Category: Culture

Posted on

100+ Charlie Chan Sayings and Proverbs. A surprisingly good selection of truisms and insights for your reading pleasure.

My Father was a great fan of Charlie Chan movies, a series of detective movies from the 1930s featuring a fictional Chinese-American detective. My father had every one on them on video tape. Not only did he watch them often, he also collected Charlie Chan sayings. For in every movie there would be dozens of wise, witty, and insightful sayings. He jotted them down as he watched and once presented me with a collection of the sayings.

On Friday’s I like to blog on lighter fare and this Friday evening is no exception. I simply want to present the list my father gave me with later additions by me. This list is long, but many of the sayings are well worth the read. Not all of them are of equal value, but there are some real keepers in the list. Many indeed are in deep conformity with the biblical tradition.

If you want to print a convenient list, I have put this in PDF version of them here: Charlie Chan Sayings

But for light reading and edification enjoy this list of Charlie Chan sayings:

  1. Admitting failure like drinking bitter tea.  (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  2. After dinner is over, who cares about spoon?  (Docks of New Orleans)
  3. Always happens – when conscience tries to speak, telephone out of order.  (The Black Camel)
  4. Ancient ancestor once say, “Even wise man cannot fathom depth of woman’s smile.” (The Shanghai Cobra)
  5. Ancient ancestor once say, “Words cannot cook rice.” (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  6. Ancient proverb say. “Never bait trap with wolf to catch wolf.” (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  7. Ancient proverb say, “One small wind can raise much dust.” (Dark Alibi)
  8. Anxious man hurries too fast and stubs big toe. (Charlie Chan’s Courage)
  9. Bad alibi like dead fish – cannot stand test of time. (Charlie Chan in Panama)
  10. Best to slip with foot, than with tongue. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  11. Biggest mysteries are not always crimes. (1935 Pennsylvania Referendum Message)
  12. Blind man feels ahead with cane before proceeding. (Charlie Chan’s Courage)
  13. Boy Scout knife, like ladies’ hairpin, have many uses. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  14. Can fallen fruit return to branch? (Docks of New Orleans)
  15. Cat who tries to catch two mice at one time, goes without supper. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  16. Charming company turn lowly sandwich into rich banquet. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  17. Chinese funny people; when say “go,” mean “go.” (Docks of New Orleans)
  18. Confucius has said, “A wise man question himself, a fool, others.” (Charlie Chan in City in Darkness)
  19. Confucius say, “Sleep only escape from yesterday.” (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  20. Cornered rat usually full of fight. (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  21. Curiosity responsible for cat needing nine lives. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  22. Deception is bad game for amateurs. (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  23. Deer should not toy with tiger. (The Golden Eye)
  24. Detective without curiosity is like glass eye at keyhole – no use. (Charlie Chan in the Secret Service)
  25. Dreams, like good liars, distort facts. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  26. Drop of plain water on thirsty tongue more precious than gold in purse. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  27. Easy to criticize, more difficult to be correct. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  28. Elaborate excuse seldom truth. (Castle in the Desert)
  29. Even draperies may have ears. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  30. Every fence have two sides. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  31. Every front has back. (Charlie Chan in London)
  32. Every man must wear out at least one pair of fool shoes. (Charlie Chan Carries On)
  33. Every maybe has a wife called Maybe-Not. (Charlie Chan Carries On)
  34. Favorite pastime of man is fooling himself. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  35. Fear is cruel padlock. (Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum)
  36. Foolish rooster who stick head in lawn mower end in stew. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  37. Foolish to seek fortune when real treasure hiding under nose. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  38. Front seldom tell truth. To know occupants of house, always look in back yard. (Charlie Chan in London)
  39. Good detective always look for something unusual. (The Red Dragon)
  40. Good tools shorten labor. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  41. Grain of sand in eye may hide mountain. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  42. “Great happiness follows great pain.” (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  43. Guilty conscience always first to speak up. (The Feathered Serpent)
  44. Guilty conscience like dog in circus – many tricks. (Castle in the Desert)
  45. Guilty conscience only enemy to peaceful rest. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  46. Guilty mind sometimes pinch worse than ancient boot of torture. (Dangerous Money)
  47. Hastily accuse – leisurely repent. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  48. Hasty conclusion easy to make, like hole in water. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  49. Hasty deduction, like old egg, look good from outside. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  50. Have two ears, but can only hear one thing at time. (The Shanghai Chest)
  51. He who squanders today talking about yesterday’s triumphs, have nothing to boast of tomorrow. (Docks of New Orleans)
  52. He who takes whatever gods send with smile, has learned life’s hardest lesson. (Docks of New Orleans)
  53. Honorable father once say, “Politeness golden key that open many doors.” (Charlie Chan at the Opera)
  54. Hours are happiest when hands are busiest. (Charlie Chan’s Murder Cruise)
  55. Humbly suggest not to judge wine by barrel it is in. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  56. Humility only defense against rightful blame. (Charlie Chan at the Opera)
  57. Ideas planted too soon, often like seeds on winter ground – quickly die. (The Sky Dragon)
  58. If request music, must be willing to pay for fiddler. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  59. If strength were all, tiger would not fear the scorpion. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  60. Illustrious ancestor once say, “Destination never reached by turning back on same.” (Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo)
  61. It is difficult to pick up needle with boxing glove. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  62. It takes very rainy day to drown duck. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  63. Kind thoughts add favorable weight, in balance of life and death. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  64. Law is honest man’s eyeglass to see better. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  65. Long road, sometimes shortest way to end of journey. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  66. Man cannot drink from glass without touching. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  67. Man has learned much, who has learned how to die. (Dead Men Tell)
  68. Man is not incurably drowned – if  still knows he is all wet. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  69. Man who fears death die thousand times. (Castle in the Desert)
  70. Man who flirt with dynamite sometime fly with angels. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  71. Man who improve house before building foundation, apt to run into very much trouble. (The Feathered Serpent)
  72. Man who ride tiger, cannot dismount. (The Chinese Ring)
  73. Man who seek trouble never find it far off. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  74. Man never born who can tell what woman will, or will not, do. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  75. Mind, like parachute, only function when open. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  76. More fear, more talk. (Charlie Chan in London)
  77. Most mysterious thing is what mankind does to itself for reasons difficult to understand. (1935 Pennsylvania Referendum Message)
  78. Much evil can enter through very small space. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  79. Must harvest rice before can boil it. (Docks of New Orleans)
  80. Necessity mother of invention, but sometimes stepmother of deception. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  81. No one knows less about servants than their master. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  82. Optimist only sees doughnut, pessimist sees hole. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  83. Owner of face cannot always see nose. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  84. Patience, big sister to wisdom. (City in Darkness City in Darkness)
  85. Patience lead to knowledge. (Charlie Chan in Panama)
  86. Sharp wit sometimes much better than deadly weapon. (Castle in the Desert)
  87. Silence best answer when uncertain. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  88. Silence big sister to wisdom. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  89. Silent witness, sometime speak loudest. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  90. Smart fly keep out of gravy. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  91. Smart rats know when to leave ship. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  92. Talk cannot cook rice. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  93. The ignorant always loud in argument. (Docks of New Orleans)
  94. The impossible sometimes permits itself the luxury of occurring. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  95. Theory like mist on eyeglasses – obscures facts. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  96. Tongue often hang man quicker than rope. (Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo)
  97. To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming. (Charlie Chan’s Murder Cruise)
  98. Trouble, like first love, teach many lessons. (Dead Men Tell)
  99. Trouble with modern children, they do not smart in right place. (Charlie Chan in The Secret Service)
  100. Truth, like football – receive many kicks before reaching goal. (Charlie Chan at the Olympics)
  101. Truth sometimes like stab of cruel knife. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  102. Two ears for every tongue. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  103. Under strong general there are no weak soldiers. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  104. Unhappy news sometimes correct self next day. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  105. Useless as life preserver for fish. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  106. Useless talk like boat without oar – get no place. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  107. Very difficult to believe ill of those we love. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  108. Very wise know way out before going in. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  109. Waiting for tomorrow waste of today. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  110. When money talk, few are deaf. (Charlie Chan in Honolulu)
  111. When pilot unreliable, ship cannot keep true course. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  112. When player cannot see man who deal cards, much wiser to stay out of game. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  113. Willingness to speak, not necessarily mean willingness to act. (The Golden Eye)
  114. Woman’s tongue like sword that never gets rusty. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  115. Woman’s voice like monastery bell, when tolling, must attend. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)

Posted on

Did the composer of (perhaps) the most secular song ever written, later disavow that song?

Growing up I listened to a lot of music. And, like a lot of teenagers, I didn’t pay much attention to the words, they were just another instrument in the whole melody of the song. As I got older, I started paying attention to the words and was often shocked at what I had been humming.

Like many people my age, one of my favorite songs was John Lennon’s “Imagine.” A beautiful melody, in a thoughtful and meditative tone.  But oh the words! When I finally got around to paying attention to them, I stopped listening to the song. For in it, Lennon imagines, with approval, a world without God, religion, or country. In effect no piety, no loyalties. He also dismissed the idea of heaven, hell, and more than implies that religion, faith and God are the source of violence, greed and disunity. Here are some of the lyrics:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions ….etc.

The song become quite the ballad of the secular humanists, and though peaceful and serene in its cadences, was a real slap in the face to faith, religion, Church, Country, piety, patriotism and the free market economy. The song reached beyond secular humanism, more than implicitly endorsing atheistic Communism, or at least Socialism in its dream of “no possessions.”

In effect the song says to faith and to all holding the other traditional values above, “Your day is over, you have caused evil, and we are moving toward a utopian paradise without you. You are not invited for you are the problem.”

Yes, there it was: Imagine, perhaps the most secular and radical song ever written, dripping with contempt, deconstructionist, revolutionary, and reductionist, a Magna Carta for secular humanism, and Communism.

And yet, it would seem John Lennon either disavowed the song, or never meant it in the first place. In an interview given shortly before his death, perhaps his last, he says some remarkable things that indicate a very different John Lennon than the song portrays.

I do not read, and will not even mention, the magazine in which the interview originally appeared (in 1980). But am quoting a secondary source which references that final interview. It is an interview that seems largely forgotten, since Lennon’s murder wholly changed the conversation and froze his image in place as the “60s radical.” It would seem he was far from that when he died. I am only here quoting a small part of the article, which you can read in its entirety here: Stop Imagining

Here are the pertinent excerpts:

In his definitive song, “Imagine”….[Lennon]  famously dreams of a world with “no possessions.” The mature Lennon explicitly disavowed such naïve sentiments: I worked for money and I wanted to be rich….What I used to be is guilty about money. … Because I thought money was equated with sin. I don’t know. I think I got over it, because I either have to put up or shut up, you know. If I’m going to be a monk with nothing, do it. Otherwise, if I am going to try and make money, make it. Money itself isn’t the root of all evil.

The man who famously called for imagining a world with “No religion” also jettisoned his anti-theism. “People got the image I was anti-Christ or anti-religion,” he said. “I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting there is more to it than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist.”

Even more shocking to the idea of Lennon as a secular leftist, or a deep thinker, the man rejected evolution. “Nor do I think we came from monkeys, by the way,” he insisted. “That’s another piece of garbage. What the hell’s it based on? We couldn’t’ve come from anything—fish, maybe, but not monkeys. I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage.”

……His final interviews make clear he was above all concerned with his family. “I’m not here for you,”he said, speaking to his fans. “I’m here for me and [Yoko] and the baby.” He revered the institution of marriage, explaining how much it meant to get the state approving his union with Ono. “[R]ituals are important, no matter what we thought as kids. … So nowadays it’s hip not to be married. But I’m not interested in being hip.” [1]

So there it is, the revolutionary, it would seem, either reconsidered, or never fully embraced the radicalism of the song “Imagine.” Elsewhere in the article he is quoted as saying, “It’s easier to shout ‘Revolution’ and ‘Power to the people’ than it is to look at yourself and try to find out what’s real inside you and what isn’t, when you’re pulling the wool over your own eyes. That’s the hardest one.”

I do not hold John Lennon up as anything other than he was, a singer and composer, and quite a good one at that. I personally cannot stand it when we elevate movie stars, and entertainers to the status of cultural and political experts. But given the fact that others do, it is worth noting that one of the icons of the secular humanist movement and the radical left, made something of a journey back to traditional values, family, faith, and personal accountability.

I do not sanction everything Lennon says in the article, I only note the journey he made and claim the hope that Lennon did not die the radical atheist some thought him to be. I pray too others will and are making the journey he apparently did.

Posted on

In the Aftermath of Redefining Marriage, Absurdities Multiply. Woman "Marries" Herself in Recent "Ceremony"

Let the further absurdities begin. Having redefined marriage, the secular world may discover it has actually undefined marriage. For in removing so basic an aspect of the definition of marriage (a male and a female), proponents of gay “marriage” will have a hard time excluding any newcomers to the the now opened-ended notion of “marriage.” Consider the following story from Yahoo News:

Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota…..

She vowed to “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self,”…the ring was exchanged with the bride and her “inner-groom,” guests were encouraged to “blow kisses at the world,” and later, eat cake. Schweigert, who followed the ceremony with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans, claims the wedding was her way of showing the world she’s learned to love and accept herself as a woman flying solo. …Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: “He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.'”  [1]

Of course the woman did not marry herself, that is impossible. But why let reality get in the way of wordsmithing and living in a self defined world?

The intrepid reporter could not avoid adding his own commentary:

I believe everyone has the right to marry, regardless of sexual preference…. For some people being alone is what feels most natural. Shouldn’t they too be entitled to tax breaks? …Some people are actually proud of their solo relationship status and even ready to commit to it. Maybe if more people could reap the benefits of a wedding without a partner, there would be a lower national divorce rate.… -Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor, Single [2]

Let’s overlook the logical fallacy and abuse of the English language in the phrase “solo relationship” for the absurdity is evident enough; and it you don’t see it, I have a square circle to sell you. Let’s also overlook the bizarre non-sequitur that single “marriages” would somehow result in a lower “divorce” rate. For as absurd as the notion of self-“marriage” is, the notion of divorcing one’s own self is even more absurd. Where would one go from oneself?

But absurd is the word for the whole strange redefinition of marriage movement. The secular world, having sown in the wind, now reaps the whirlwind. If something as outlandish as two men together can be called “marriage,” who is to say that any other part of the definition cannot be tampered with? Why should marriage be between only two? Here come the polygamists. And apparently too, here come the soloists like Ms (Mrs?) Schweigert. And while we’re at it, who is to say marriage has to be between two humans? Bring on the bestiality advocates as well as those who would like to effect marriages between their pets.

Absurd? Sure! But so is two men getting “married.” And I would wonder how advocates of homosexual “marriage” would be able to answer Ms. (Mrs?) Schweigert’s (s’ ??) salvo,  as well as the silly conclusions of the reporter? Are they not hoisted on the petard of their own “logic?” For if something as basic as sexual identity can be removed from the definition of marriage, who is to say that duality, and even humanity, cannot be removed? Can the homosexual community and advocates of homosexual “marriage” really say such things as polygamy and bestiality are a bridge too far? Why? On what basis?

I have a solution. Back to the Bible, back to Natural Law, and back to tradition. Yes, Scripture, and the natural Law and tradition it reflects, is easier and clearer. God set forth marriage in Genesis pretty well: One man (Adam) for one woman (Eve). God calls her a “suitable” partner for Adam (Gn 2:18). And Adam was to cling to his wife in a stable life long relationship (Gn 2:24), and their fundamental task was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). (Which would be pretty hard if the first and archetypal couple were  homosexual or solo-sexual – (is that a word?)).

Now for those polygamy advocates, who will surely opine here that the Patriarchs had multiple wives, I will only say here that the Scriptures do not approve of things, simply because they report them. The fact is, polygamy always led to trouble and, as Israel matured, it was set aside. The Patriarchs erred by departing from God’s plan for marriage.

So here we are, going into the waters of ever deeper absurdity. A woman “married” herself (she did no such thing). And soon enough the “soloists” will be at City Hall demanding licenses and benefits. The polygamists will be there with them, and Lord only knows what other combinations.

In the end, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage. We need to stop using the word and return to the older “Holy Matrimony.” The word “marriage” is becoming increasingly meaningless.

Here’s the rather depressing Beatles song “I Me Mine, sung interestingly, at the very time they were breaking up and heading off to solo careers.

Posted on

What is Piety? And How Does a Lack of Piety Spell Doom for Us?

In the modern world the word “piety” has come to be associated with being religious. And while it does have religious application, its original meaning was far wider and richer. The English word “piety” comes from the Latin pietas, which spoke of family love, and by extension love for one’s ancestors,  of one’s country, and surely of God. Cicero defined pietas as the virtue “which admonishes us to do our duty to our country or our parents or other blood relations.”

For the ancient Romans piety was one of the highest virtues since it was the virtue that knit families and ultimately all society together in love, loyalty and a shared, reciprocal duty. Piety also roots us in our past and gave proper reverence to our ancestors.

I hope you can see how essential piety is and why, if we do not recapture it more fully in the modern world, our culture is likely doomed. Piety is like a glue that holds us together. Without its precious effects, we fall apart into factions, our families dissolve, and the “weave” of our culture gives way to tear and dry rot.

Recently over at the Catholic Education Resource Center Donald Demarco (Professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell CT) wrote some helpful reflections on Piety. I’d like to share some excerpts here, the full article is HERE.

“Piety,” said Cicero, “is justice toward the gods,” and “the foundation of all virtues.” By extension, piety is the just recognition of all we owe to our ancestors. [Thus], the basis of piety is the sober realization that we owe our existence and our substance to powers beyond ourselves. We are social, communal beings. We are not islands; we are part of the mainland…..

“Greatness” is never a purely individual accomplishment. Its roots are always in others and in times past….Our beginning coincides with a debt. Piety requires us to be grateful to those who begot us. It also evokes in us a duty to give what we have so that we can give to our descendents as our ancestors gave to us. [And] Piety, by honoring what poured out from the past to become our own living substance, enlarges and enriches us. It disposes us to give thanks and to live in such a manner that we ourselves may one day become worthy objects for the thanks of others.

Piety was a favorite virtue of Socrates. Far from considering himself a self-made man….[he] gave full credit for whatever civility he enjoyed to those who preceded him. Ralph Waldo Emerson, by contrast, America’s head cheerleader for the man of self-reliance, spoke of “the sovereign individual, free, self-reliant, and alone in his greatness.” Emerson’s belief in the “greatness” of the individual is a dangerous illusion. It is a presumption that naturally leads to pride.

The great enemy of piety is individualism. Individualism is the illusion that we are somehow self-made, self-reliant, and self-sufficient. It is essentially an anti-social form of thinking that belongs to Nietzsche, Rousseau, Sartre, and Ayn Rand rather than to Socrates, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution.

The soul of individualism is unfettered choice. Abortion, for example, is presumed to be a private affair. Magically, as its advocates allege, it affects neither the child, its father, the family, nor society…. “Individuality” is the result of a fall from grace. Adam and Eve behaved as persons until sin reduced them to individuals. As individuals, they began lusting after each other. The aprons of fig leaves they fashioned indicated that they were profoundly ashamed of their new identities as self-centered and self-absorbed individuals.

Yes, individualism leaves us largely closed in our self and pathetically self-conscious.

So many of our struggles in this modern era center on a loss of piety, a loss of love and duty owed to our families, community, Church and nation. Our families and our duties to them and the wider community are sacrificed on the “altar” of self-love and self-aggrandizement. Divorce and cohabitation stab at the heart of families ties and family loyalty. We indulge our sexual passions and selfishly cling to our supposed right to be happy at high cost of a devastated family structure, and a heavy-laden community. Church and nation, that are somehow supposed to carry the weight of our imprudent and selfish choices. We speak incessantly of rights but almost never of duties.  Love of me, and what I “owe myself” is alive and well, but love and duty toward family, Church, community, and nation has grown cold. “I gotta be me” results in many, very small and competing worlds.

Further,  Our modern and post-Cartesian era is mired in a “hermeneutic of discontinuity.” That is to say, we have significantly cut our ties with the past. Our ancestors, and antiquity have little to say to us since we have closed our eyes and ears to them. The “Democracy of the Dead,” as Chesterton called tradition, has been cut off by the “Berlin Wall” of modern pride. Our love and respect for our ancestors and the duty we have to honor their wisdom is, to a large extent, gone. We largely see ourselves as “come of age” and are arrogantly dismissive of past ages. As such our continuity with our ancestors and with the wisdom they accumulated is ruptured, and our mistakes are both predictable and often downright silly. As we indulge our passions, and are largely lacking in self-control, we who pride ourselves as “come of age” look more like silly and immature teenagers, than the technical titans we boast of being. It is one thing to go to the moon, it is another to wisely accept need to learn from the past.

Some will like to emphasize the errors of the past, such as slavery, in order to dismiss it. But this misses the point that we learn, not only from the good things of the past, but also from the errors of the past. I learned as much from my parents’ struggles as from their strengths. We do not honor our ancestors because they are perfect. Rather we honor the collected wisdom they have handed on to us, some of which was discovered in the cauldron of struggle and sin.

Finally, the loss of piety also means the significant loss of learning. Without the respect and honor of our parents, teachers and ancestors, there can be no learning. If I do not respect you I cannot learn from you. It is no surprise that in our current American culture, which often celebrates youthful rebellion, that learning, tradition and faith are in a grave crisis. Teachers in classrooms spend so much time in discipline that there is little quality learning time. Parents, whose children are often taught by popular music and television that “adults are stupid” and “out of touch” give little thought to dismissing their parents wisdom. Where there is no respect, there can be no learning.

It is no surprise that the opening commandment of the second table of the Law is “Honor your Father and Your Mother that you may have long life in the land.” For God knows well that if a generation lacks piety, it severs itself from no only from worldly tradition but also from Sacred Tradition. Without reverence, without piety, there is no learning and there is no faith. We are cut off from the glorious wisdom God entrusted to our ancestors. It is no wonder that, in these largely impious and individualistic times,  faith is considered irrelevant to many and the Churches are increasingly empty.

Pray for piety. Pray for the gift of strong and abiding love for your family, for Church, for community and nation. Pray too for a deep love and respect for the ancestors who have gone before us, stretching back into antiquity. We owe a great debt to our family, nation, Church and ancestors. They have much to teach us, not only by their strengths, but also by their struggles. Scripture says,  Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith (Heb 13:7).

This song is rooted in Hebrews 12:1-3 and the opening lines say, We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, looking on, encouraging us to do the will of the Lord! We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Let us stand worthy and be faithful to God’s call. The photos in this video are from the clerestory walls of my own parish, showing the saints in the “cloud of witnesses.”

Posted on

Cerberus – the Mythical Three Headed Dog as an Allegory for What Ails Us.

In ancient Greek mythology the dog Cerberus guarded the entrance to Hades (the misty and gloomy underworld, the abode of the dead), permitting anyone to enter but none to leave. Cerberus is usually depicted as a three headed dog and some have tried to link this to his seeing the past, present and future. Cerberus’ name comes to us in a Latinized version from the Greek, where he was called Κέρβερος (Kerberos).

Now, when you and I think of dogs, we think of “man’s best friend.” But, in the ancient world dogs were usually thought of as wild animals that ran in packs and scavenged at the edge of town. They were not as domesticated as today. And Cerberus incorporates not only the fearsome qualities of a wild dog, but was also said to have a mane, not of hair, but of live snakes! He was said to eat only live meat and was the offspring of Echidna, a half-woman, half-snake, and Typhon, a fire-breathing giant. Not the most pleasant of “dogs” to be sure.

You get the picture. In Greek mythology he “welcomed” you to Hades when you died and made sure you did not leave.

So lets apply the images of Greek Mythology: Hades and Cerberus, to what ails our culture today.

Hades, here and now – Pope John Paul II often described, with concern, the Western World as a “Culture of Death.” Essentially what this means is that, in our culture we increasingly see death as a solution to problems. If the child is inconvenient or “defective,” abort. If the old person is suffering and using lots of resources, euthanize. If there is injustice, use violent means such as war to restore it. If there is a serious criminal, kill him. If we want to do research, kill embryos. That others should die to make my life more pleasant, safe, or viable, fine! And so forth.

This is the culture of death and it corresponds in our mythological reference here to Hades, the abode of the dead. And, as our culture descends and increasingly enters this Hades, this abode and culture of death, it is welcomed there by the three-headed dog, Cerberus.

Cereberus, the three-headed dog, or course is not real, but allegorical and he helps ensure our entrance and also our stay in cultural Hades by his three-fold threat of: Secularism, Materialism, and Individualism. These three threats are represented by his three heads.

1. Secularism – The word “secular” comes from the Latin Saecula which is translated as “world” but can also be understood to refer to the “age” or “times” in which we live. What secularism does to pay excessive concern to the things of this world and to the times which we live. It does this in exclusion to values and virtues of heaven and the Kingdom of God. The preoccupation with the things of this world, crowds out any concern for the things of heaven.

Hostile – And it is not merely a matter of preoccupation with the world, but, often, of outright hostility to things outside the “saecula” (world or age). Spiritual matters are often dismissed by the worldly as irrelevant, naïve, hostile and divisive. Secularism is an attitude that demands all our attention be devoted to the world and its priorities.

Misplaced Priority – The attitude of secularism also causes many who adopt it to tuck their faith under worldly priorities and views. In this climate, many are far more passionate and dedicated to their politics than their faith. The faith is “tucked under” political views and made to conform to them. It should be the opposite, that political views would be subordinate to the faith. The Gospel should trump our politics, our world view, our opinions and all worldly influences. Faith should be the doorkeeper. Everything should be seen in the light of faith. But secularism reverses all this and demands to trump the truths of faith.

Secularism is the error wherein I insist that the faith should give way when it opposes some worldly way of thinking, or some worldly priority. If faith gets in the way of career, guess which gives? If faith forbids me from doing what I please and what the world affirms, guess which gives way? The spirit of the world often sees the truths of faith as unreasonable, unrealistic, and demands that they give way, either by compromise or a complete setting aside of faith.

As people of faith, it should be the world and its values that are on trial. But secularism in us puts the faith on trial and demands it conform to worldly thinking and priorities.

Secularism also increasingly demands that faith be privatized. It is to have no place in the public square of ideas or values. If Karl Marx said it, fine. But if Jesus said it, it has to go. Every other interest group can claim a place in the public square, in the public schools, etc. But the Christian faith has no place. Yes, God has to go. Secularism in its “purest” form demands a faith-free, God-free, world. Jesus promised that the world would hate us as it hated him. This remains true and secularism describes the rising tendency for the world to get its way.

Here is the first head of Cerberus welcoming our culture to the abode of the dead. For, to make this world our priority and let it over-rule our faith, is to board a ship doomed to sink with no life boats on board. With secularism, our fascination and loyalty is primarily to the world, and this amounts to arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic. If the world is really all that matters then we are the most pitiable of men for everything we value is doomed and already passing away. Cerberus beckons.

2. Materialism – Most people think of materialism as the tendency to acquire and need lots of material things. It includes this, but true materialism is far deeper. In effect, materialism is the error that insists that physical matter is the only thing that is real, or existent. Materialism holds that only those things which can be measured on scale, seen in a microscope, or empirically experienced (through the five senses), are real. The modern error of Scientism flows from this which insists that nothing outside the world of the physical sciences exists or is real. (More on that HERE).

In effect, materialism says that matter is all that “matters.” The spiritual is either non-existent or irrelevant to the materialist. This of course leads to the tendency to acquire things and neglect the spiritual. If matter is all that really matters then we will tend to want large amounts of it. Bigger houses, more things, creature comforts, are all amassed in order to give meaning and satisfaction to me.

In the end it is a cruel joke however since; All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccles 1:7). And again, Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. [It] is meaningless….. The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep. (Eccles 5:10-12) But never mind, the materialist will still insist it is the only thing real or the only thing relevant.

The error of materialism is ultimately tied up in thinking that matter is all that exists and that man, a creature of matter and spirit, can be satisfied only with matter. Materialism denies a whole world of moral and spiritual realities that are meant to nourish the human person: goodness, beauty, truth, justice, equity, transcendence, truth courage, feelings, attitudes, angels and God. These are ultimately spiritual realities. They may have physical manifestations, to some extent, but they are not physical. Justice does not walk through the door and take a seat in the front row. Transcendence does not step out for a stroll, give a speech or shake hands with beauty. Such things are not merely material.

To deny the spiritual is to already be dying, for the form of this world is passing away. To deny the spiritual is to have little to live for other than today, for tomorrow is uncertain and one step closer to death.

The second head of Cerberus is materialism. He beckons us and draws our culture to live already in Hades, the abode, the culture of death.

3. Individualism – The error of individualism exalts the individual over and above all notions of the common good, and our need to responsibility live in communion with God and others. Individualism exalts the view of the individual at the expense of the received wisdom of tradition. Individualism demands autonomy without proper regard to rights and needs of others. It minimizes duties toward others and maximizes personal prerogatives and privileges. It also tends to deny a balanced notion of dependence on others for human formation and the need to accept correction and instruction. Individualism also results in a weakening of the Church, schools and other institutions by neglecting our duty to take part in and, support them, crucial as they are to the flourishing of the human family. Just as we could not enter this world without God and our parents, so neither can we live fully in isolation from God and others.

Personal freedom and autonomy have their place and should not be usurped by government or other collectives. But freedom today is often misunderstood as the ability to do whatever I please, instead of the ability, the power, to do what is good. Freedom is not absolute and should not be detached from respect for the rights and good of others.

Excessive and mistaken notions of freedom have caused great harm in our culture and it is often children who suffer the most. Sexual promiscuity, easy divorce, abortion, substance abuse and so forth are an abuse of freedom and cause harm to children, and to the wider society that must often seek to repair the damage caused by irresponsible behavior.

Individualism is the third head of Cerberus. By it he beckons us to Hades, the culture of death, since by it, he breaks down the ties that give life. So pervasive is individualism today that over 40% of people surveyed think marriage is passé. The result is death: contraception, low birthrates, abortion, and the children who are born are increasingly raised in the problematic settings of broken homes, daycare and poor discipline.

So here are, struggling with a culture of death in the West, (Hades) and our own Cerberus bids more of us enter. Pardon my figurative imagery, in this post. Allegorical Cerberus is not to be numbered among the ranks of “man’s best friend.” He’s a wild dog, scarcely trained at all. You will not be his master, he wants to be yours. Resist him, solid in your faith (1 Peter 5:9)

There are good things in our culture and some hopeful trends, among the young especially. We have discussed those here too. But allow today’s blog as a figure of what ails us. When we can name the demons they have less power over us.

Here is probably the most secular song ever written. It is deconstructionist, nihilistic, atheistic, anarchistic, and materialistic. And most Christians sing along with it on the radio with narry a thought. (Pay attention to the lyrics, they are terrible). Some have told me John Lennon disavowed this song before his death, but I have not been able to verify this. It is surely a song emblematic of the age of the triple header threat. Cerberus would be proud.

Posted on

Sowing in the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind (or) "Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch". A meditation based on a clever new T.V. Commerical

The video at the bottom of this post is a humorous commercial that depicts how things, when unaddressed, can pile up and get out of hand. The commercial depicts a man who becomes angry, and how this anger eventually leads him to wake up in a roadside ditch. The commercial of course presents an intentionally absurd, and therefore funny, chain of action.

But in a real and far less funny way, bad things unaddressed do tend to pile up in our life and lead to ever deeper “ditches” for both individuals, and our culture. St. Augustine famously wrote:

Because my will was perverse, lust came forth, and lust yielded to habit, and habit not resisted, became necessity.” (Confessions Book 8.5)

Biblically we are admonished: They sow in the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind! (Hosea 8:7)

Yes, terrible addictions, bad habits, and serious consequences can result from long chains of decisions, wherein one bad choice or premise, leads to others, and ultimately to a real mess. Things tend to pile up. The commercial below admonishes us: “Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch.” Of course their solution for us is to buy DIRECTV.

But Perhaps too there is a lesson for our culture here. For, to a large extent, we have woken up in a roadside ditch. We have sown in the wind, and now we reap the whirlwind. Many of us who are a bit older remember a world that was quite different, and wonder how we got into this roadside ditch.

To some extent, while admitting the danger of oversimplifying, we can see our current malaise has often resulted from certain basic premises that have now reached “full flower.”

Consider two “thought chains” similar to the commercial below, as our culture “thinks out-loud” It may help you to watch the video first so you can see what I’m trying to imitate and can hear the voice.

Scenario one: The roadside ditch of sexual confusion

  1. When you’re lustful you say, Sex is just for fun. It really has no relationship to the procreation and rearing of children at all, unless the couple wants it to have that meaning. So sex is just for fun.
  2. And when sex is just for fun you say, “So what’s wrong with contraception? Bring it on!”
  3. And when you bring on contraception you think you can have free sex without consequences.
  4. And when you think there are not consequences you start to discover sexually transmitted diseases, exploding promiscuity, teenage pregnancies, skyrocketing single motherhood rates, higher divorce rates, plummeting marriage rates, terrible abortion rates, broken and incomplete families.
  5. And when you have these things, you don’t connect them to contraception because lust has darkened your intellect.
  6. And when your intellect is darkened you loose your ability to see even the physically obvious facts about human sexuality and start to say that there is nothing wrong at all with homosexual acts.
  7. And when your darkness is light, how deep will the darkness be!
  8. Don’t wake up in a deep darkness. Buy a Catholic Catechism and the Holy Bible. Get them today.

Scenario two: The roadside ditch of Marital destruction

  1. When you are a baby boomer you say, “The purpose of marriage is the happiness of the couple….Children are merely a way of accessorising the marriage and are not essential.
  2. And when you think this way, you contracept and have few children.
  3. And when you have few children, they are less of a priority in terms of money and decisions.
  4. And when you run into difficulties, as most marriages do, you don’t say “Let’s work it out for the sake of the kids.” After all there’s only one or two of them, and the purpose of marriage is the happiness of adults. Kids are just an accessory and can be raised well in any circumstance.
  5. And when you think this way you get lots of divorces.
  6. And when you get lots of divorces, marriage starts to look like a flimsy social fiction that exists only for adults, rather than a sacred trust oriented toward the raising of children.
  7. And when marriage looks like a flimsy social fiction, the homosexual community comes to you and says, “You mean that the purpose of marriage is just for two adults to be happy and is not linked to the procreation of children? Then Why can’t Gays be married?”
  8. And when they ask this you have nothing to say.
  9. Don’t wake up with nothing to say. Get a biblical and Catholic understanding of marriage that links it to the mutual support of the spouses AND the procreation of children. Do it today.

Just something to consider, based on a creative commerical. The critical among you, will cry “simplistic.” But I already admit that, so chill. These chains I have constructed are influenced by a lot of other things too. But it’s fun to follow some of our often unquestioned premises through to their end in a roadside ditch.

Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch. Examine your premises now.

Posted on

Raising Boys in A Culture that is Often Alarmed By Them

I read an article over a year ago in First Things by Sally Thomas entitled: The Killer Instinct. The article ponders the modern aversion to the male psyche. Young boys are full of zealous energy, full of spit and vinegar, and have a a proclivity to rough and even violent play. Many modern parents and educators seem troubled by this and often attempt to soften boys, make them behave more like girls. Sadly there is even an attempt by some to diagnosis typically rough-house and energetic boys as having ADHD and they are put on medicines to suppress what is in the end a normal male energy. I do not deny that there can be a true ADHD diagnosis in some cases, but it may also be a symptom of an increasingly feminized culture that finds normal male behavior to be violent and a diagnosable “disorder.” What I have said here may here may be “controversial” but in the finest male tradition, remember, we can always “spar” in the comments section!

I’d like to present excerpts of the article here and then add some of m own comments in red. You can read the whole article by clicking on the title above.

The default mode of many parents is to be as alarmed by [the] proclivity in their sons [to shoot and stab at things and be aggressive]…..An obvious fascination with shooting things might seem like one of those warning signals we all read about…It used to be that parents waited for Johnny to start torturing the cat before they worried. My generation of parents seems to worry that owning a rubber-band shooter will make Johnny want to torture the cat. A friend of mine told me that he and his wife had decided not to give their boys guns for toys. What they discovered was that without the toy everything became a gun: sticks, brooms, scissors, their fingers. In the end, they “made peace” with the fact that boys love guns and swords and stopped worrying about latent tendencies to violence. Somehow it was in a boy’s nature and they couldn’t “nurture” it away.

As a toddler, one of my sons liked to stand behind his baby sister’s chair and pull her head back as far as it would go, to watch it spring up again like a punching bag on its stem….and then she screamed….From my son’s point of view, it was altogether a gratifying exercise. My intervention was always swift and decisive…I implored my son, “Don’t be rough. Be gentle.” …I am struck, now, by the strangeness of what I said to him. We don’t tell someone struggling with lust simply not to want sex; we don’t tell a glutton that his problem will be solved if he stops being hungry. Yet, I might as well have said, “Stop being a boy.”…. What I think I have come to understand about boys is that a desire to commit violence is not the same thing as a desire to commit evil. It’s a mistake for parents to presume that a fascination with the idea of blowing something away is, in itself, a disgusting habit, like nose-picking, that can and should be eradicated. The problem is not that the boy’s hand itches for a sword. The problem lies in not telling him what [the sword and itch] are for, that they are for something. If I had told my aggressive little son not, “Be gentle,” but, rather, “Protect your sister,” I might, I think, have had the right end of the stick.(This is a very brilliant insight. It is essential that we not try to destroy the innate gifts that God gives us in order to “control” them. We must learn to harness them and sublimate them so that they achieve the end to which they are intended).

Anne Roche Muggeridge, who reared four boys in the 1970s and 1980s, observes that

prevailing society now thoroughly regards young men as social invalids. . . . The fashion in education for the past three decades has been to try to make boys more like girls: to forbid them their toy guns and rough play, to engage them in exercises of “cooperation and sharing,” …to denounce any boyish roughness as “aggressive” and “sexist.”

Muggeridge writes of a visit to a doctor who urged on her a prescription for Ritalin, saying that a child as constantly active as her two-year-old son must be disturbed. “He’s not disturbed,” she responded. “He’s disturbing.” It is to realize, as Anne Roche Muggeridge did while watching her sons take turns throwing each other into a brick wall, that what you have in your house is not a human like you but a human unlike you. In short, as Muggeridge puts it, you are bringing up an “alien.” Yes, it has been very frustrating to be a man in the modern age let alone have to grow up under the tutelage of social scientists and education bureaucrats who scorn and suspect your very nature. Boys are aggressive. That is natural and good. They must be taught to master it and focus the energy of their aggression on the right object, but they should not be scorned for who and what they are. Such scorning has become for too many a sense that they are socially “enlightened.” It is time to see this attitude as a the type of bigotry and sexism that it too often is. To many women (and some feminized men) a boy in his raw state may in fact seem like an alien, but even aliens deserve respect 🙂

[There is an] initiation rite, devised and performed by our parish’s young priest twice a year in the church. This rite involves a series of solemn vows to be “a man of the Church,” “a man of prayer,” and so forth. It includes induction into the Order of the Brown Scapular, the bestowing of a decidedly manly red-and-black knot rosary, and the awarding of a red sash. What the boys look forward to, though, with much teasing of soon-to-be inductees about sharpened blades and close shaves…is the moment when a new boy kneels before Father and is whacked smartly on each shoulder with a large, impressive, and thoroughly real sword. Great idea. I’m going to work in my parish about initiating something like this.

These Holy Crusaders are, after all, ordinary boys—sweaty and goofy and physical. For them to take the Cross seriously requires something like a sword. For them to take the sword, knowing what it’s for, requires the Cross. …A boy’s natural drive to stab and shoot and smash can be shaped, in his imagination, to the image of sacrifice, of laying down his life for his friends. In the meantime, this is the key to what brings these boys to church. It’s not their mothers’ church or their sisters’ church; it is theirs, to serve and defend. Yes, yes! Amen. Greater love hath no man that to lay down his life for his friends. Christian manhood needs to be rediscovered in some segments of the Church. Too many men stay away from Church because it seems feminine to them. Sermons about duty, courage and fighting the good fight have given way to a steady diet of compassion, kindness, being nice, getting along, self actualizing and, did I mention being nice? These are not wrong virtues but they must be balanced by virtues that call us to stand up and speak out with courage, accepting our duties and fighting the good fight of faith, if necessary unto death. Men respond to the call when it is given in a way that respects their manhood. Balance is needed in the preaching and teaching of the Church and it seems that in recent decades we may have lost this in many settings, IMHO. If you think I’m crazy, remember this is a conversation. Hit the comment button and have it.

Sally Thomas, a contributing writer for FIRST THINGS, is a poet and homeschooling mother in North Carolina.

Here’s a video summoning boys unto manhood:

Posted on

"Stop eating that!" On the food moralizers and some Biblical advice about food

So, a guy goes to the doctor and says, “Doc! I’ve eliminated 99% of the fat from my diet, I’ve stopped drinking, no desserts or candy, and I only eat meat once a week! Will I live longer?” And the Doctor says, “No, it will only seem that way.”

Some years ago I read a book by a doctor who was summarizing the latest findings of medical science. But in the memorable opening line of the book he issued a “pastoral” caution, writing: Americans enjoy the best health and the longest lifespans in our history. Yet…we worry more about our health than ever before [1].  He went on to urge the reader to keep things in perspective, and to remember that health is about a lot of things in combination, not just one or two things. To reduce it simply to what a person weighs or what they eat, or how much exercise they get, is to fail to realize that there are many people who are overweight, but healthy, thin but quite ill, who eat all the wrong things but are quite healthy, who get little exercise but stay fit. Again, health is about a lot of variables interacting in a myriad of ways, to include genetics and even intangibles like one’s sense of well-being.

Anxious about food! I like you have come through the Christmas holidays, of which food is a very big part. Not just the food itself, but many of the parties and rituals surrounding it. And, as I, like you, sat at a few tables I noticed how anxious many are about what is being eaten, and what effects it might have.

Pass the Salt! To illustrate, a few nights ago, sitting at one restaurant table of a good number of friends I noticed how much of the conversation was nervously opining on what was good for you, or what was loaded with fat, or how this might have too many calories, or too much of this or that. Mischievously I asked in a rather audible voice if someone would please pass the salt. This led to a variety of largely negative reactions from laughter, to actual shock. “You know Father, you really need to stay away from that salt!” Reassuring them that my blood pressure was normal, I wondered aloud why we have all become so very anxious about food, that we don’t really seem to enjoy it. Everything is guilt ridden, and we so often moralize and even scold one another.

I wonder what it’s all about? I wonder if, a hundred years ago, people sat about anxiously opining about and discussing food’s effects, or if they just gratefully dug in with a little gusto?

It is a true fact that most Americans are overweight. Hence moderation is a good goal for most of us. But all the guilt and fear mongering is, on the one hand not very helpful, and the other hand, seems to lack appreciation for God’s gifts. There are a few Biblical lines that come to mind here about food that I would like to recall in order to make this point.

1. Let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink ….why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world? “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” These are all things destined to perish with use; they accord with human precepts and teachings. While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh. Col 2:16, 21-23).

Most generally, when Paul is talking about food in his letters, he has in mind the rather complicated situation of that time, when certain foods (especially meat), sold in the public markets had been dedicated or offered to the pagan gods. Christians seem to have been divided over whether they could eat such food. St. Paul was of the school of thought which permitted Christians to eat such food, since the gods to whom such foods had been dedicated were naught, and the Christian himself had not made the offering. But there were other Christians who were very alarmed and scandalized by any Christian eating such food. While insisting on Christian freedom to eat it, St. Paul also cautioned charity and advised that if eating such food (dedicated to the gods) in the presence of a fellow Christian would cause grief or scandal, one should, in charity, refrain. He says elsewhere Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall (1 Cor 8:13).

Now while the context of this passage is specific, its principle is general: charity and freedom in matters of food. Thus, we ought to avoid some of the more extensive moralizing and scolding that goes on at many tables today. There may be times when, due to a special relationship with a person, we may wish to remind or encourage them in good practices. For example, they may wish us to exhort them and help them lose weight, or avoid foods that are problematic for them (e.g. sugar in the case of a diabetic, salty food is the case of hypertension). But the general norm to be observed, according to this passage, is charity, respect for freedom, and the gratitude and joy that are proper to receiving God’s gift of food.

Another thing the passage eschews is an attitude of moral superiority in matters of food. For some, who have read up on nutrition, or have recently lost weight, or who have success in staying thin, are forever preaching and moralizing and proffering unwanted advice. St Paul speaks of what they say as having the semblance of wisdom, in rigor of devotion and self-abasement, and severity to the body but he goes on to warn of the pride that underlies many such methodologies, and plagues the dogmatic preachers of them, for: they are of no value against gratification of the flesh. In other words, the real enemy proceeding from the flesh (the flesh is our sin-nature, not the body per se), is pride. Better to be overweight and humble, than thin but full of pride.

Further, even if we interpret “flesh” here to mean merely the body, rigorous practices, inflicting severity upon the body, often set up opposite reactions. We see this in a lot of the yo-yo dieting common in our culture. Shaming or fear mongering the overweight into dramatic and severe programs is seldom helpful in the long run.

2. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. (Rom 14:2-4)

Here is similar advice as to what is above in the first quote, but there is also a much clearer condemnation of pride insofar as food is concerned. Notice too, that things are a bit reversed here from our experience. For, it is those of the expansive diet that tend toward pride. But the “no meat” group also fall prey by “condemning” those who do eat meat. (Remember the context wherein most meat from the local markets had been declared sacred by the pagans to the gods).

But again note that Paul emphasizes freedom and charity. In other words, Paul says, “lay off on all the food moralizing and respect your brother’s freedom, don’t let food become a matter for either ridicule or lots of excessive rules.” Hence, toward those who follow careful diets, (e.g.vegetarian diets), there ought to be no scoffing of them for this. But neither is all the moralizing and demonizing of entire food groups (and those who eat of them) proper either.

3. They [certain heretics]….order [others] to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:3-5)

Here again, Paul’s main concern in religious, and thus he warns of certain gnostic tendencies and perhaps teachings of Judaizers too, who forbid entire food groups as intrinsically evil. St. Paul is clear, all foods are clean (cf also Jesus at Mk 7:19) and should be received with thanksgiving from God who made them.

Again, the demonizing of certain food groups in our culture, either by vegetarian or the “healthy eating police” is to be questioned by a passage such as this. That some need to moderate regarding certain food or even wholly refrain from them due to medical conditions is granted. But the problem isn’t the food per se, it is the medical condition. St Paul says elsewhere: As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself (Rom 14:14).

Some question the Catholic practice of abstaining from meat in Lent based on this text. But note an important difference, we do not abstain from meat because meat is bad or evil, but because it is good. Thus it is a worthy sacrifice to set it aside for a time. We do not reject meat, we enjoy it. That is why it is a sacrifice to abstain from it.

So food ought to be enjoyed. And, to be critiqued are the modern tendencies to fret excessively about foods, categorically demonize them, scold others who enjoy them, moralize and give frequent and unwanted advice to others for their food choices, and especially doing this at the very time of communal eating. Frankly, some of these tendencies, especially when done in at the table, are rude and insensitive. If someone asks for salt, cheerfully oblige him. You are neither his doctor, nor in possession of his medical records. So smile, and as you pass the shaker say, “Ah, salt! The spice of life!”

Disclaimers:

  1. Some will say, “But Father, but Father! You must speak more about gluttony, it is a sin!” Yes, but another time. If you insist, then here:  “All things in moderation!…including moderation (for there is a time to feast).“
  2. Someone else may say, “Really Father, you must say more about obesity, and how deadly our American eating habits are in terms of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. You must give equal time to such important considerations!” Ah, yes again, but please understand, this post IS equal time. I rather doubt that anyone who has read this post hasn’t had an earful of warnings from many segments of our culture about all the medical complications of obesity.

Hence, this post IS the balance, wherein I say merely, Relax a little and enjoy life too. Food is good, excesses cause problems to be sure. But don’t work so hard to stay alive that you forget to live.

Mangia!