Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas. The real St. Nicholas was nothing close to the St. Nick (Santa Claus) of the modern age. He was a thin curmudgeonly man with a zeal for the Lord that caused flairs of anger. Compromise was unknown to him. The slow transformation of him into “Jolly ole’ Saint Nicholas is a remarkable recasting of him centuries in the making. Some years ago the Washington Post featured an article entitled Poles Apart: Nicholas of Myra; How a 4th-Century Bishop Achieved Fame 1,500 Years Later, With a Whole New Attitude.
Since I had to blog twice yesterday (due to the need to respond to the current Washington Post article on Clergy Sexual Abuse) I thought I might take a break and present excerpts from the article that detail the real St. Nicholas of Myra. It is a very engaging look at the cantankerous Saint who lived through some very tough times.
I am aware that hagiography (the study of the Saints) is sometimes more art than science. I cannot vouch for every detail in the article and would be interested if some of you intrepid hagiographers what to clarify, correct or add to the details given.
The Full Article (which details, somewhat thoroughly, St. Nicholas’ transition to Santa) can be read here: Poles Apart. I have also placed a PDF of the whole article which is more easily printed here: PDF – Poles Apart Nicholas and Nick
Enjoy this excerpt on the real St. Nicholas of Myra (aka Santa):
The year is 325. The place is Nicaea, a small town near the Black Sea in what is now Turkey. Thousands of priests, 318 bishops, two papal lieutenants and the Roman emperor Constantine are gathered to face a looming church crisis…..
One of the churchmen rises to speak. Arius, from the Egyptian city of Alexandria, tells the gathering that Jesus was not divine. He was just a prophet. Suddenly, a second man is on his feet, an obscure, cantankerous bishop named Nicholas. He approaches Arius, fist raised menacingly. There are gasps. Would he dare? He would. Fist strikes face. Arius goes down. He will have a shiner. Nick, meanwhile, is set upon by holy men. His robes are torn off. He is thrown into a dungeon.
Peer down through the bars. Behold the simmering zealot sitting there, scowling, defiant, imprisoned for his uncompromising piety. Recognize his sallow face? No? Well, no reason you should. But he knows you. He’s been to your house many times….
[O]n this holiday we examine the puzzling paradox of Santa Claus. On the one hand, we have the modern Santa, a porcine, jolly man who resides at the North Pole with a woman known only as Mrs. Claus. …
On the other hand, we have the ancient Santa. Saint Nicholas. Paintings show a thin man. He was spare of frame, flinty of eye, pugnacious of spirit. In the Middle Ages, he was known as a brawling saint. He had no particular sense of humor that we know of. He could be vengeful, wrathful, an embittered ex- con….No doubt, Saint Nick was a good man. A noble man. But a hard man.
Nicholas was born in Patara, a small town on the Mediterranean coast, 280 years after the birth of Christ. He became bishop of a small town in Asia Minor called Myra. Beyond that, details of his life are more legend than fact….He became a priest at 19, and bishop in his twenties….Diocletian ruled the Roman Empire; it was the early 300s, and…began the “Great Persecution.”…. Nicholas kept preaching Christianity, and was arrested and tortured for disobeying the new laws. He spent more than a decade in jail. Among his punishments, according to Saint Simeon’s 10th-century history, were starvation and thirst. That is how Santa got skinny…. Twelve years later, AD 312, ….Constantine triumphed. Across the empire, bishops and priests returned to work and Nicholas got out of jail. He tended to local business. He was not pleasant about it. At the time, Myra was a hotbed of Artemis-worship…Nicholas prayed for vengeance, and his prayers were answered. Artemis’s temple crumbled. ” …The priests who lived in Artemis’s temple ran in tears to the bishop. They appealed to his Christian mercy. They wanted their temple restored.….Nicholas was not moved. Prison had left him in no mood for compromise. “Go to Hell’s fire,” he is said to have said, “which has been lit for you by the Devil.”
The Time of Nick In his lifetime, Nicholas crusaded against official corruption and injustice, seeing both as an affront to God. Supposedly, his intervention — through fire-and-brimstone denunciations of corrupt officials — saved at least a half-dozen innocent men from the gallows or the chopping block. He was forgiven for punching Arius and rescued from the dungeon. In the end, his views on the Trinity were vindicated by the adoption of the Nicene Creed, which declares Christ divine. Saint Nick died on Dec. 6. The year could be 326 or 343 or 352, depending whose account you rely on. Why we know the day of the year, but not the year itself, will be explained forthwith…..
……Nicholas of Myra might not seem like the kind of person who relates to kids, and few acts attributed to him involve children. There are two, though neither is exactly the stuff of sugar plums and Christmas stockings. In one tale, widely told, Nicholas secretly delivers three bags of gold to a penniless father. The debtor dad uses the loot as dowries so his three girls do not have to become prostitutes….The second anecdote tells of the time a tavern owner robbed, murdered three children, hiding their remains in pickle barrels. …Fortunately, Saint Nicholas happened to walk through the tavern-keeper’s door….Soon, all three boys, were back home, reeking of pickle juice. What became of the shopkeeper is unrecorded…. By the Middle Ages, Nick had become the patron saint of children, and he had a new gig: gift-giving. Throughout Europe, the legend spread: He delivered trinkets to good kids and twigs to naughty ones. It was an uneasy transition — from curmudgeon to cuddle-bear. ….
🙂 As said above you can click on those links to read the full story of how St. Nicholas of Myra morphed into Santa Claus.
Here’s a Medieval Version of “Jolly old St. Nicholas.” The text is the Introit for the feast of St. Nicholas (Statuit ei Dominus) and translated says: The Lord made unto him a covenant of peace, and made him a prince, that the dignity of the priesthood should be to him forever.
The Washington Post has published a story this morning on the Sexual Abuse Scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Why exactly they have chosen to do so at this time is not clear. There are no new allegations, no legal updates to report, no recent protests or accusations against the Archdiocese of Washington’s handling of this matter.
The Article, entitled After child abuse accusations, Catholic priests often simply vanish, seems to have as its purpose and focus the question of whether the Catholic Church is doing enough to “track” and control the behavior of former priests once they have been “defrocked” (i.e. laicized or removed from ministry). The question seems somewhat misplaced however since such functions of control, probation and registering sex offenders are the role of the State, not the Church. Never mind though, this article is going to be about the Church. Never mind that the Church has no legal standing or power to accomplish such tracking, control and legal disclosure. Yet it would seem according tot he article that she is still negligent. Exactly how the Church is to accomplish this task of tracking and controlling is not made clear by the reporters or others interviewed. At any rate this lack of monitoring seems to be the premise of the article. The article begins with this somewhat rhetorical observation:
[S]omething glaring is missing in this country: the accused priests. Although the vast majority were removed from ministry long ago – barred from celebrating Mass in public, administering the sacraments, wearing their clerical collars or presenting themselves as priests – church officials say they have no way to monitor where the men are now…..The Washington Post was able to identify 31 priests accused in the Washington area and locate nine who are still alive…..
The implication of course is that we are supposed to be monitoring. Again, how and on what legal basis or standing we are to do this is not stated.
The Article is further deficient in that it doesn’t discuss the breadth of what the Church has done to protect kids nor does show how much has been developed, including criminal background checks of all priests and lay staff who have any contact with youth. No mention is made of the reporting and accountability to third parties that all abuse prevention training is up to date and that all requirements are met yearly in terms of legally recognized abuse prevention programs. Neither does the Post article make clear that historical data and names of all accused priests have been made public. All the men mentioned in the article have been named publicly before by the Church. Further, it is the policy of the Archdiocese to immediately inform the local police of any charges of abuse, past or present. None of this is mentioned and the impression is allowed by the article that the Archdiocese is somewhat cavalier about men who are barred from ministry and child safety, which is not true.
As a priest, I am grieved and angry that any brother priest of mine harmed children, sexually abused them, or scandalized them in any way. Nothing could be further from the purpose of the priesthood and the Church than the exploitation of the innocent and vulnerable. There is simply no place in the priesthood for those who have done such things. I believe the Archdiocese of Washington has been very serious about finding those men who offended and, upon knowledge of any past abuse coming to light, has acted swiftly to remove them and report them to law enforcement. As a priest I am additionally grieved at how the horrible violation of trust by these abusers has affected the ability of the vast majority of priests who never offended to preach the Gospel and build trust with their people. I am no apologist for any abuser priest. Neither do I think that the Church has handled this matter well in the past. However, this Post Article says nothing about how seriously this Archdiocese has been about this problem for a long time now. This leaving out of the “rest of the story” is a serious deficiency of the article and a disservice to the Church, and to many people I love and respect who are very diligent in protecting the young. Susan Timony is the post just prior to this (http://blog.adw.org/2010/12/wounded-hearts/details) some of the significant measures we take to prevent abuse and also the pastoral care we extend to victims and their families.
But the ultimate deficiency in the Post article is the poor marksmanship of the authors who completely miss the target of what should concern us at this point. The data in this article goes a long way to show the deficiencies in our criminal justice system. If we are really serious about protecting young people from sexual abusers it is not obvious by looking at the lapses in incarceration, probation and community protection by the State.
I would like to look at an example from the article to illustrate this. The quote from the article is in bold italics black. My commentary is normal text red
The Case of Robert Petrella:
Robert J. Petrella has been accused by at least 25 men of molesting them when they were boys, church officials said. He has been convicted twice of abuse charges in Prince George’s County – in 1997 and 2002. Yet his name does not appear on any sex-offender registry He was prosecuted under the Maryland laws in effect at the time his crimes were committed, long before such registries existed, said Prince George’s Assistant State’s Attorney Renee Battle-Brooks:(This is bureaucratic gobbledygook. Robert Petrella has been in and out of jail twice since 1997. His absence from sex-offender registries is not a negligence on the part of the Church, this is negligence on the part of the State. Where is the outcry? Where are the demands for reform? Surely the Post will devote full attention to this terrible oversight in the law. The Post and many voices legitimately demanded immediate reform in the Church for our oversights and bad policies of the past. How about this dreadfully bad policy by the State of Maryland? Robert Petrella should be listed prominently in every sex-offender registry. He is a very serious offender. At least 25 men have accused him. This is a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the state).
The Washington Archdiocese, which removed Petrella from the ministry in1989 after two decades and seven parishes, defrocked him in 2002. Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said she isn’t sure where Petrella is, and his attorney, William Brennan, declined to comment.(Hmm…so it looks like the Post isn’t going to decry the State of Maryland and interview people who demand reform. Oh, I see, it’s back to the Church which is supposed to know his whereabouts and be doing…. what? Has the Post not missed the true target here? It is the State of Maryland and other States as well that need reform. The Church does not have the capacity to track whereabouts since she cannot demand reportage from US Citizens. We cannot force Petrella to where a ankle device or demand he check in every day. That is not in our power. The State however does have that power and I would recommend that the Post, if it is serious about protection, use a little journalistic pressure to agitate for change as they and others rightfully did of the Church in the past).
The person who has tracked the former priest most closely in recent years is [David] Fortwengler, who was an11-year-old altar boy at St. Columba when Petrella molested him in 1968. “I got that sick feeling in my stomach again,” Fortwengler said of learning that Petrella’s probation was coming to an end. Petrella, who did not respond to phone calls and letters, had gone unmonitored for long stretches before….. Petrella….didn’t face criminal charges until 1997. After being convicted of battery, he served one week in jail before persuading a Prince George’s judge to release him so he could care for his ill mother. (Pay attention folks. After being convicted of child molestation Petrella spent only one week in jail, one week. Now this is a serious miscarriage of justice by the State. Again, where is/was the outcry? Where are the demands for reform? Why did this go unreported at the time? Again, this is the State, not the Church that is going lite on offenders)
His release required him to be in a home detention program in Pennsylvania under supervised probation for three years. Yet it came out in court documents years later that probation authorities there were never supervising him…. (More incompetence and dereliction by the State. It seems well past time for the Post and others to demand a full investigation of such matters. A dangerous sexual predator was allowed to go free and unmonitored for years. Did he live near a school, a playground? How many others are going free and unmonitored? Why is the Post making this an article about the Catholic Church. Here again it seems that they are missing the mark, which is the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, which have both the legal power and duty to protect citizens and have failed to do so. The Church does not have the ability to track people or the power to engage in probative practices. It really must be the State that does this).
In 2002, after Fortwengler and two more victims came forward with allegations, Petrella was arrested again and pleaded guilty to three counts of unnatural or perverted sex practices. This time, he served nine months(nine months? Is that all?)and was released on the probation that ended three years ago…. (out already?)Haunted by the idea of Petrella going unnoticed, Fortwengler located him in 2008 in the North Arlington, N.J., home where the former priest had grown up. He was living there with his mother (Is this the same mother who was so sick that he had to be released to care for her in 1997?), neighbors said. He sometimes took walks carrying a Bible and wore a clerical collar when he appeared for a neighborhood condolence call, they said. “In order to protect your children, the whereabouts of dangerous predators like Petrella must be disclosed,” read the flier Fortwengler took door to door. Since then, neighbors have kept a close eye on Petrella, Good for Mr. Fortwengler. However he shouldn’t have had to do this. Further, with all the weird protections Petrella seems to have, Mr. Fortwengler may well have opened himself to a lawsuit had Petrella chosen to do so. Just as the Church has no power or jurisdiction to engage in such practices, neither does Mr. Fortwengler. But again he should not have had to do this. Robert Petrella belongs on every list of registered sex offenders. Had this been the case, neighbors would have known.
Well, OK, you get the point. It is the State which should be the real target of our reporters here. But, strangely, they are silent in terms of pursuit of this angle of the Story. It remains the Catholic Church that is their target. Rather than call State Officials, our reporters called the Bishop’s Conference and the Archdiocese of Washington. They received the following and rather obvious replies:
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops conference, said there is only so much that can be done to keep track of accused priests once they are no longer connected with the Church. “There is a lot of concern, but there are limits to what we can do legally,” she said. “We have no authority over them. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.”
“Our authority over them ends when they’re laicized and no longer priests,” [Susan] Gibbs [Communications Director for the Archdiocese of Washington] said. “Even if they’re not laicized, they have the choice of walking away. They are adults. We’re not a police force. We don’t run prisons. We don’t have mechanisms in a legal sense for controlling them.” The legal system is much better positioned to offer ongoing scrutiny, she said. “That’s why it’s best if someone reports abuse immediately and that it’s brought to authorities, because then there’s a legal path to follow for investigating, proving and monitoring.”
Exactly, There are legal limits, and even legal liabilities involved when private citizens or organizations overstep their authority. Lawsuits, charges of harassment, defamation and so forth can result.
Three other ADW cases – Two former priests of the Archdiocese (Edward Hartel and Russell Dillard) are also mentioned in the article. Neither were convicted in court of the charges against them. They remain suspended from priestly ministry however for various reasons. In these cases the Church has been stricter than the State. The norms of the Church allow us to be very particular about who we allow to function in priestly ministry. However, to legally track and attempt to restrict the movement of former priests like these (who are free US Citizens and convicted of no crime in any US court) would surely involve legal liabilities. One final Archdiocesan Priest mentioned in the article is James Finan and he has freely submitted to supervision by Church authorities. Having met his legal obligations to the State he has lived in Church retirement homes for priests. He has not ministered as a priest or had any contact with parishes or children. But note, he is supervised as a free decision of his own. The Church could not insist legally on this, since he has rights as a US Citizen.
In the end, the Post has missed the proper target. Currently there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system that need investigation. The safety of children and minors is at stake when the State either through incompetence or legal complexities fails to give sentences that are commensurate with the crime, grants early release and/or allows sexual offenders to go unmonitored and unreported on sex offender registries.
The Church has rightfully been rebuked for our failings of the past. I know that this rebuke has had the salutary effect of reform in the way we handle these matters today. I think that on-going scrutiny is both necessary and helpful for the Church. However this Post article makes clear that significant reform is also necessary in the US criminal justice system. It is my hope that the Post will follow through with what it has uncovered and that other media and concerned parties will insist on reform in the State as well. Sadly, and for obvious reasons the Church herself cannot champion this call. I suspect that I will get more than a few comments here on the blog from those who will be quite angry with me and assert that I am trying to evade responsibility for our past failures. I am not, and hope I have stated that plainly. But the fact is, this problem is bigger than the Catholic Church. If we are really going to be serious about protecting children it’s time to widen the net of accountability.
The Gospel today presents some Practical Principles of Powerful Prophecy as we focus on the ministry of John the Baptist. All of us have been anointed as prophets by virtue of our baptism. Now, a prophet is not usually someone who foretells the future but, rather, someone who speaks for God, who announces the truth of the Lord to this world. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of this prophetic office in the following way:
[the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God. (CCC, 1270)
So, we have an obligation to evangelize and to be prophets in this world. But how can we do this effectively? What are the some of the essential ingredients? The ministry of St. John the Baptist in today’s Gospel provides four “Principles for Powerful Prophecy.” Let’s look at the elements that are displayed
1. The Poise Powerful Prophecy. Poise here refers to balance. The text says, John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Note the content of John’s preaching is twofold. He first says, “Repent!” And then adds, “For the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Here is a balance to get right. The preacher and the prophet must speak frankly of sin and call people to repentance. But the prophet must also speak of the grace available to conquer that sin and the Good News that the Kingdom of Heaven is now open and available. Hence John the Baptist is willing and able to declare the reality of sin and the necessity of repenting from it. But he is also able to declare the availability of the Kingdom wherein one is able to find the grace to overcome sin.
Too many preachers, catechists and even parents lack this balance. In the past, some argue, that sermons were all fire and brimstone. Today it is too often, the steady diet “God is love” with little reference to the need to repent. This is one explanation of why our Churches have emptied in the past 40 years. This is because the good news only has relevance and significance if the bad news is first understood.
To illustrate, suppose you are looking at a newspaper and see a headline that announces a cure for a deadly disease has been found. But what if you have never heard of this disease and don’t even know you have it? It is not likely you will read the article, it will be only of passing interest. But, now suppose you know of this disease, and that you have it, and you know others who have it. Suddenly this headline jumps out, is very relevant, causes joy and is an article to read very carefully by you! Because you know very personally the bad news of the disease, the good news of the cure now means everything to you. It is the same with the Kingdom. We have to know the bad news of sin in a very personal and profound way if the Good News of Salvation is going to be appreciated. But in the Church we have lately soft-pedaled the bad news. Thus the Good News is irrelevant to people and the medicine of the cure is pointless. Why pray, receive sacraments or read scripture if everything is really fine? Why bother coming to Church for all that stuff? Hence our Churches have emptied, in part, due to a lack of the proper balance of repent and the Kingdom of God is at hand.
If we are going to be powerful and effective prophet we are going to have to be able to speak frankly to others about the reality of sin and balance it with the joyful announcement of the Kingdom with its grace and mercy now being available. Prophecy must be proper by having the right balance.
2. The Product of Powerful Prophecy. The text says, At that time Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole region around the Jordan were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. Here is the desired product of powerful prophecy: repentance unto salvation for all who believe. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians about this aspect of prophecy and preaching. He is aware that he grieved some of them due to a strong rebuke he gave the community (cf 1 Cor 5) but he is glad that it produced a godly sorrow which in turn produced repentance and holiness. He also distinguishes between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow:
Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation [at sin], what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done…..By all this we are encouraged. (2 Cor 7:8-13)
An old priest once told me, “Never think you have preached well unless the line to the confessional is long.” Good preaching, among other things produces repentance unto salvation. It may cause some to be mad or sad, but if it is proper prophecy, it will produce a godly sorrow and the madness and sadness gives way to gladness. Here is the expected product of proper preaching: repentance unto salvation.
3. The Purity of Powerful Prophecy. The text says: When [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. John the Baptist had no fear of people’s opinion and would not compromise the message based on his audience. All the credentials of the temple leaders did not impress him. Neither did the status of the Jews as the chosen people cause him to soften his message. John had no fear of human opinion, no need for the good favor of others, especially the rich and powerful. Because of this his preaching had purity. He did not compromise the message out of fear or the need to flatter others. He spoke boldly, plainly and with love and desire for the ultimate salvation of all. If that called for strong medicine he was willing to do it.
The ancient martyrs went to their death proclaiming Christ but many of us moderns are afraid even of someone raising their eyebrows at us. Fear is a great enemy of powerful prophecy for by it many remain silent when they should speak. The fear of what other people may think causes many to compromise the truth and even sin against it. This sort of fear has to go if our prophecy is going to have the purity necessary to reach the goal.
4. The Person of Powerful Prophecy. The text says, I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. John’s audience and disciples were fascinated by him, and drawn by his charisma. But as they want to know more about him, John talks instead about Jesus. That’s the message, “Jesus, not me.” If we are going to be powerful prophets the message has got to be about Jesus, not about me and what I think. We are not out to win an argument and boost our own egos. We are not out to become famous. We are about Jesus Christ and his gospel, his message, his truth. John said of Jesus, “He must increase, I must decrease” (John 3:30). A prophet speaks for the Lord, not himself. A prophet announces God’s agenda not his own. A prophet is about Jesus.
Here then are four Principles of Powerful Prophecy. You are that prophet whom the Lord seeks. Some one was John the Baptist for you. Someone brought you to Christ. Thank God for that individual or those individuals. But you too are to be John the Baptist for others. Learn from John, apply his principles and make disciples for Jesus Christ.
This song says:
If I can help somebody, as I pass along,
If I can cheer somebody, with a word or song,
If I can show somebody, how they’re travelling wrong,
Then my living shall not be in vain.
In the past few days we have reviewed how a humanist group has misused Scripture in an Ad campaign designed to ridicule faith in God. In their human kindness they have chosen the Christmas season to do this. Their misuse of Scripture centers on pulling individual verses from the Bible and posting them out of context and apart from the wider Biblical tradition that often clarifies, balances or distinguishes them.
Pope Benedict recently spoke to this very problem in his Post Synodal Exhortation Verbum Domini. His main point is that individual verses of Scripture must be understood in relation to the whole of scripture, not isolated from it. I’d like to quote a couple sections of the exhortation so we can learn from the Pope an important lesson about Scriptural interpretation.
From letter to the deeper spirit and meaning of the text – In this first quote the Pope makes reference to the literal sense or meaning of a text. Literal here signifies what a text is saying in the literary sense, not necessarily that it should be understood without any symbolic or figurative meaning, not that it cannot have an analogical, allegorical, or spiritual meaning. The “literal” sense emphasizes what the text is saying, its sentence structure, its grammar, its basic message. However, understanding what the text is merely saying is not enough. We must move on to understand what the text means at a deeper and wider level than its mere literary meaning. The letter must give way to the deeper spiritual meaning. And here is where the Pope picks up:
In rediscovering the interplay between the different senses of Scripture it thus becomes essential to grasp the passage from letter to spirit…..This progression cannot take place with regard to an individual literary fragment unless it is seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. Indeed, the goal to which we are necessarily progressing is the one Word. There is an inner drama in this process…. Saint Paul lived this passage to the full in his own life. In his words: “ the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life ” (2 Cor 3:6), he expressed in radical terms the significance of this process of transcending the letter and coming to understand it only in terms of the whole…… We know that for Saint Augustine too this passage was at once dramatic and liberating; he came to believe the Scriptures – which at first sight struck him as so disjointed in themselves and in places so coarse – through the very process of transcending the letter which he learned from Saint Ambrose in typological interpretation, wherein the entire Old Testament is a path to Jesus Christ. For Saint Augustine, transcending the literal sense made the letter itself credible, and enabled him to find at last the answer to his deep inner restlessness and his thirst for truth. (Verbum Domini, 38)
Hence, to grasp the letter of a text (i.e., what is this text saying) is important because it lays out the data before us. But the next necessary step is to move from letter to spirit so that, by God’s grace and the instruction of the Church we are able to increasingly grasp what the text really means, not merely what it is saying. The Pope is clear to point out that movement from letter to spirit cannot happen if a text is isolated from the whole of Scripture.
But Scripture is not considered only in terms of the whole, but also in terms of its direction or goal. And this goal is Christ. Hence as St. Ambrose taught Augustine and we are reminded by Pope Benedict: the entire Old Testament is a path to Jesus Christ. Thus we look back to and interpret the Old Testament in the light of Christ. God dealt with ancient Israel in stages where he increasingly led them away from barbarity and incivility by the Law and prophets. In these Last Days he speaks to us through his Son and seeks to perfect us even further through his grace. So, each passage or verse of Scripture must be understood in relation to not only the whole of scripture but also its place in the “trajectory” of Scripture.
Thus, what our humanist friends did in the Ads we have discussed was an inauthentic use of scripture. It is not possible to simply yank a verse out of thin air then say, “See here! Look at what they believe.” Or “Look at what their holy book says!” For example, in quoting from 1 Samuel as they did wherein God seems to command genocide, or to quote Leviticus, that those guilty of homosexual acts are to be stoned to death, in doing this our humanist critics fail to see where these texts are on the trajectory of Scripture or how they relate to the whole of it. We have come a long way as God’s people from the time of such cruelties. God has led us in this manner. The committing of genocide is unthinkable today given where God has led us. And, although homosexual acts are still spoken of as sinful at every stage of revelation, the death penalty for sexual sins has been set aside by Jesus own example (e.g. John 8).
In this next passage the Pope emphasizes the ultimate unity of all Scripture in the Person of Jesus Christ. All the Scriptures find their ultimate unity and meaning in him. This is done is at least three ways. Continuity, wherein Jesus affirms and brings forward Old Testament teachings and understandings, deepening them and fulfilling their meaning in a fairly straight-forward way. Discontinuity, wherein Jesus fulfills Old Testament texts in a paradoxical way (especially by suffering and dying) and sets aside certain or replaces certain Old Testament practices or understandings (e.g. the antitheses of Matt 5, the canceling of dietary laws in Mk 7:19). And Fulfillment wherein he transposes ancient texts and practices to a higher thing (e.g. the passover meal now becomes the Eucharistic Banquet). The Pope writes:
In the passage from letter to spirit, we also learn, within the Church’s great tradition, to see the unity of all Scripture, grounded in the unity of God’s word, which challenges our life and constantly calls us to conversion. Here the words of Hugh of Saint Victor remain a sure guide: “ All divine Scripture is one book, and this one book is Christ, speaks of Christ and finds its fulfillment in Christ ”. Viewed in purely historical or literary terms, of course, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of literary texts composed over the course of a thousand years or more, and its individual books are not easily seen to possess an interior unity; instead, we see clear inconsistencies between them…..which nonetheless are seen in their entirety as the one word of God addressed to us. This makes it clear that the person of Christ gives unity to all the “ Scriptures ” in relation to the one “ Word”….(Verbum Domini, 39).
Moreover, the New Testament itself claims to be consistent with the Old and proclaims that in the mystery of the life, death and resurrection of Christ the sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people have found their perfect fulfillment. It must be observed, however, that the concept of the fulfillment of the Scriptures is a complex one, since it has three dimensions: a basic aspect ofcontinuitywith the Old Testament revelation, an aspect of discontinuity and an aspect of fulfillment and transcendence. The mystery of Christ stands in continuity of intent with the sacrificial cult of the Old Testament, but it came to pass in a very different way, corresponding to a number of prophetic statements and thus reaching a perfection never previously obtained. …The paschal mystery of Christ is in complete conformity – albeit in a way that could not have been anticipated – with the prophecies and the foreshadowings of the Scriptures; yet it presents clear aspects of discontinuity with regard to the institutions of the Old Testament.Verbum Domini, 40).
Three essential keys to interpretation – Thus Scriptural interpretation for a Catholic must admit of a careful sophistication wherein an individual passage is seen in its relationship to three things:
The whole of Scripture
Its place on the overall trajectory of Scripture
Its relationship to the Person and Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ.
Surely too an appreciation of the genre and basic literary devices like hyperbole, metaphor, simile, analogy and so forth is also essential. Since the Scriptures are a Church Book, one would also never presume to read them apart from the beliving community or in opposition to the magisterium.
If we fail to do this we risk not only misinterpreting Scripture but also of getting stuck in some of the difficult or problematic texts of the Old Testament especially. We have seen in the first quote above how St. Augustine overcame his own difficulties in the regard by focusing on Christ and seeing everything in relation to him.
Help for the Dark Passages of Scripture – In the last two days one of the conversation threads has focused on the problematic texts of the Old Testament wherein God called for a “Ban” wherein every living human being, and every animal in a given town was to be killed. Texts like these shock us, and they should. But we must also remember they are very early in the trajectory of Sacred Scripture and such practices were discontinued by God as he led his people away from brutality and instructed them through the prophets to act with justice and learn of mercy. Here too the Pope comments on this “Dark Passages:”
In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback….In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “ the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery ”. (Verbum Domini 42)
Conclusion – And thus the Pope instructs us on the careful, nuanced and sophisticated care that Catholics must bring to Scriptural reading and understanding. Simple proof texting can have a place in setting forth teachings. But generally we ought to be careful of pulling out “one-liners” to illustrate complex theological teachings. The use of Scripture as a foundation of doctrinal teaching is proper and essential but we must be careful to be sure the passages are used authentically, in proper relation to the whole of scripture, its trajectory and ultimate relationship to Christ. Scripture has a sacred synergy which is not usually well served by a simplistic singling out of the Sacred text.
Today we consider two of their video versions of the ads. These brief, 30 second videos follow the same format: “Some people believe…..What humanists think.” These videos have the same flaw as the poster versions in that they quote Scripture in a crude and inauthentic manner with no regard for context, genre, history or reference to any other Scripture texts that balance, explain or distinguish the quote in question. Further there is no inquiry into how the Christian or Jewish community have understood such texts in the past, or now, or how the thought quoted from an early period of the Old Testament my have undergone development and in some cases have been abrogated by later Scriptures.
I do not demand humanists believe everything I do (though I surely invite them). But what I do ask is that their scholarship be respectful and thorough.The humanists of the past centuries were more thoughtful and serious scholars than this current generation, at lest those who produced these ads. Christianity, and especially Catholicism, has a long, serious and vigorous intellectual tradition which these humanists would do well to explore. In these ads they are largely attacking a straw man, for when they say “Some believe” almost no one does in fact hold what they are quoting in the un-nuanced, absolute sense in which they claim. Scriptural interpretation is a careful discipline, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If these “humanists” really want to be true to their humanist leanings, they ought to talk to real human beings such as us and find out what we really think.
Here then are the two videos, each followed by my commentary and then a final ad which I doubt will ever be publicly posted, and you’ll see why.
The Text they quote is from 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” A text like this refers to the Ancient practice known as the “Ban” in Scripture. The Ban meant that everything and everyone in a given city or area was to be killed, no one was to be left alive. Every animal was to be killed as well and, all the material wealth would belong wholly to God by being given over to the use of the Temple. There are several places in the Old Testament where God is quoted as issuing the ban. We have discussed verses like this quite thoroughly on this blog here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/did-god-command-genocide/. This is an excerpt from the conclusion to that blog article:
In the end, it would all we can say about these passages is that they exist and put a kind of a tall fence around them. I personally think God did in fact order the Ban for the reasons stated….But the command was only for a brief time in a very particular circumstance for a very particular reason. Sometimes the best we can do with Scripture is to accept the history it records. Scripture is a collection of books that ultimately build upon each other and progress toward a better goal. In an early and brutal time God commanded tough solutions. Once his Law established deeper roots in a brutal world, God could insist that indiscriminate killing was no longer to be permitted. Later books and surely the New Testament would never support such a “solution” as the Ban.
Who Believes this? Now in the video and the printed version of the Ad, the humanists say of the Ban that this is “What Some believe.” But no one does believe this. In quoting the Jewish Old Testament and then saying that “some believe” they indicate that we should be able to find numbers of Christians and Jews who hold this sort of notion. But no one does. I am unware of any Jewish or Christian denomination or leader who would hold a belief that genocide is to be approved under any circumstances. There are some spiritual applications sometimes made of texts like these. For example, that we must wholly conquer by the power of grace, every demon which afflicts us, and every attachement to the world. But genocide is not an option. The most recent genocides have been carried out, not by Christians, but by non-believers such as Hilter and Stalin. Perhaps as many as 100 million people were killed due to such secular philosophies as German Fascism and Communism in the 20th century. Other more recent genocides have happened in parts of Africa due to tribal strife (e.g. Rwanda) and to some extent by Muslims against Christians (eg. in Sudan, Darfur, inter al).
So where are these Genocidal Jews and Christians? Surely the humanists who claim to think rationally and based on evidence can give extensive data on recent genocidal pogroms sponsored by Jews and Christians? Perhaps too, they can find teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church encouraging and approving the Ban? Remember now, these humanists sponsors of the Ad claim to be the “thinkers” and to base what they think on evidence and reason. So, surely we shall see the evidence of “ban theology” rampant today in Christian and Jewish denominations, seminaries, seminars, and training centers. Surely too the build up of means and weapons by Christians and Jews will be found in abundance by these evidence-savvy humanists, as we “believer” types prepare to carry out a ban on some poor and unsuspecting secular university?
Well, OK you get the point. It is really absurd to trot out the genocide accusation in these times.
The video quotes Proverbs 3:5Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. To which Richard Dawkins replies: There’s all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.
Well, there’s a little progress herein that, at least Mr. Dawkins is prepared to admit that what he thinks is a belief and not simply pure rational thought as some of the premises of this humanist ad campaign set forth. Apparently Mr. Dawkins didn’t get the memo from the Humanist sponsors of the ad that “we think….theybelieve.” Mr. D seems to be Ok admitting that he has beliefs.
But then comes all the superiority stuff as he suggests that his beliefs (and those of the humanists) are based evidence and logic whereas it would seem the rest of us poor clowns are only able to defend our beliefs based “nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. Really….? Nothing more? Now of course part of the problem for Mr D is that he thinks he and material science alone get to determine what is meant by evidence. So for example if I were to cite the evidence that my life is being changed by my realtionship to God, so that I was more chaste, more loving, more generous to the poor etc., that would not be evidence. Or, if I were to look out upon the marvel of creation and perceive the (rather obvious) fact of design, order, and purpose and conclude there was evidence of intelligent design, he would just wave his hand dismissively. The only evidence that counts is what he says counts.
I will admit that material science has limitsin what it can affirm or deny but there is more to knowing that physical evidence. To me there is plenty of evidence for my faith. I do see design and purpose in the things around me. I see order and natural law. I ponder things like the complexification and diversity of things in a world where the second law of thermodynamics suggests that things would do just the opposite, and fall back to their more basic components, without an outside energy to gather them into an intelligible and organized system, remarkably complex and yet symphonically unified. I marvel that things exist at all and consider that non-existence cannot produce existence. Hence there must be someone or something that exists which is not contigent and on whom the rest of contingent beings stand secure. I ponder the concept of infinitude and wonder how I could have a concept of the infinite in a world that is finite. I see evidence of one who is infinite here because a finite world cannot give what it does not have. Further, the atheist/materialist/secular humanist account of creation just doesn’t seem evident to me. It is humorously described in the graphic at the top of this post, and the humor is a bit simplistic of their view to be sure. I admit that, unlike these humanist ads. But the bottom line is that I just don’t see any evidence that everything could have come ultimately from nothing. Yet I am asked to “believe” this without evidence by the very ones who claim that they think only based on evidence.
Mr. Dawkins is free to pooh-pooh all this but it hardly seems fair of him to state without any distinction that my belief in God is based on nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. I mentioned none of these things in my brief litany of what I consider evidence. I could list more. It is a true fact that Scripture, tradition and authority help me to frame my thoughts. But he is no different. He too is heir to a tradition and authority (be it the scientific method, famous scientists, philosophers et al). And though he may not have sacred writings, he does have writings, books, articles etc. that have influenced and framed his beliefs.
Mr D seems unaware of history as well when he suggests that his interlocutors base their faith on “nothing more” than tradition, authority and revelation. Christianity, especially Catholicism, has a smart and long intellectual tradition. In fact much of the modern intellectual framework has emerged from a deep Catholic reverence for philosophy and learning. Consider the great scholastic period and the emergence of the modern university system that took place largely under Catholic patronage. An excellent parochial school system has also prepared countless students for higher learning. Things like the scientific method and the beginnings of unlocking the genetic code began in such settings. Modern medicine too, owes a lot to the Catholic practice of founding hospitals and fostering care for the sick. To suggest that somehow belief in God is anti-intellectual ignores a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary at least insofar as Catholicism goes.
Summary – The humanist ad campaign that trumpets it’s respect for evidential thought, in fact, demonstrates a lot a unfounded belief instead. There is in this campaign no real fact checking on their part, no authentic presentation of true Christian or Jewish doctrine, no real respect for the humans they strive to ridicule. Differ with me if you must but do not caricature my faith by presenting snips of it that are out of context, out-dated or just plain wrong. There is no “evidence” to me that these “humanists” talked to any real believing humans of the Christian or Jewish Faith, in the preparation of their campaign. Not very humanist of them.
A final puzzlement on my part. These humanist did produce two ad against the Muslims. They are on their website and quote the Q’ran and then rebutts. Here are the Ads:
*
*
Let me ask you a question. Do you think these ads will ever appear on a bus or subway like the anti Christian and Jewish ones did? I am actually surprised to see them even on the humanist website. Let’s see if these humanists will post them more publicly. Let me know if any of you see them on a bus or a subway.
In this video Fr. Robert Barron does a wonderful job of explaining and debunking the error of “Scientism” which insists that the only legitimate way of knowing things is through material science. Such an error underlies much of the Atheist/humanist thinking.
Some parishioners have recently expressed distress over an Ad campaign of the American Humanist Association. Rather provocative Ads are appearing on buses and subways here in the Nation’s Capitol and I suspect elsewhere as well.
As Christmas draws near, the “Humanists” have made it a practice in recent years to tweak Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) and attempt to make the concept of faith look ridiculous. They generally do this by quoting a sacred text and interpreting it in a mechanistic, fundamentalist and literalistic manner. The notion of quoting any other text that might balance it or perhaps make distinctions does not fit their scheme so they don’t do it. They claim to be thinkers but little thought is really evident in their attacks for they “think” that one-liners can represent a faith tradition thousands of years old.
Clearly too, they seem to violate their own “humanist” notions, for it seems in that they show no real human respect for their believing opponents. They claim to be the decent folks in the discussion but their disrespectful treatment of ancient faith traditions belies their self described decency and open-mindedness. In effect their charges against believers is that we are, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, homicidal, and generally unthinking. They of course show no bigotry at all in these charges and their simplistic use of our Scriptures. No they are the enlightened ones, kind and noble. They are “humanists” after all, and the rest of us are, well, “unenlightened” and responsible for just about everything bad there is on the planet. Or, so it would seem, based on their “kindly” assessment of us.
It will be noted that each Ad has the following format: “Some people believe…… We think…….” The implication being of course that they think and we do not. They do not see faith as a way of thinking. I am not sure what part of the human person they think faith resides in but they surely do not think it can be in the intellect. But of course faith IS a way of knowing. In know certain things and can think on them because God has revealed them. I know them by faith, but I do KNOW them.
Further, the secular humanist cannot claim he knows nothing by faith. In fact most of what we know, whether we are atheist or religious, we know by faith. It is simply not possible for most of us to personally verify everything we know. I cannot get on a plane and personally go to a foreign country and observe some event. I usually just trust what I read or hear on the news. I cannot get in a time machine and personally verify that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Neither can I personally verify that Paul Revere said, “The British are coming.” Yes, such things are in history books. But what if some folks were lying? Maybe the facts in the history books are wrong. So in the end I know these sorts of things by a human kind of faith. I trust that previous generations have largely handed the true facts. Faith isa fundamental human disposition. Without it we could not really claim to know much.
So what the humanists claim to “think” or know, is also largely based on beliefs and values that cannot simply be scientifically verified. For example, that men and women are equal is a fine value which I share. But it not really something that can be scientifically proved. Rather, it is based on values and a personal decision to regard the differences of men and women as of no significance in terms of what we mean by “equality.” But this is a belief. Another example, they claim that homosexual behavior is validly equal to heterosexual behavior. But this too is a belief, not a pure scientific thought. So even as they ridicule my belief and values they engage in belief and values of theirown. Even as they claim to “think” independent of faith, their thought, like mine is steeped in presuppositions rooted in faith and values.
So let’s take a look at some of their ads and videos.
Here’s the first ad.
*
Well of course the first thing to note of the Ad is the rather crude use of Scripture. It is not an authentic use of Scripture to simply quote one verse and think that you have captured all that Scripture has to say on that subject. Frequently, one verse will clarify another, or make distinctions. Sometimes one passage of scripture will balance another or tell the “other side” of the story.
Yet Another factor in this Ad is that it seems to treat all Christians alike in their interpretation of this passage. The fact is that a passage like this has a number of different interpretations and applications. If you were to walk into any Christian Church you would not find in most of them, women silent and having no practical authority. Women exercise great authority in churches and denominations. Even in the Catholic Church with a male only priesthood, woman have a lot of leadership. Hence this verse has not been read by most Christians in the absolute or literal sense that our Ad author wants us to think. St. Paul who wrote this passage elsewhere commends women who are catechists (e.g. Rom 16:1)and deaconesses (those who assisted in baptisms) . He speaks with great respect of many women who were patrons of the early Church (e.g. Lydia, Dorcas et al.) What Paul is probably saying here is that a woman was not to preside over liturgical functions or give the homily, reserved to priests and deacons. It is probably a liturgical context that Paul has in mind. This may still not please everyone but it is far from the extreme our Ad wants us to see.
As for marriage, Scripture does teach male headship. But that headship is rooted in love and service, not power. A husband is to love his wife (cf Eph5:19ff). The humanists are free to assert that they favor what they call “perfect partnership” (which seems to want to deny any form of headship). But that too is a belief. Notice that their response uses the word “should.” It is a belief, not a scientific fact, that equality can only exist in the absence of headship. Christians believe that authority exists, but it is exercised among equals. The Pope has authority in the Church but he is no more a Child of God than you or I. Before God we are equal but we do have some different roles among ourselves. But different does not mean unequal. Humanists have different beliefs in this regard but it is a belief, no less than ours. More on headship and equality here: http://blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/
*
*
When the Ad says “some” believe this, I’d like to know who. In quoting the Old Testament the Humanists are not seriously contending that some Christians or Jews hold slaves today or beat them are they? Here too their real goal is probably more to ridicule Scripture. It is an undeniable fact that slavery was a feature of the Biblical world. However, slavery was not exclusive to the Biblical world. Further, the slavery of the ancient world was different in many respects from the slavery of more recent times. In the ancient world slavery usually the alternative to death or jail. People were enslaved for three usual reasons. Either they had debts they could not pay. Or, they had committed certain crimes. Or, they had been soldiers in a war wherein they lost. Instead of killing the soldiers or merely imprisoning debtors or criminals they might be permanently or temporarily enslaved. This history helps explain why the Scriptures did not condemn this practice. It was an alternative to things that may have been far worse. and, frankly our modern prisons aren’t shining examples of humanism either. These historical differences did not make slavery a wonderful thing but it is not the same as the slavery of the 16th Century wherein people were enslaved who had committed no crimes, waged no war, and owed no debts. It went by the name of slavery but it was different reality and as people woke up to this it was ended. Christians, Jews and non believers were all part of the battle to end slavery. The “humanists” cannot claim some sort of credit for ending slavery. Many of different backgrounds including Christians and Jews fought powerfully to end slavery. As for you humanists who are committed to treating each person as having inherent dignity, welcome to the crowd. You cannot claim this for yourself alone.
*
*
Here too, to say that “some believe” that homosexuals should be stoned is simply a hateful caricature of Christians and the “humanist” author of this Ad knows it. No Christian or Jewish creed calls for the death penalty in this matter. In ancient Biblical times many punishments were severe as considered by today’s standards. Adulterers were also to be stoned. Children could also be put to death for dishonoring parents. But these severe punishments were largely set aside by the Jewish people as they came forth from the desert and settled in the Promised Land. The punishments were ameliorated but the moral teaching on these matters were not. It is a consistent Biblical teaching from the early to the last passages of Scripture that Homosexual activity is sinful. So is illicit sexual union between heterosexuals (fornication and adultery). This is our principled belief as Catholics rooted in consistent Scriptural teaching. Now the Humanists are free to disagree but they too are expressing a belief. They cannot scientifically prove what the ad calls the “validity of sexual equality.” In fact any scientific study would seem to point away from it. Homosexual unions are not fertile and any scientific look at the the body parts in question will indicate that the man is made for the woman and the woman for the man. Further the preponderance of disease related to homosexual activity and other forms of promiscuity among heterosexuals backs the biblical prohibitions more that the “humanist” permissiveness. Perhaps our humanist “thinker” should think through the evidence a bit more. Have “considered” humanism in this matter I find it wanting. More on Biblical teaching on Homosexuality here: http://blog.adw.org/2009/10/biblical-teaching-on-homosexual-activity/
*
Here we see our “humanist” interlocutor ridiculing what he or she does not understand. Christian tradition distinguishes between servile fear and filial fear. Now servile fear is not commended and should be conquered. Filial Fear however is based in love and consists in a deep reverence for God whom I dread to offend on account of my love and deep respect for him. Now my reverence for God is surely based on the fact that he will one day judge me, and Jesus who is quoted here, reminds us that it is better to fear him than to fear man. For, ultimately a man can only kill my body, but the Lord has authority over my soul and eternal destiny. Hence our reverence for God should be higher than for man. Here too one verse of Scripture is not the whole of Scripture and the crude use of Scripture made by our “thinking” humanist should also include other scriptures that balance the notion of servile fear. For example, There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:18). This particular text goes on to say that the love of God drives out sin in us and hence we no longer fear punishment as sin is increasingly driven away. Hence while the Lord speaks of the fear of punishment by God as more necessary than fear of man, Scripture elsewhere distinguishes that this sort of fear is something that should give way over time as we grow in love and faith.
Finally, the quote by Bertrand Russell also needs some additions or distinctions. I cannot imagine that he or humanists really argue that all fear is bad. There are some things of course that are rightly feared. For example, I ought to fear dangerous or reckless behavior. I ought to fear genuinely harmful things. I need not be in a panic but rather, an appropriate, reverential fear of things that can harm me is often called for and reasonable. Surely a “thinking” humanist would concur with this.
I sometimes wonder too if humanists fear us who believe. I say this because of the “over the top” quality of some of these Ads. They seem so rooted in a kind of bigoted fear that simplifies and tries to ridicule us. I sense fear fear in this.
*
*
Well now, this is the silliest Ad of all. Had our thinking humanist bothered to consult even the most basic Scriptural commentary he or she would have discovered that this verse employs Jewish hyperbole. This is not a call to hate. It is a Jewish way of speaking that emerges from the fact that the Hebrew language does not contain many comparative words such as more, less, greater, fewer and so forth. Hence if I prefer Chocolate ice cream to vanilla I would say in the Hebrew or Aramaic idiom, “I love Chocolate and hate vanilla.” But what I mean is that I prefer Chocolate, not that I really hate vanilla. Hence the Lord teaches us here that we must love God above all things and people and that he must have priority in our life. The humanist may reject this notion but it is still wrong for them to misrepresent our Scripture. Since all humanists are fair, loving and kind, according to this Ad, they really should check with us about what our Scriptures mean before presuming such terrible things about them or us. This Scripture is not saying what they claim it says. It seems once again that the real purpose here is to ridicule what they do not understand. This is rooted more in bigotry than kindness. There is nothing “kind” about this Ad and the humanist author might consider that his creed (pardon the expression) that he “BE KIND” does not seem to apply to Christians.
Well there are three videos I will post tomorrow that are also part of this campaign.
In summary, having considered the humanism on display in these ads, I have found it wanting. There is little in them that is any way considerate or humanist. All the kindness and moral high ground these Ads claim that humanist have seem to give way to condemnation rooted in ignorance, simplifications, and erroneous understanding of basic doctrines of faith. Indeed, I would call these ads amateurish at many levels. Even simple fact checking was not done. In the end these Ads are not rooted in critical “thinking” at all. They seem far more expressive of the kind of bigotry and fear based ignorance they claim to condemn.
When I speak on marriage or do marriage preparation work, I sometimes get accused of being tough on men. I plead guilty, with an explanation, or two.
First of all I am a man and it’s just easier for me to speak firmly to men. I tend to be more polite with women. Secondly, I think most men are encouraged when they are summoned to duty. A lot of men I have talked to are a bit sick of all the hand holding that goes on in Church, literally and figuratively. Most men I know are more interested in hearing of their duty and being summoned to it in a manly way. (However, I must say I have experienced some very definite exceptions to this rule. Some men especially react with great bitterness that I do not better articulate women’s shortcomings when it comes to marriage. I suspect there is a personal dimension to this story). Finally, I believe in male headship when it comes to marriage. Some call me old fashioned, some call me misogynist. I just prefer to call myself “biblical” (Eph 5:19ff; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1). But headship in the Scripture means responsibility rather than privilege. Hence the husband has the first obligation to love, to sacrifice, to anticipate and fulfill the needs of his wife and children. So yes, I am tough on men.
In that vein allow me a moment to extend some old advice to men, especially those who are husbands. Women are surely invited to listen in and to apply some of this to themselves too! For although men have the first obligation, women are not thereby passive or without duty in this regard.
And here is the central question for a man: “How to handle a woman?” An old song from Camelot answers the question well, and biblically I might add:
How to handle a woman? There’s a way,” said the wise old man, “A way known by every woman Since the whole rigmarole began.” “Do I flatter her?” I begged him answer. “Do I threaten or cajole or plead? Do I brood or play the gay romancer?” Said he, smiling: “No indeed. How to handle a woman? Mark me well, I will tell you, sir: The way to handle a woman Is to love her…simply love her… Merely love her…love her…love her.”
Alright men, It’s not that complicated is it? Love her. Simply love her, love her!
In marriage counseling I will sometimes ask the husband privately, Do you love your wife…Honestly now, do you really love her? The answer is not always obvious. Many people confuse mere toleration with love. Because I put up with you means I must love you, somehow.
But my question goes deeper: Do you have a deep affection, a warmth, a compassion and desire for your wife? Do you like her? Some of the men who are more honest with themselves realize that many of these qualities are no longer operative and that, at best, they have a tense toleration for their wife. And there are often protests as well: Father, you don’t know how my wife can be!….She’s hard to love. (Actually I do have some idea. We priests are not mere bachelors and we too are called to love some people who are difficult to love). Love remains the answer. And so I inevitably invite the husband to pray for a miracle:
When you go home, get on your knees and pray for the miracle to really love your wife. Pray for the miracle of a tender and humble heart that will love her with a deep, abiding, compassionate, and passionate love. Pray to love her unconditionally, not because she deserves it, or has earned it, not because she feeds you or sleeps with you. Pray to love her “for no good reason.” Ask God to give you the same love he has for you. You and I are not easy to love, we have not earned God’s love and don’t really deserve it. But God loves us still the same. Yes, pray for a miracle. Your flesh may think of 50 reasons to be resentful and unloving toward your wife. Pray for the miracle to love her any way, deeply and truly. Pray for a new heart, filled with God’s love.
In the end, the only way to “handle” a woman is to love her.
I can hear the fear talking as well: Are you saying I should be a doormat? No, love speaks the truth and insists upon it. But only love can distinguish between respect for the truth and mere power struggle. Only love can distinguish properly between reverence for the good of the other and merely insisting on my own preferences. Love can speak the truth but it does so with love.
As a priest I have found that the more I love my people the better equipped I am to lead them to the truth. And when they know and experience that I love them, there is trust and they can better accept the truth I am summoned to preach. But it is love that opens the door.
Advice to husbands, How to handle a woman? Love her.
In case you’ve never heard the song from Camelot here it is. The Scene begins with Arthur furiously lamenting the short-comings of the Queen and then reacalling some old advice given him by Merlin:
Now, you will say, “Camelot ended badly.” Yes, but in the end we do not love merely with good results in mind, we love unconditionally, as God does. God loves because God is love and that’s what Love does, He loves. And so to for us, called to be possessed of God’s love, we love. We risk to love. The Lord was killed for the love he had for us. We do not love merely to get something from it, we simply love. Others may accept or refuse our love, but as for us we love. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (1 John 4:16).
Simply love her, love her, love her.
Here’s another video clip that says it better than I. This is clip from the movie “Fireproof” wherein a husband struggles to love his wife. This scene is the turning point of the move, the breakthrough:
Frankly I don’t even like to discuss condoms. It just seems impolite in mixed company. But the world’s obsession with condoms (as George Weigel quips, “salvation through latex!”) has surely been on display these past weeks. The Pope’s admittedly poorly reported remarks, (even by L’Osservatore Romano) have set forth a tsunami of celebration in some sectors who insist the Church has changed her position. Any presentations of the facts or later clarifications issued by the Vatican seem to have no effect on the spin in secular circles that a “sea-change” has happened in Church teaching. It has not, but myths often take on a life of their own.
In today’s Washington Post yet another article has appeared that I would like to excerpt and then comment on. The Article is by Michael E. Ruane who interviews a number of Catholics outside of St. Matthews Cathedral after Mass on the condom question. The sorts of things said by Catholics in this article are not unexpected. In fact they are emblematic of the fact that most Catholics get their ideas about their faith more form the world than from the Church. This of course is not wholly the fault of the laity since we in the clergy and Church leadership have not been famous for our savvy ability to communicate the faith effectively.
Let’s take a look at this article and see what we can learn of the nature of the problem. As is the case with previous articles, I would like to present the excerpts in bold and italic letters and then my own running commentary in plain RED text. (The Full Post Article can be read here: Faithful Have Mixed Views).
The gray-haired chief usher for the Latin Mass was headed with his metal cane for the steps of Washington’s Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle when he paused to consider the latest church teaching on condom use. “As a Catholic,” said Lucius Robertson, 91, he opposed the use of condoms. “As a John Doe,” he said he approved. “It’s strictly personal,” he added, “a singular decision.”In this opening paragraph we quickly see into the heart of the problem: faith has been privatized. We live in the age of the designer religion wherein anyone gets to invent their own dogma, or selectively determine what dogmas they will accept. Everyone gets to be their own pope. Catholics are often no exception to this trend and many seem perfectly willing and able to dispense with whatever doctrines displease them and still declare themselves to be a “good Catholic.” For such as these faith has no apparent communal dimension, nothing outside them self which should require adherence in order that to qualify for membership. No, such a notion that some one other than me gets to say what is the true faith is obnoxious to many. They insist that faith be a purely private declaration of what seems true “to me.” To suggest that certain criteria ought be met in order to “be Catholic” offends against their God-given right to design their own faith and, I would argue, their own God.
Our 91 year old usher here might not accept all these notions I have stated but his understanding of the faith is surely tainted by them. He insists that an important matter of Church moral teaching is “strictly personal” and “a singular decision.” Never mind that the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, has set forth a clear forbiddance of the use of condoms. Never mind that we as Catholics are expected to give assent and religious submission to what the Church formally teaches and proposes for belief in matters of faith and morals. I am frankly not sure I understand what our usher means when he says he opposes condoms “as a Catholic” and approves them “as a John Doe.” But one thing seems certain, our usher (possibly in an unintentional way) articulates a notion of faith that is personal rather than communal. Many problems come from this widespread current notion which illustrates very well the ego-centric tendency of our modern age. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that faith is not a merely personal or private matter:
“Believing” is an ecclesial act. The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. “No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother” (CCC # 181)…..Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others…..It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith…..The Church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, faithfully guards “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. She guards the memory of Christ’s words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles’ confession of faith. As a mother who teaches her children to speak and so to understand and communicate, the Church our Mother teaches us the language of faith in order to introduce us to the understanding and the life of faith. (CCC 168-171 selected)
Thus the Catholic faith cannot be privatized as so many insist on doing. You and I are not free to decide what it means to be a Catholic. That has been given to the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. Just about every other error demonstrated in this article flows from this one misunderstanding of “privatized faith.”
Mixed feelings were common Sunday among Catholics attending Mass at St. Matthew’s at they tried to understand statements last week by Pope Benedict XVI that appeared to ease the church’s long-standing ban on using condoms. (“Appeared,” is the key word. The Pope introduced no change and eased nothing).
In a new book, the pope indicated that condoms could be used to prevent the spread of life-threatening diseases, like HIV. In the past, official church teaching has forbidden condom use under all circumstances, as part of its opposition to birth control. The Pope did nothing of the sort. Here are the actual words of the Pope from the interview that many claim amount to an endorsement of condom use: Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?Pope Benedict:She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution…. Now notice the words “NOT,” “REAL,” and “MORAL.” The Pope notes further in the interview: ….the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of condoms. What the Pope did note was that some people have fallen so far in their understanding that the even the use of a condom may show at least some progress. At least they have some notion of protecting others. But again this only illustrates how far they fallen not that condoms are good. Again for the record the Pope says of condoms that they are not (again, NOT) a moral solution.
Experts have been debating whether the pope’s comments, which the Vatican has sought to clarify, opened the door to discussion of the broader ban, even as many American Catholics have already indicated they disagree with it. Experts are not debating this. Some dissenters may see it in their interest to perpetuate a misunderstanding of the Pope’s remarks. But official Vatican sources have clarified and asserted that there is no change in Church teaching here.
A 2003 Washington Post poll found that 88 percent of Catholics believed that using a “birth control pill or condoms” was morally acceptable. Much of that sentiment was in evidence at St. Matthew’s Sunday. The Poll is probably accurate. However I’d be interested in looking inside the numbers. Are there differences between practing Catholics and non? What are the age differences?
“I don’t think there should be a ban on condoms,” said Kay Gautsch, 68, who was visiting from Racine, Wis. “The pope says use them for AIDS prevention, but I think birth control is very important.The Pope did not say “use them for AIDS prevention.” Ms. Gautsch is simply mistaken. She has likely received all her information on this from the secular media. This is not simply her fault. We who are clergy and, indeed, all Church leaders share in this problem. We have to find more effective ways of reaching our people directly and giving them the true story. Cardinal Wuerl makes this point is the video below.
“On the alternative, you have abortion, you have children [whose] parents can’t afford their kids,” she said. “I think that’s responsible parenthood, to use condoms and limit the size of your family.” “I would hope the ban would change,” she said. “People are using their common sense and . . . responsible health concerns when they use condoms. It’s a good thing.” More privatized religion on display here. She also has a pejorative tone: “People are using their common sense….” when they oppose Church teaching, according to Ms. Gautsch. Of course this thereby means that official and ancient Church teaching against contraceptive methods and emphasizing chastity lacks “common sense.“
Marie Claire Odell, 50, of Silver Spring, who was just leaving church, said the apparent easing of the ban was due. “The Catholic church is not that swift to recognize” the need for change, she said. “They just recognized Galileo. Quite honestly, it takes them a while, but hopefully they’re getting there. “I think it’s about time,” she said. “Let’s be serious. Let’s jump into the 21st century. I think you’ll find a lot of people saying the same thing.”Yes, of course that is the main thing isn’t it? You see, according to Ms Odell and others whom she represents, we have to update, be with the times, this is our main role apparently. Things like Scripture and Tradition have to give way to the “21st Century” which has apparently found a better, more enlightened way.
This position (“the Church must update”) is really a plural version of the problem of privatized religion. This version applies the “right” to redefine the faith to an age more than a person. This privatizes the faith by making it subservient to the whims of a particular time and place. A given generation ought to be free to remove or adapt whatever seems “unacceptable” to that given time or place. In this thinking, being hidebound to ancient Tradition, Conciliar decrees, and Scriptures from ancient times that were far less “enlightened” than ours is really obnoxious. This widespread notion seeks to privatize the faith by eliminating the testimony and presence of previous generations. They have no place at our modern table. This is a private, 21st Century party, don’t you see? And the Ancient Fathers and Evangelists are not invited unless they adapt and update. The main task of the Church for Ms Odell and others like her seems to be that we “jump into the 21st Century.” Again, the faith is privatized, compartmentalized and subjected to the whims of individuals and times and places. It is the problem of privatized religion in another, larger package.
One thing Ms. Odell is right about, “you’ll find a lot of people saying the same thing.” We do indeed have a lot of work to do in making the teaching against artificial contraception sensible to modern westerners. She also speaks for a lot of moderns who see reinventing the Apostolic Faith as their God-given right. A lot of work to do here. Perhaps some more blog posts here can be my contribution, both on contraception and also the problem of privatized religion. (Here’s one I wrote a while back: Wisdom of Humane Vitae)
Well the Post Article goes on with pretty much the same sort of stuff. You can read the rest of it here: Faithful Have Mixed Views. It seems they had trouble finding anyone who supports the Church’s teaching unambiguously. I suspect that is a problem with Post but will also admit it is a problem with us. There are deep problems in the Church today with selective and privatized faith.
Much will be required to get Catholics back to a proper notion that the Faith is revealed by God to the Church and she hands on the faith intact. The faith cannot be of our own making, neither can we pick and choose its content.
But these are egocentric and arrogant times and many people see it as their God-given right to be their own pope, their own Bible, their own magisterium. And, even if they don’t explicitly claim this as a personal right, they assign it to the age or the locale, the “common sense” of the times. It is surely puzzling that an age such as ours, so afflicted by increasing disorder, promiscuity, addiction, crime, violence, abortion, war, injustice to the poor and the breakdown of basic elements like family, can presume to claim for itself some sort of special wisdom and enlightenment. We live in strange times, privatized times, closed off from the wisdom of our elders and forebearers. A faithful remnant remains in the Church, to be sure. It is just disappointing that the Post could not find one to speak unambiguously to the beauty of truth.
The problems illustrated in this Post Article are not entirely a problem of the laity. It is clear that we in the Church have got to do a better job of effectively and efficiently proclaiming the faith and getting that message directly to our people, unfiltered by a secular media. In this three minute video, Cardinal Wuerl, speaking last month at the Order of Malta Conference, describes the challenges and the necessity of telling our people the rest of the story:
