his stead, what we do to them, we do to him.  They are useful to us.

Presumably those who protested at Bethany were in Jesus’ company (in John’s Gospel it is Judas himself).  If they were loathed to do a nice thing for Jesus what could ever move them to do a nice thing for the poor, whom they would hold in less esteem.  More likely the motivation for protest was the forwardness of this woman and an attempt to put her in her place.  But Jesus switches the roles around and makes them acknowledge her as having done a good thing.  The example is that she does a nice thing for Jesus, just as the protestors would do for the poor.  But usually when we see ourselves as giving to the poor, our analogical narrative is that we are Jesus and the poor are the sick, lame or sinners that Jesus helps.  Our good deeds are seen as an extension of Jesus’ own good deeds and by helping them we help the world, just like Jesus does.  At best this was the narrative of the protestors at Simon’s house.  

But instead Jesus seems to have flipped everything.  The one doing the anointing, or kind deed, is the one being helped, the sick, lame or sinner, and the one receiving is Jesus.  That would mean that as one gives to the poor, analogically, the poor person is Jesus and the listener who is giving the money to the poor is the sinner whom he is helping by his reception of their gift.  When Jesus says something like, you will not always have me with you, the feeling may be the famous prayer of St. Teresa of Avila, “Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours, Yours are the eyes through which to look out Christ's compassion to the world Yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good;Yours are the hands with which he is to bless men now.”  This is a great prayer for reminding us of how the laity serve as priests of Christ.  But in the story of Bethany, Jesus’ absence is linked graphically to his death and a kindness done in preparation of that death is then likened to helping the poor.  The implication seems to be, if you want to do me a kindness in my absence, do it to the poor, they will be here in my stead.  It is not necessarily you who is Jesus in the analogical appropriation of charity, because it is simultaneously the poor.

The poor, in this mode of priesthood stand alter Christus as sacramentals, not as institutionally ordained members of the ritual sacramental system under the ordinary form. Being ordained is one of the seven sacraments, but it must be remembered that a “sacramental” is different than one of the seven sacraments.  As was discussed in the former paper on relics, sacramentals are defined as expressions of piety that extend the liturgical life of the Church, but do not replace it. They act in accord with the sacred liturgy and are in some way derived from it and lead the people to it.  So what seems to be being offered here is a theoretical fourth type of priesthood that was instituted by Christ in order to allow for a particular devotion.  It may be helpful to examine the volitional and moral requirements of each type of mundane priesthood available to people in the Church today.

As was noted earlier priest are ordained and stand in persona Christi while performing the sacred rituals of the Church.  They accept this office by their willful participation in the sacrament of holy orders.  But once ordained, their moral character is inconsequential to their office.  They practice their office by means of sacramental rituals instituted by Christ, where the his grace flows from the physical signs, one of which is the priest's physical body.

Also noted earlier was the laity who have a special and important priestly role in the Catholic Church by offering their personal sacrifices to the Father through Christ.  This role is instilled at baptism and willfully accepted in confirmation.  Like ordination it is also sacramentally initiated and forms an ordinary part of the sacral structure of the institutional Catholic Church.  But unlike the ordained priest the lay priest’s ministry is completely contingent of personal morality by exercise of action, disposition and will.  The ordained priest when acting in persona Christi is an empty vessel, but the lay priest when doing such is an active participant in the life of Christ.   For a lay person the ability to act as a priest is correlative to their ability to act in a controlled and conscious manner.  As active as the layman can be on every level of his being in cooperation with their baptismal grace; is as effective as his ministry as a priest of Christ is.

This lead us to our theoretical fourth type of priest which is not consecrated by means of ritual sacrament, but by a sacramental worldview that sees the indigent as acting alter Christus.  Like the ordained priest the indigent priestly function is not reliant on the moral character of the individual.  As will be explained, one does not view the indigent as Christ because they merit it, the same as one does not view a priest performing sacral rites as Christ because he merits it, though like an ordained priest, the indigent may live a life that seeks to exemplify Christ.  But like an ordained priest, they are an empty vessel that stands in for Christ as the layman acts toward them.  Their priestly service allows for the sacrifice of the laity through corporal and spiritual works of mercy.  Their priesthood seems to be primarily activated by the baptismal grace of the layman’s active priesthood, but possibly supplemented by their own cooperation given the right circumstances.

The sacral investiture of the indigent is simply a recognition of the dance between the helper and the helped in Christian power dynamics.  Once one recognizes this, one can immediately see how it applies to the onesiman interface between personal action and social sin.  It represents the complicated nature of how the greater serves the lessor, the lessor, according to worldly power dynamics, being the indigent and the greater being someone offering aid.  In this “sacramental” ritual the helper effects Christ’s priesthood, and takes on the role of Christ the helper, and giver of mercy to those in need.  This is his role as a layman as is noted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (898-900)

"By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. . . . It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer.”

The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:

Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.

Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.

Since the laity are charged here with inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life, the devotional of the indigent as an icon of Christ seems a fitting way to redefine the relationships one has with the impoverished and attempt through action to sacralize the secular.  The action taken can align along the corporeal or spiritual works of mercy.  One can certainly “spiritualize” poverty in this devotion, but the scriptural texts we have used are fairly explicit with regards to the economic nature of the poverty discussed.  To apply the onesiman sara here is an attempt to redefine social relationships by individual action, but one could even conceive of it redefining social structures themselves if a Christian society began to understand the service the poor are doing us in a sacramental way.  

In such a society the investiture if the indigent could even become more commonly conscious and chosen as opposed to simply an empty vessel.  One could imagine a society where a person chose the life of an indigent, with all the hardships that accompany it, in order to offer themselves as an opportunity to give to Christ through charity to poverty.  In fact the mendicant orders in the institutional church already work on this very model on a communal level.   If it seems unfathomable that an individual could honestly and without pride offer this as a service and not out of laziness or some sort of misdirected pride, I would urge the reader to revisit the parable of the dishonest steward, where our analogical interpretation put the reader in the place of the master.  Could you see the value in a person who placed relationships over money?  Could believe that such a person could exist?

However, if an individual doesn’t choose the life of poverty in imitation of Christ, or even choose a life of poverty period, they are still able to function in this priestly sacrificial system.  The sacral investitures of the unwilling indigent comes through the baptismal grace of the Christian layman who brings Christ to them by the grace active through their participation in the sacraments of initiation.  It is evangelization at its core, and it is what Christ did for us, coming to this earth and treating us like brothers, sisters and fellow children of God, even against our will.  In this interaction the layman acting alter Christus as a healer of social injustice meets Christ as the social outcaste.  The attitude of the layman here mirrors the various attitudes of Paul in his vague requests to Philemon, the desire to use the useful indigent’s sacral status, yet at the same time give the indigent to Christ as a servant, while at the same time desiring to set the indigent free.  All  of this is assumed in the afore quoted passage of the Catechism where it says,

“This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.”

 

As it is, the manner of the devotion forces a strange cognitive dissonance in that the charitable actor who must see himself as acting as Christ to heal the world, yet one must also see the impoverished as Christ at the same time, standing in for Christ in the absolute weakest state of humanity. One can see in this devotion Christ mirrored to himself, as healer and servant between the two actors.  What is being offered here is a chance to meet Christ as the vulnerable indigent and to re-do what humanity failed to do the first time around, to see him as a creature in the image and likeness of God and treat him with basic respect.  This should give the layman actor a sense of complete joy at the opportunity of giving and wipe away any sense of superiority or pride at having given to charity.  In this relationship the indigent has done the giver a favor.  This is how the onesiman interface changes society and how the relationship works as a sacramental, a physical devotion that offer grace that disposed one to reception of the sacraments.  The grace offered through this devotional act of charity is then brought to the liturgy and offered at the collect, “my sacrifice and yours”.  At the point of this prayer all three mundane priesthoods are acting in concert.  This complete presence of the priestly type may be why “private” masses said by ordained priests is generally frowned upon.  In such rituals there is much missing that brings the grace present to the world and brings sacrificial love to God.

The onesiman interface and its incorporation into the liturgy of the universal church is the difference between actor for social justice who is spiritually motivated by Christianity and one who is simply secular in their outlook.  The Catholic actor for social justice is imbued with a sacral world view.  It is not simply a matter of efficiency, nor is there a delusionary sense that if we just organize everything right, we can solve all our problems.  Instead the world is seen as broken but with latent redemption around every corner, but abiding in the brokenness.  This paradoxical dynamic is summatively symbolized by the crucifix.  This symbol shows us that in this postlapsarian world the job of the just person is to live a life of sacrifice to God, and to bring a sacredness to suffering until the time comes that suffering is banished by God.  

Jesus assures us that the poor we will always have with us, clothed as him after his anointing, standing in for him, for our benefit.  The striving for social justice is about more than just the work, there is a mystical element whereby one uses the work to connect to Christ.  To drive this point home in John's Gospel, the appointer is Mary, who sat at the feet of Jesus and chose the better path, and the reader is reminded in the text of Martha’s stressful busyness of strict service bereft of contemplation.

This difference between secular social reform and Catholic social justice is present in Paul’s advice for Philemon regarding Onesimus.  Pauls doesn’t simply tell Philemon to “treat him better” according to some formulaic philosophy or social etiquette.  Catholic social teaching does not buy into the dominance of economic forces or defer to any given culture’s dominant power-dynamic.  Nor does Paul simply change the names of the existing institution with the hope that such an alteration will also alter the disposition of the people involved.  Catholic social teaching does utilize secular language and philosophy to talk about what a just society looks like, but in the end, the relationships are not driven by these impersonal forces, but by the love of God and his Son Jesus Christ, as well as an awareness that The Godhead is an active and permeating presence in the world.  Thus when Paul presented Onesimus as “a man and in the Lord”, he presented him as Christ.  Such is why we applied the anachronistic analogical interpretation of bishop, priest and layman.  Those structures were not as well defined at the time Paul is writing this letter, however for our purposes, the analogy feeds into the way social relationships are seen when one recognizes the sacral investiture of the indigent according to their own beatitudnal reorientation.  This will leads us to a contemplation of what devotion with this world view might look like.  

It is important to understand that the devotion of the sacral beatitudinal reorientation is devotion in the strict sense.  When one asserts that someone has a “devotion to the poor” it is commonly understood as an inner disposition of commitment to alleviate their suffering.  But in a sacral devotion to the poor, the alleviation of suffering is a goal, but not the main one.  If this were the case then we might be justified in demanding an account of how money we give to the poor is used, to make sure that our goal is met.  But as we shall see, this is not the case in a sacral devotion.  The main goal in sacral devotion to the poor is an encounter with Christ and a rectification of social sin through a beatitudnal reorientation that invests the indigent with the summation of dignity, the ability to stand alter Christus.  Devotion here is not an inward disposition, but an outward action and a particular regard for the other.    

“Should I give Money to a beggar on the street?”, When I taught Christian morality at the highschool level this was a constant question of the students.  I would always say, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Most students would say that they want the homeless fed, but are afraid “they’re going to use the money to buy drugs” or they present a host of urban myths about how those beggars make inordinate amounts of money doing this and “it’s all a scam”.

So my first answer to them is, if you want the homeless fed, then either give them food directly, or donate to a charity whose specific mission it is to feed them.  If that donation can come in the form of a nonperishable food donation to a pantry, all the better.  In this way you meet your desire to have the homeless indigent fed.  This is operating under the social justice model of collective action.  The individual will cannot “solve the problem” so collective action is warranted.  

However, when a panhandler is presented to you or actively begs, is this the concern?  More likely the concern revolves around money and not nutrition.  Is this panhandler worthy of my money?  Will this panhandler use my money in ways I deem inappropriate for him to use?  Not even dangerous, by the way, just “inappropriate” or “unwisely”.  

In western capitalism we have an inordinate attachment to money.  We hold it above all things, so much so that much of our prayer life may be consumed with request for money.  “Lord please let me win the lottery, so I never have to pray to you again.”  I would say give donations to hunger relief charities as a matter of course in your life, but when confronted with a panhandler hunger should not be what is on your mind.  You are now being presented with an opportunity to detach from money.  To let go of that thing that is so coveted that it stands above most if not all other relationships.  

Sometimes I will be in a conversation where someone might say something to the effect of, “those people just need to get jobs instead of just standing around being useless to society!”  If the friend is secularly minded I frame everything we are talking about rather secularly.  

“They do have jobs, they are salespeople.”  

“What are they selling?”

“They are selling alleviation of liberal guilt.”

 In American political terms that always gets me a laugh from conservatives, but in a certain sense it’s true.  They actually do have a job in our sacral system.  They are selling you grace, by giving you the opportunity to separate with money, which you hold above your relationships with others and even God himself.  In Luke's Gospel the parable of the lost coin gives the listener a sense of our serious problem

“Or what woman having ten coins and losing one would not light a lamp and sweep the house, searching carefully until she finds it?  And when she does find it, she calls together her friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found the coin that I lost.’  In just the same way, I tell you, there will be rejoicing among the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

As a young person this parable was always confused me.  Why would you throw a party after finding a lost coin?  Wouldn’t it cost more than the ten coins?  What’s the point?  What kind of woman would do this?  Jesus’ opening question may not be rhetorical.  Most adults would say, that’s not the point, it’s about how God loves us.  Then a wise priest explained to me how the coins were probably decorative on her clothing, and culturally they would have been being reserved for her symbolic dowery.  So to lose one would be a great shame and stress.  Thus the party and celebration when she finds it.  This seemed satisfactory.

But the parable may be more about the type of woman who would do such a thing.  This type of person does not serve money, but serves joy.  It is reflective of the beatitude, blessed are the poor, for the kingdom of God is theirs.  Money has never served the poor, thus they are less likely to serve it, and more likely to serve the kingdom.   

We do like to tell people, especially poor people, what to do with their money.  Interestingly, our advice is usually about hoarding money or aimed at making more money, as if this would solve all our problems.  But this exact attitude is what makes the wealthy as stressed or more so than the poor.  What is money for?  It’s worthless outside of its own economic system.  This is why we “Render unto caesar what is caesar's” because his images is stamped on the coin, and we “render unto God what is God’s” because his image is stamped on us.  For a Christian money has absolutely no value in and of itself.  If you are not using it to manifest God’s goodness in one way or another money has not point.  Thus when the woman finds the coin, this is exactly what she does.  Actually she finds joy, not money.  Then she uses that money to create and spread more joy.  For the poor life is feast or famine. But when it is feast, there is a feast, because life is about more than just money.  The Lost Coin is an interesting application of the Parable of the Talents.  Joy, which is infinitely more valuable than circular metal is the focus, as well as relationships and spreading the joy, that is The Kingdom of God.   

The poor are useful in that they are offering an extremely special opportunity to spread the joy of God.  “What are panhandlers selling?”  They are selling you the ability to fulfill your priestly function as a lay person by sacrificing something dear to you in order to show trust, faith, and/or devotion to God.  They selling you the opportunity to stand in Christ’s presence on this Earth and re-do what should have been done two thousand years ago.  This view of the sacrally invested indigent as standing alter Christus is a way the Catholic can approach charity toward the poor without any sense of pride, because they are doing you the favor.  

To take any stance on how they are going to use the money you're giving them reinvests your faith in money over charity (charitas).  Would the giver to the poor be upset if they used the money to throw a party?  Given our reflection on the lost coin, the wasteful one may be the one who criticizes.  The more appropriate skill to learn is how to sacralize the physical money and put it in the service of God instead of yourself.  This practice entails learning to view the physical object of money as a sacramental instead of a notation of economic value.  This physical object represents your attachments in life, all the things you think you need above God.  The “sacramental” ritual here is to give it away, sacrifice it to a stand in for Christ, who is there to relieve you of guilt and sin.  Such a private ritual could even aspire ina  culture to the level of calculated ritual.   Once again, this will queue into the “Collect” of the eucharistic prayer “My sacrifice and yours”  this ritual, like all sacramentals is an extension of the liturgy itself, a sacralizing of the secular world.

This is why the widow “put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.  For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.” (Mark 12: 43-44).  The wealthy were most likely trying to bargain with God, “I’ll pay this if you return my investment.”  That was certainly the attitude of The Rich Young Man in Matthew 19.  “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”  He want’s a good return on his investment. When Jesus tells him he must give everything up, he leaves in despair.  When he tell the Apostles about the impossibility of making an investment return relationship with God they seem incredulous.  But Jesus’ response is, for man it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.

The widow, on the other hand seems to have differing motives, she gives her livelihood.  It’s not about a return of investment or possession of money for her, it’s about not being possessed by it, the ability to trust God and give it away.  She does not seem to ask the temple for an accounting from the Temple on the use of her money, and if Jesus’ treatment of the money changers in the Temple is any evidence, she would not have been satisfied if she had.  Instead, this exchange has nothing to do with the Temple structure, and everything to do with her relationship with God.  This is the attitude a Christian must have in order to sacralize money and place it in the service of God.

Conclusion

The attempt of this paper was to help the individual react to the problem of social sin.  The social justice methodology allows for organization and group effort to change society’s structures for the better.  In that it very much mirrors and should collaborate with secular political activism.  But while abiding in the structures and institutions of social sin, how should the individual Christian act?  One cannot withdraw from society until it is “fixed”.  

We discussed how the letter of Philemon addresses this very problem by means of redefining the relationship between master and slave, such that the names were the same, but the relationships were completely different.  There we employed a christo-analogical interchange and sought to draw out the implications of various lessons one could learn from the letter concerning social relationships and how they are best constructed.  We also layered on top of that an anachronistic eisegesis wherein we applied the characters in the narrative a hierarchical or sacral value so as to allow for the application of the christo-analogical interchange in modern life.    

Then we explored the sacral investiture of the indigent by means of the story of the Anointing at Bethany and discussed the three types of priest in the Church, adding a fourth in order to apply a complete view of the sacrificial system in the Mass.  

This system was then used to show how liturgy, extended through “sacramental” action, can be a means of individual action against social sin through the implementation of  beatitudnal reorientation and re defining of social relationships.  Though this will not “fix” society, it does allow social interactions to be places to encounter the divine until that day comes when all things are gathered to Him.  

This leads to one last story from Acts of the Apostles chapter 16, the story of Paul and Silas in Philippi.  As they enter the city and are hounded by a medium, who happens to be a slave, whose spirit is constantly calling them out as slaves of the most high.  When Paul, annoyed, drives the spirit out of the girl, her owners are enraged at their loss of income, being used to selling her talent in the market.  They have Paul and Silas beaten and arrested.  

This opening part of the narrative gives one a picture of a spiritual realm at the service of economy, and a slave economy at that.  In this part of the story Paul and Silas are subjected to the cruel fate at the hands of secular authorities after bucking the system and robbing someone of their worldly investment.  But while in prison one sees the onesiman interface at work in full swing.  The relationship is jailor and prisoner.  They are placed in the deepest confines of the prison and left tied to a stake.

But in God there is liberation.  There is an earthquake and the building is destroyed in such a way that they have means to escape.  However they do not escape.  They remain confined in a horrible situation because they are aware that their exit would bring further suffering on the jailer and not allow them to spread Christ’s word to the people of Philippi.  When the Jailor is on the verge of suicide Paul dissuades him and treats him, not as an oppressor, but with compassion, and this act facilitates his conversion and the conversion of his house.

In this part of the story the reader sees the role of the Christian who is in the world but not of the world.  We remain in jail, though as slaves of The Most High we are free, because the jailer is as much a prisoner as we are and through compassion we are moved to free him.

Paul and Silas were driven out of the city with no other converts, but not before paying a visit to a fellow Christian named Lydia.  It seems a defeating tale, only one house converted and one other house left in the city.  But we know from the letter Paul authors to the Philippians that the imprisonment itself as well as the Christian community there both serve the Body of Christ in ways that delight Paul.

          We are also called to bring delight, to the world and to God to the best of our ability.  As laity we do this by bringing the grace of God into the secular world and infecting the structures of social sin that would twist God’s good plan to evil ends with the grace of Christ we spread through a beatitudnal reorientation transmitted along the onesiman interface.  In this way the laity fulfil their role as a priest of God and through that office extend that role to the most needy by sacral investiture of the indigent thereby transforming the secular into the sacred.