Yesterday I went to the movie “The Rite” and shared with you some reflections on that movie in yesterday’s post. Frankly yours truly doesn’t get to the movies much. In fact the last movie I saw in a theatre was the “Passion of the Christ.” Yes, it’s been a looong time.
But as you likely know, one of the aspects of movie going is to sit through a number of “trailers” that are shown prior to the main movie. These trailers depict movies that are coming soon. I want to share with you a brief reflection on my experience of viewing those trailers.
My fundamental reflection is how dark and violent movies have become. I must have seen at least six trailers and every one of them was packed with extreme violence, anger, and very dark themes. Many of them featured sinister evil, most of them involved life and death pursuits, explosions, gunfire, dismemberment, and car crashes filling the screen of these trailers, one after another. This is film noir on steroids. How dark and looming the themes were. I have embedded some of the trailers I saw for your viewing “pleasure” at the end of this post.
It also strikes me how much these movies resemble video games more than regular movies or real life. People walk on walls, have magical powers, use exotic weapons, and appear and disappear at will. The landscapes are often surreal and some of the characters are not even human. Further, the pace of the movies seems unrelenting and the dialogue is staccato. We are rushed from one shot-em up scene to the next, and fresh, hot, close pursuit seems the point of it all. There seems little appeal to an attention span. I am sure that the filmmakers know their audience and, for those raised on video games (I was not, they came after my teen years) staccato dialogue, chase scenes, rapid pace and violent explosion after violent explosion may appeal. To me it seems very dark and the violence is extreme.
Call me out of touch. I realize I don’t get out enough. Call me stuffy, I am becoming old fashioned. Call me uptight, you might even be right. Maybe I should relax and say there’s no problem here, it’s just fantasy. But I would also like to argue that, due to the fact that I don’t have a steady diet of all this sort of thing, I have not become desensitized to the violence and darkness of modern action movies. Maybe it is worth being the odd man in the room for a minute. Perhaps it is important for someone like me to come from “another planet” or to “step off a turnip truck” and be quite surprised, even shocked at what is marketed. Maybe I am the one to ask with some exasperation, “What on earth is THAT all about?”
And I will admit, I have also been on something of a personal journey is this regard. When I was younger, especially in my 20s I was like most men my age. I loved a good action movie with something of a “high kill ratio.” Blowing up stuff, chase scenes, etc. appealed to me. But somewhere in my journey I heard the Lord say to me, “It’s not good to find that sort of thing entertaining.” Indeed, real violence is horrifying. Actual murders are awful. Even low speed car crashes also cause great injury. In the movies, our hero walks away from the crash scene. But in real life car crashes cause, broken bones, back and neck injury, neuropathy, even paralysis and death. It’s not “cool” at all.
Real Death – In my last assignment I lived in a very tough neighborhood. There were murders every week. And two people were killed right on my Church grounds. It was pretty awful to see a young man lying on my parking lot who had just been shot to death. He had died in a gunfight that took place on our grounds even while the children were at recess just on the other side of the Church. I remember, I left the bullet holes in my Church window unrepaired for a long time in silent protest to the violence. There was also a woman who was stabbed to death in front of my rectory. I still remember the crime scene tape and her lifeless body lying there. She was well known to all in the area as one of the neighborhood beggars. She had her troubles but basically she was a sweetie. Violence like this was no movie. Real people were killed. Real children were threatened by nearby violence. This was no cartoonish movie, it was real violence, real murder and real threat.
Somewhere in the years that have transpired, I have lost my taste for violent movies. I have stopped finding them exciting, entertaining or even all that interesting. I am not on some crusade to end such movies, but I do rejoice that they no longer appeal to me. I think that is grace at work. Deep in my heart I always knew there was something wrong with enjoying movies that featured violent killing.
And so, there I was yesterday in a theatre. And suddenly the lights went down and the screen lit up. But the light flickering on the screen seemed very dark. And I thought of the words of Jesus who said, Your eye is a lamp that provides light for your body. When your eye is good, your whole body is filled with light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (Matt 6:22-23).
So, how say you? Should I just “lighten up” (pardon the pun)? Am I being too severe? Are these movies just good fun? And remember, it’s not just their violence, it is their dark themes. Recall too, I am trying to start a conversation here not pontificate. When it comes to cultural trends there are always going to be different views, even among believers. I am interested in your views.
I have been working on a photo project today and have not been able to spend much time on the Blog. I wonder if you might permit me to re-present an older blog on a movie that has a lot to say to us about our culture and what we have lost. Perhaps some new readers to the blog will not have seen this post that I wrote about a year and a half ago.
There was a movie from back in the late 1990s called “Blast From The Past” The Movie begins in the early 60s at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. An eccentric man and his pregnant wife have built and elaborate fallout shelter underground in their backyard. It is no ordinary bomb shelter but a large and well stocked one that even allows the growing of food and fish and has many amenities.
When a plane crashes nearby they think the country is under attack and that the Atom Bomb has hit. They run into the shelter and lock it behind them setting the automatic locks not to open for 35 years when the radiation had dissipated.
During this time the pregnant wife gives birth to their son, Adam whom they raise in that shelter. Adam receives the usual education one would expect in the early 60s, strong on reading, writing and arithmetic, American and world history. He also obtains a liberal arts college education from his father who was a professor. The education included Latin, Greek, French and German. Adam also learns all the usual social skills of that time such as basic manners, how to treat a lady, ballroom dancing, the meaning of life. He is also raised to reverence God.
In a way the family was frozen in time and preserved the values of that time of the early 60s. The film does not present that time as flawless. The mother has a bit of a drinking problem, the father is rather eccentric and xenophobic etc.
Suddenly it is 1997 and the locks come open. The family makes its first excursion since the “bomb” went off. The father expects to find that those who survived will show signs of radiation poisoning and that the world will surely manifest many signs of the destruction the bomb surely wrought so they go forth cautiously.
Now, you and I know that no atom bomb ever did go off. Or did it? As they emerge from the bomb shelter the once quaint neighborhood they lived in has become a red light district. They see shocking things. Not only prostitutes and adult book stores, but also drug addicts, trash-filled streets and signs of grave disorder. People are coarse in their behavior etc. They run back into the shelter concluding that things are worse than they thought. They send their son Adam out to get provisions and possibly to find a wife if he can locate someone who is less effected by the “radiation.” Then they will once again throw the locks on the shelter and wait for things to improve on the outsiide lest they be poisoned by it all. In this scene Adam emerges from the shelter and first encounters a drug addict who thinks Adam is God. Adam then goes forth and sees things and people outside for the first time.
As Adam goes forth he discovers that beyond the world of the red light district is less devastated but he still struggles with what he experiences. Families seem in disarray, people are coarse, cynical, and use God’s name in vain. The technology amazes him as do simple things like rain, the open sky and the ocean. In this scene he is troubled by some modern cultural trends and then sees the ocean for the first time:
It is quite clear to us who watch the movie that much has been lost. Adam is head and shoulders above the modern people who surround him. He is kind, respectful, polite, innocent in his interpretation of the world. He is much smarter than those around him as well, having quite an encyclopedic knowledge compared to the moderns around him. In this scene two things are illustrated: his superior education and also his coming to grips with modern technology. How can a computer (a giant thing in his world) be in a house?
And he can dance, really dance! Not just the gyrating common in modern dance floors but the flawless execution of 40s swing is natural to him since he was trained in every form of ballroom dancing by his parents. Here is a dance scene that shows that, while dancing was getting a little risque, it still required training and talent. Pardon some of the language in this clip, but remember the coarsening of culture is what is in on display here.
He is befriended by a young lady named Eve and her brother. They think him to be strange and naive but come to discover he has much to teach. In this scene they ponder something he has taught them about graciousness, kindness and the blessing of strong family ties.
This movie is worth seeing. It is not preachy (like me). It gently suggests to us that we have lost some important things in the past 40 years. Things like kindness, optimism, the value of traditional education, the importance of parents teaching and raising their kids. In many ways the movie gently suggests that we have become coarse, cynical, even vulgar. Family ties have often been severed and culture has melted down to more base level. Education is less thorough and broad, simple things like learning to dance are lost.
As I have already said, the early 1960s was not a perfect time. Many troublesome cultural trends were already well underway. These are not unreported in the movie. But still the point remains, some things of great value have been lost. Adam and his family entered the shelter at the end of an era. Then, a young man steps out the past and is bewildered by what he finds. Technology is impressive, but people seem lost and cynical. The world is hostile and disordered. But he brings with him some healing balm, some of the best virtues of the past, to remind us all that we have lost important things along the way.
The bomb did go off. Not the Atom Bomb, but an even more devastating cultural bomb. Rebuilding will take time.
The magnificence of life is really too wonderful too describe. But I found this description some years ago which summons reverence by its very ability to baffle the mind:
MIRACLE OF LIFE– Consider the miracle of the human body. Its chemistry is just as extraordinarily well tuned as is the physics of the cosmos. Our world on bothsides of the divide that separates life from lifelessness is filled with wonder. Each human cell has a double helix library of three billion base pairs providing fifty thousand genes. These three billion base pairs and fifty thousand genes somehow engineer 100 trillion neural connections in the brain—-enough points of information to store all the data and information contained in a fifty-million-volume encyclopedia. And then after that, these fifty thousand genes set forth a million fibers in the optic nerves, retinae having ten million pixels per centimeter, some ten billion in all, ten thousand taste buds, ten million nerve endings for smell, cells that exude a chemical come-on to lure an embryo’s lengthening neurons from spinal cord to target cell, each one of the millions of target cells attracting the proper nerve from the particular needed function. And all this three-dimensional structure arises somehow from the linear, one-dimensional information contained along the DNA helix. Did all this happen by chance or do you see the hand of God?
Today, many of us march for life, here in Washington, on the West Coast, and in other communities. Today we ponder the great mystery that is expressed in the 139th psalm:
For it was you who created my being, knit me together in my mother’s womb. I thank you for the wonder of my being…Already you knew my soul my body held no secret from you when I was being fashioned in secret….every one of my days was decreed before one of them came into being. To me, how mysterious your thoughts, the sum of them not to be numbered! (Psalm 139 varia)
No human being is an accident, no conception a surprise or inconvenience to God. Mysteriously he knew and loved us long before we were ever conceived, for he says, Before I ever formed you in the womb I knew you (Jer 1:4). And, as the psalm says above, God has always known everything we would ever do or be.
It is often mysterious to us why human life is, at times, conceived in difficult circumstances such as poverty, times of family struggle or crisis, or even conceived with disability and disadvantage. But in the end we see so very little and must ponder the mystery of God’s reminder that many who are “last” now are going to be first in the kingdom (e.g. Matt 20:16; Luke 1:52-53).
So today, many will march, and all are called to remember the sacred lives that have been lost. We acknowledge our loss, for the gifts of these children and their lives have been swept from us as well. We pray for women who struggle to bring children to term and experience pressure to consider abortion. We pray for the immediate and sudden conversion of all support legalized abortion for any reason and for a dedication to assist women facing any difficulty in giving birth to or raising their children.
The following video is a shortened version of the masterpiece video called “Genesis” by Ramos David. It magnificently depicts fetal development. I have taken the liberty of adding a different music track since this is a shortened version. The Music is William Byrd: Optimam Partem Elegit (She has Chosen the Best Part), a text most fitting since we pray all mothers will choose life. The full length video is found in higher definition on YouTube by searching under “Genesis Ramos David”
Priests at St Lucia’s Cathedral in Colombo are insisting that young women cover their heads while at Mass. The move is part of a drive to have churchgoers dress appropriately during religious ceremonies.
Many Catholics have complained that churchgoers in Colombo turn up for services in short skirts, halter tops, low cut blouses and shorts. In a recent Sunday homily, Father John Paul Vinoth, ….a priest at the cathedral, said that modest dressing would help create an atmosphere that is more “conducive to a spiritual experience.”…..
“Modest dress is beginning to disappear,” said Father Anthony Victor Sosai, who is also vicar general of Mannar diocese….. noting that Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim places of worship have enforced a strict dress code for centuries.
Laypeople have also expressed concern over declining dress standards.
These are excerpts, the full article can be found HERE
[N.B. I am suffering from a rather bad stomach virus and all the unpleasantries that go with it. I hope you won’t mind if I recycle an old, but popular post on the issue of women and veils. Perhaps some newer readers to the blog have never seen it. I should be back in shape tomorrow if this is one of those 24 hour things. ]
This blog post is not meant to be a directive discussion about what should be done. Rather an informative discussion about the meaning of head coverings for women in the past and how such customs might be interpreted now. We are not in the realm of liturgical law here just preference and custom.
What I’d like to do is to try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church. The picture at the right was taken by LIFE Magazine in the early 1960s.
With the more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, the use of the veil is also becoming more common. But even at the Latin Masses I celebrate, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all.
History – the wearing of a veil or hat for women seems to have been a fairly consistent practice in the Church in the West until fairly recently. Practices in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches have varied. Protestant denominations also show a wide diversity in this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church mandated that women wear a veil or head covering. Prior to 1917 there was no universal Law but it was customary in most places for women to wear some sort of head covering. The 1983 Code of Canon Law made no mention of this requirement and by the 1980s most women, at least here in America, had ceased to wear veils or hats anyway. Currently there is no binding rule and the custom in most places is no head covering at all.
Scripture – In Biblical Times women generally wore veils in any public setting and this would include the Synagogue. The clearest New Testament reference to women veiling or covering their head is from St. Paul:
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:1-11)
This is clearly a complicated passage and has some unusual references. Paul seems to set forth four arguments as to why a woman should wear a veil.
1. Argument 1 – Paul clearly sees the veil a woman wears as a sign of her submission to her husband. He also seems to link it to modesty since his references to a woman’s hair cut short were references to the way prostitutes wore their hair and his reference to a shaved head was the punishment due an adultress. No matter how you look at it such arguments aren’t going to encourage a lot of women to wear a veil today. It is a true fact that the Scriptures consistently teach that a wife is to be submitted to her husband. I cannot and will not deny what God’s word says even though it is unpopular. However I will say that the same texts that tell a woman to be submitted tell the husband to have a great and abiding love for his wife. I have blogged on this “difficult” teaching on marriage elsewhere and would encourage you to read that blog post if you’re troubled or bothered by the submission texts. It is here:
2. Argument 2 – Regarding the Angels– Paul also sees a reason for women to wear veils “because of the angels.” This is a difficult reference to understand. There are numerous explanations I have read over the years. One of the less convincing ones is that the angels are somehow distracted by a woman’s beauty. Now the clergy might be 🙂 but it just doesn’t seem likely to me that the angels would have this problem. I think the more convincing argument is that St. Paul has Isaiah in mind who wrote: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft.(Is 6:2-3). Hence the idea seems to be that since the angels veil their faces (heads) it is fitting for women to do the same. But then the question, why not a man too? And here also Paul supplies an aswer that is “difficult” for modern ears: A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. In other words a man shares God’s glory immediately whereas a woman does as well but derivatively for she was formed from Adam’s wounded side. Alas this argument too will not likely cause a run on veil sales.
3. Argument 3 – The argument from “nature” – In effect Paul argues that since nature itself veils a woman with long hair and this is her glory that this also argues for her covering her head in Church. What is not clear is that, if nature has already provided this covering, why then should she cover her covering? I want to take up this notion of glory in my conclusion.
4. Argument 4- The Argument from Custom– This argument is pretty straight-forward: Paul says it is customary for a woman to cover her head when praying and, other things being equal, this custom should be followed. Paul goes on to assert that those who insist on doing differently are being “argumentative.” In effect he argues that for the sake of good order and to avoid controversy the custom should be followed. However, in calling it a custom, the text also seems to allow for a time like ours where the custom is different. Customs have stability but are not usually forever fixed. Hence, though some argue that wearing veils is a scriptural norm that women “must” follow today, the use of the word custom seems to permit of the possibility that it is not an unvarying norm we are dealing with here. Rather, it is a custom from that time that does not necessarily bind us today. This of course seems to be how the Church understands this text for she does not require head coverings for her daughters.
Conclusions –
1. That women are not required to wear veils today is clear in terms of Church Law. The argument that the Church is remiss in not requiring this of her daughters is hard to sustain when scriptures attach the word “custom” to the practice. There may be some local ordinances by bishop’s conferences but there is no universal Church law on this matter.
2. I will say however that I like veils and miss women wearing them. When I was a boy in the 1960s my mother and sister always wore their veils and so did all women in those days and I remember how modestly beautiful I found them to be. When I see women wear them today I have the same impression.
3. That said, a woman does not go to Church to please or impress me.
4. It is worth noting that a man is still forbidden to wear a hat in Church. If I see it I go to him and ask him to remove it. There a partial exception to the clergy who are permitted to wear birettas and to bishops who are to wear the miter. However, there are strict rules in this regard that any head cover is to be removed when they go to the altar. Hence, for men, the rule, or shall we say the custom, has not changed.
5. This leads me then to a possible understanding of the wearing of the veil for women and the uncovered head for the men that may be more useful to our times. Let’s call it The Argument from Humility.
For both men and women, humility before God is the real point of these customs. In the ancient world as now, women gloried in their hair and often gave great attention to it. St. Paul above, speaks of a woman’s hair as her glory. As a man I am not unappreciative of this glory. Women do wonderful things with their hair. As such their hair is part of their glory and, as St. Paul says it seems to suggest above it is appropriate to cover our glory before the presence of God.
As for men, in the ancient world and to some lesser extent now, hats often signified rank and membership. As such men displayed their rank and membership in organizations with pride in the hats they wore. Hence Paul tells them to uncover their heads and leave their worldly glories aside when coming before God. Today men still do some of this (esp. in the military) but men wear less hats in general. But when they do they are often boasting of allegiances to sports teams and the like. Likewise, some men who belong to fraternal organizations such as the various Catholic Knights groups often display ranks on their hats. We clergy do this as well to some extent with different color poms on birettas etc. Paul encourages all this to be left aside in Church. As for the clergy, though we may enter the Church with these ranked hats and insignia, we are to cast them aside when we go to the altar. Knights organizations are also directed to set down their hats when the Eucharistic prayer begins.
I do not advance this argument from humility to say women ought to cover their heads, for I would not require what the Church does not. But I offer the line of reasoning as a way to understand veiling in a way that is respectful of the modern setting, IF a woman chooses to use the veil. Since this is just a matter of custom then we are not necessarily required to understand its meaning in exactly the way St. Paul describes. Submission is biblical but it need not be the reason for the veil. Humility before God seems a more workable understanding especially since it can be seen to apply to both men and women in the way I have tried to set it forth.
There are an amazing number of styles when it comes to veils and mantillas: Mantillas online
This video gives some other reasons why a woman might wear a veil. I think it does a pretty good job of showing some of the traditions down through the centuries. However I think the video strays from what I have presented here in that it seems to indicate that women ought to wear the veil and that it is a matter of obedience. I do not think that is what the Church teaches in this regard. There can be many good reasons to wear the veil but I don’t think we can argue that obedience to a requirement is one of them.
It has been said that if we want to discover what we really value most we need to look honestly at what we spend our time and money on. Most Christians, if asked what they value most will answer, “God.” But that is the expected answer. The truest answer can be found by looking at our calendars and spending habits.
Disclaimer – The text that follows makes use of the collective “we.” The use of this collective pronoun is not to be interpreted as the “absolute” as in “Every single one of us does this without exception.” Rather the collective “we” bespeaks a general human tendency that will, in fact vary from person to person. Hence not all of what you read may apply to you. Nothing should be taken personally. There is a saying, “If the shoe fits wear it. Otherwise, let it pass over you.” With this disclaimer in mind let’s look at how “we” make use of money and time and what this might saying about what we truly values and what our priorities truly are.
If we look to our spending habits we discover that, at least in the modern American setting, our greatest love is creature comforts and entertainment. Even the necessities we purchase like food, clothing and shelter are riddled with comfort. For example we buy a lot of food that soothes and merely appeals to taste but is otherwise junk. We buy homes that do far more than shelter us, but feature vast entertainment areas, widescreen TVs, large open kitchens, great rooms, cathedral ceilings, pools and patios. Our clothes too must come in every variety, matching shoes and ensembles. Even our cars have plush and adjustable seats, and have entertainment centers installed to include: fine Bose sound, mp3 players, Satellite radio, even flat screen TVs that play movies. All of this adds a hefty price tag to our increasingly high and comfortable standard of living, and we pay it! It goes a long way to show how highly we value comfort and entertainment.
But as for God, he too easily gets the financial leftovers. We may spend hundreds of dollars at a fine restaurant, 20 to 30 dollars going to the movies, hundreds more to go to a cold wet stadium and watch football and eat over-priced hotdogs. We will plop down large amounts for video games and Wii accessories, and yet feel like a hero if we drop $10 in the collection plate instead of our usual $5. Never mind that Scripture says that God is to get the first 10% of our income (e.g. Malachi 3:8-12), the fact is, he usually gets the leftovers. After the mortgage, car note, cable bill, magazine subscription and credit card bill are paid, after all the impulse spending, we figure out what, if anything is left and from that give to God. But truth be told He doesn’t get paid upfront like the like Mr. Walmart, God gets the leftovers.
For things we really like, money is no object, Charge it! But giving to the Archbishop’s Lenten Appeal, or increasing our offertory to afford the new parish education building is considered an odious imposition and our soul cries out, “Not again?!” Catholic School education has surely gone up in price and that is a factor in the dropping enrollment but many Catholic families still manage to afford some pretty nice stuff.
The fact is we just don’t value God and the things of God like we value comfort and entertainment. It may be a hard truth but it’s right there in our spending habits, plain as day. At the end of the day our priorities are pretty plain.
And as for our time – here too the overall portrait is pretty bleak. The vast majority of Catholics give NO time to God at all. 3/4 s don’t even go to Mass. Quite certainly they don’t pray either on any regular basis, if at all. As for the 20-25% who do go to Mass God gets 45 – 60 minutes a week. But beyond that, how much does the average Catholic pray each day? How much time do they spend with Scripture or the study of their faith. To be fair, many Catholics do attend bible studies, adult ed and/or other Church activities, but many do none of this.
Time for everything else – Now, of course, everyone is busy in these stress filled times. But we find time for everything else. We find time to sleep and eat, time to watch our favorite shows. We find time for vacations and other diversions. Many people can spend hours shopping, watching sports games, movies and the like. But when it comes to prayer, study of the faith, teaching the faith to children, reading Scripture, or helping the poor…., well, you know, “I’m just so busy.”
At the football game everyone is excited when it goes into overtime. But if Mass runs long, there is irritation. Football is about a bag full of air being pitched around a field. But Mass is about eternal verities and soul-saving grace. But never mind, five hours on football is reasonable, but a Mass longer than 45 minutes is unreasonable.
The truth, as told by time, is that many value leisure and worldly activities far more than God or the faith. We may wish to doubt this but it is written right into our calendars and the balance isn’t even close. For most people God gets nothing of their time, for some he gets an hour a week, only a very small percentage give more.
Disclaimer 2 – It is a true fact that we cannot spend all day in a chapel or give all our money to God. Most people have significant and serious obligations they must meet financially and temporally toward others. Meeting obligations IS part of our holiness. Yet most of us do have disposable income and leisure time. It is how we make use of these resources that we must most look to discover how highly God really ranks in our world.
Telling the truth by time and money remains very instructive for us. Very instructive indeed.
From CBS News comes the following story related to the question of Christian brotherhood. These are only excerpts the full story is HERE. In these excerpts, the original text is in black, bold, italics and my comments are in normal text red.
Alabama Republican Governor Robert Bentley said….that he does not consider Americans who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior to be his brothers and sisters.
Technically, and in the strict religious sense of the term, “brother,” he is right. It is Baptism, incorporation into Christ, that makes us brethren. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn (CCC # 1271)
However, Gov. Bentley is likely ill-advised to talk of this sort of thing in a civic setting where the term “brother” is not used in the strict religious sense. It is true that he spoke in a Baptist Church, (Dexter Ave Baptist) but the gathering was a civic gathering to Honor Dr. Martin Luther King for his Civil Rights legacy. In civil discourse, terms like “brothers and sisters” are more reflective of a common humanity and, to some extent, the notion of a shared citizenship. In the common expression “My fellow Americans” it will be noted that “fellow” is a synonym for “brother” or “common family member.” It is important to understand how words are used and understood in different settings. Failing to do this can cause misunderstanding and give offense, as the Governor has done.
“There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit,” Bentley said shortly after taking the oath of office….But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have….It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”Yes, perhaps in the strict religious sense the term that is true, but, as stated, there are other notions of brotherhood that are used and accepted outside religious circles that the Governor does not seem to recognize. While the unbaptized present may not be his religious brethren, they can be said to be brethren in the wider and more common, civic, and general use of the term.
”Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters,” he continued. “So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.” Here too, some distinctions are in order. We can use the term “Father” for God in at least two senses.
In one sense he is Father, for He is the origin of all things. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, In Israel, God is called “Father” inasmuch as he is Creator of the world. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, “his first-born son”. God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is “the Father of the poor”, of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection. By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority(CCC # 238-239). From this point of view we DO share a common “daddy” and all are made in the image and likeness of God.
In a second and religious sense however, no one knows the Father except the Son. Hence only Jesus is the Son of the Father in the truest and strictest sense. We therefore can only expereince God as Father fully by being incorporated into Christ by baptism. Then, as members of Christ’s body, we share in Christ’s perfect sonship and experience God as Father in the truest and fullest sense. In this sense the Catechism states plainly, We can invoke God as “Father” because the Son of God made man has revealed him to us. In this Son, through Baptism, we are incorporated and adopted as sons of God (CCC # 2798). While this gives a certain gift, enjoyed only the baptized, the Catechism also reminds us: The baptized cannot pray to “our” Father without bringing before him all those for whom he gave his beloved Son. God’s love has no bounds, neither should our prayer….. [We pray] with and for all who do not yet know him, so that Christ may “gather into one the children of God.” (Jn 11:52) God’s care for all men and for the whole of creation…should extend our prayer to the full breadth of love whenever we dare to say “our” Father. (CCC # 2793) Hence the Governor’s final sentiment is a good one, in desiring all to be his brethren. But in failing to make proper distinctions and understand common from strict usage he unecessisarily offends.
American Atheists President David Silverman told Hotsheet that the comments were “bigoted” and show that Bentley “puts his Bible above the Constitution of the United States……Being the governor of all people means that you are a representative of all people. It certainly does not mean that you abuse your position to push your religion on people who differ from your faith.”It doesn’t seem fair to say he is pushing his religion on people. It was probably wrong for the Governor to make such acute religious remarks in a civic setting, but it does not mean he is pushing his religion.
The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish rights group, also condemned the comments. “It is shocking that Governor Bentley would suggest that non-Christians are not worthy of the same love and respect he professes to have for the Christian community,”….His comments…. also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor.”Here too it doesn’t seem fair to interpret the Governor’s remarks as to “suggest that non-Christians are not worthy of the same love and respect he professes to have for the Christian community.” Even if his notions are flawed by being improperly distinguished, it does not follow that he considers others are not worthy etc. And while, the ADL leader is not wrong to have concerns about equal treatment under the Law, this is monitored through the political process and the balance of power. It is unlikely that any human being is wholly exempt from experiencing a special closeness to certain members of his constituency who share similar backgrounds. For example, a Jewish Governor would likely experience a special closeness to fellow Jews. However, whatever special affinity a Governor might feel, he must be judicious and even handed in his decisions. This is clear. Frankly Governor Bentley was not very smart to voice his special affinity with Christians, even though it is likely and understandably there. There are just some things you shouldn’t say.
Nigut added: “Governor Bentley’s remarks suggest that he is determined to use his new position to proselytize for Christian conversion. If he does so, he is dancing dangerously close to a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids government from promoting the establishment of any religion.” This is fair enough. The Governor was acting in an official capacity at a swearing in, and should not have engaged in this sort of sectarian reflection, articulated religious divisions or expressed wishes for conversions. As a private citizen he is free to do so, but not as the Governor at a public and civic function. General expressions of prayer and support, commending the state to the care of God are all fine, and part of the American tradition. But extended comments about the theology of faith and baptism and the use of terms in their strict religious sense, is going too far.
Bentley’s….communications director, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, told the Birmingham News, “He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike.” While Bentley, a deacon at a Baptist church, drew a distinction between Christians and non-Christians in his comments, he also said he was “color blind” and would represent all the people in his state.OK, fine. But the bottom line is that a lot of unnecssary things were said that ultimately required reassurances that would have been unnecessary had the Governor used a bit more prudence. His remarks were appropriate at a Catechism class, but not a swearing in where he was bound to be misunderstood.
Most of you who read this blog regularly know that I am a big believer in evangelization and think that all of us need to witness to Christ more than we currently do. That said, prudence is also necessary and the evangelizer will do well to know a bit of his audience and acknowledge the setting. Words and expressions, that may be properly understood in the Church setting, are not always the first way we speak to the secular world. Further, beginning with what divides us is not always the best way to begin. Seeking common ground and building trust is often a more fruitful approach. Beginning by saying “Well you’re not really my brother and God really isn’t your Father” is not likely going to move the conversation very far. People tend to shut down or react upon this sort of talk. There are times to discuss our differences frankly, but not in this sort of setting.
Finally, there are some legitimate limits that civil officials should observe when acting in their official capacity. These days there are clearly too many limits imposed. But Governor Bentley went too far in his reflections and provoked more than he prophesied.
And now some pointers from the great evangelizer, Fr. Barron
There’s been a lot of talk about “civility” in the news. Unfortunately it is all wrapped up in politics and is currently being batted about as a thinly veiled political provocation. That is of course paradoxical to say the least (civility used as a kind of club)! My hope is to avoid all the politics here and try to focus on the biblical data related to civility. In the end, the scriptural texts strike a certain balance that may be helpful for us to consider, as we shall see.
The word “civility” dates back to about the mid 16th century and has an older meaning that referred to one who possessed the quality of having been schooled in the humanities. In academic settings, debate, at least historically, was governed by a tendency to be highly nuanced, careful, cautious, formal and trained in rhetorical skill. It’s rules were also prone to refer to one’s opponents by honorary titles (Doctor, professor etc.) and euphemisms such as “my worthy opponent.” Hence, as the word enters into ordinary usage it comes to mean speech or behavior that is polite, courteous, gentle and measured.
As one might guess, there are a lot of cultural variances in what is considered to be civil. And this insight is very important when we look at the biblical data of what constituted civil discourse. Frankly, the biblical world was far less dainty about discourse than we have become in 21st century America. The scriptures, to include the New Testament, are filled with vigorous discourse. Jesus for example, really mixes it up with his opponents and even calls them names. We shall see more of this in a moment. But the scriptures also counsel charity and warn of unnecessarily angry speech. In the end a balance of the Scriptural witness to civility must be sought along with an appreciation of the cultural variables at work.
Let’s examine a few of the texts that counsel charity and a modern and American notion of civility:
Words from a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. (Eccl 10:12)
The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools. (Eccles 9:17)
Anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:22)
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Eph 4:29)
Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged (Col 3:21)
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be (James 3:9-10)
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry (James 1:19)
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, (Col 4:6)
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up (1 Thess 5:11)
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips (Col 3:8)
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification (Rom 14:19)
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness ( Gal 6:1)
Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thess 3:15).
Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort [the repentant sinner], so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow (2 Cor 2:7).
So, all these texts counsel a measured, charitable and edifying discourse. Name-calling and hateful or unnecessary expressions of anger are out of place. And this is a strong biblical tradition, especially in the New Testament.
But there are also strong contrasts to this instruction evident in the Biblical data as well. And, a lot of it from an unlikely source, Jesus. Paul too who wrote many of the counsels above often manifests strident denunciations of his opponents and even members of the early Church. Consider some of the passages below, first by Jesus then by Paul and other Apostles:
Jesus said, “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?” (Matthew 12:34).
And Jesus turned on them and said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. “Woe to you, blind guides!…..You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. ….You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean….And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matt 23 varia).
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me….You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire…..He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” (John 8:42-47)
Jesus said, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me (Mark 7:6)
And Jesus answered them, O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long must I tolerate you!? (Mark 9:19)
Jesus said to the disciples, “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matt 7:11)
Jesus said to the crowd, “I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. (Jn 5:41-42)
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables (John 2:15)
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70)
Paul: O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,….As for those circumcisers , I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Galatians 3, 5)
Paul against the false apostles: And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (2 Cor 11:11-14)
Paul on the Cretans: Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith (Titus 1:12-13)
[Peter Against Dissenters:] Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings….these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish…..They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done….They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!….Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2, varia)
[Jude against dissenters] These dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings….these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain;….These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever…..These men are grumblers and fault finders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. (Jude 1:varia)
Now, most of the passages above would violate modern norms about civil discourse. Are they sinful? They are God’s word! And yet, they seem rather shocking to modern ears. Imagine getting into your time machine and going to hear Jesus denounce the crowds and calling them children of the devil. It really blows a 21 Century mind
I want to suggest to you that these sorts of quotes go a long way to illustrate the cultural dimension of what it means to be civil. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular point, say of preparing the meal, than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them.Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive debate are common. But in the upper Midwest and parts of the Deep South conversation is more gentle and reserved.
At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently quite “normal” for, as we see, Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc. Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus also teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter.
Jesus also engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong, they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it, but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture expected things like this from prophets.
Careful –Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.
On the other hand we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the very act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.
Balance – The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First that we should speak the truth in love, and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.
Here are two videos that display the zeal of Jesus and a bit of his anger. The Passages depicted are John 6 and John 8.
Earlier today, January 11, 2011, the federal government continued its assault on the religious liberty of Catholic institutions when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Manhattan College could not prevent faculty from unionizing on the basis that it is a religious institution. Despite acknowledging that the College is recognized as Catholic by the New York Archdiocese, the NLRB reviewed College statements and course content, finding “that the purpose of the College is secular and not the ‘propagation of a religious faith’.”
We have a very important moral tale here.
By way of a disclaimer I want to say that I know nothing of Manhattan College in New York and thus I do not direct my remarks specifically to the College. It may well be that the judges in this case was unfair. But, generally speaking, it’s pretty bad when Caesar (i.e. the State) has to tell a Catholic College it’s not Catholic. This of course is really more the role of a bishop, but it would seem that the bishops have largely avoided making such declarations. In this case a government agency gave the college the “come to Jesus” talk.
Another example – Again I am not sure if the “non-Catholic” assessment was fair to this college or not, since I know nothing of it. I am more aware of the situation of another Catholic college in the US, (not in DC), which had a similar problem years ago. The accrediting agency did its five year evaluation of this certain Catholic college and returned the verdict that while the academics were adequate, the Catholic identity advertised by the college was a sham. They gave only a provisional accreditation and required the “Catholic” college to do a self study about how to make it’s Catholic identity a true fact or to be prepared to drop claims to being Catholic. The college in question was, at the time, on Playboy’s top ten list of “party” schools. Drugs, alcohol and sexually transmitted diseases were epidemic. Jello-wrestling and R Rated movies were common in the Student Union. Just about every year students were killed in drunk driving incidents near the campus. The moral life of most students was, thus, in the sewer and campus ministry was ineffective at best. The theology department was also riddled with dissent. Sadly, it took a secular accreditation agency to blow the whistle and demand reform.
Yet another example – About seven years ago a Catholic Charities Agency California was informed by a California judge that they would have to provide contraceptives in their medical benefits plan for employees. He refused to accept a claim of religious exemption and ruled that there was nothing “Catholic” about this agency of Catholic Charities since they took primarily government money and gave it to the poor. Further, none of their literature mentioned Jesus Christ or sought to promote the Catholic Faith. Hence, they were secular, not Catholic, and thus had no claim to religious exemptions. Here too, I cannot say if the Judge was fair since I have no direct knowledge of Catholic Charities in the particular diocese in question.
It is of course possible to see these matters only in terms of religious liberty. But I want to suggest to you that we have some serious reflection as a Church to make. Perhaps a couple of Biblical examples will set the stage.
1. Abram – In the Book of Genesis we are taught how God chose Abram (later Abraham) and called him to set forth to a new land as the Patriarch of chosen people, (Gen 12). In great faith Abram set out and God led him to Canaan where he eventually settled in Bethel (a name which means “House of God”) (Gen 12:8). But there was a famine in the land and, instead of staying and trusting God, he left Bethel and went to Egypt (Gen 12:10), though God had said no such thing. Now Egypt is a symbol of the world and is distinct from Bethel which is a symbol of the “House of God.” And while in Egypt Abram prospered, but sinned mightily by prostituting his wife Sarai, placing her in Pharaoh’s harem so as to secure his own safety and prosperity (Gen 12:11-15).
Now Abram is chosen by God, he is God’s man and God gave him an inheritance. But Abram forsook his glory from heaven and preferred worldly glories and comforts. God would have to shame Abram back to his senses. The biblical text says:
But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” (Gen 12:17-19)
So it took Pharaoh to compel Abram to leave Egypt (the world) and return to Bethel (House of God). Frankly it is a rather embarrassing moment in salvation history.
2. Another example is Jonah. Jonah was God’s chosen man and designated prophet to go to the east to Nineveh and proclaim a word of repentance to them. But Jonah fled to the west on a ship. A storm blew up that so threatened the ship that the experienced sailors began to pray to their gods. But the chosen man of the one, True God, Jonah remained asleep! Finally, after casting lots, the sailors discovered Jonah was the source of their problem and roused him from his sleep to rebuke him:
What have you done?” (They knew he was running away from the LORD, because he had already told them so). The sea was getting rougher and rougher. So they asked him, “What should we do to you to make the sea calm down for us?” “Pick me up and throw me into the sea,” he replied, “and it will become calm. I know that it is my fault that this great storm has come upon you.” Instead, the men did their best to row back to land. But they could not, for the sea grew even wilder than before. Then they cried out to the LORD, “Please, LORD, do not let us die for taking this man’s life. Do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man, for you, LORD, have done as you pleased.” Then they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm. At this the men greatly feared the LORD, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows to him (Jonah 1:11ff)
And thus it was that pagan sailors were more repentant and moral than God’s chosen prophet. Another great embarrassment to be sure.
The fact is that the Church is to be a light to the world, but it sometimes happens that we fall short and God must allow the world itself to rebuke us. The Christian community is supposed to be self-correcting. It is an embarrassing truth that it sometimes takes Caesar to tell us to give to God what is God’s, to be more serious about our Christian walk, and to be true in our claims to be Catholic.
Another example – More widely known than the cases above, is the recent sexual abuse scandal. The actual abuse was terrible enough but was then compounded by the credible accusations of a lack of action evident in certain dioceses, which meant abuse in those places was often unaddressed and even, in some cases, covered up. It really took serious legal penalties to end the problem. The judicial branch of government (which had long been lenient in this matter as well) had to awaken the proper level of outrage. This is perhaps the most lasting disappointment on the part of many towards the Church in this matter.
From the Newman Society blog comes this advice for Catholic Colleges and universities:
It must be noted….that any available exemptions for religious institutions will not apply if a college that was founded as a religious institution has become largely secular. It is therefore vital that Catholic colleges and universities maintain their Catholic identity in all of their programs in order to best protect their religious character and mission.”
For decades since the infamous Land O’Lakes declaration, too many Catholic colleges and universities have straddled the line between Catholic and secular. While the Vatican and bishops have patiently encouraged the renewal of Catholic identity, state and federal regulators are increasingly demanding that Catholic colleges justify their claims to be religious. For all but a handful of faithful Catholic colleges, this is a difficult if not impossible task. … the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic…..it should be noted that a college that does not faithfully adhere to and apply the Catholic Church’s own law might find it difficult if not impossible to convince a secular court that it is a Catholic institution deserving protection.” [1]
It shouldn’t take Pharaoh to tell Abram to go back to Bethel. It shouldn’t take pagan sailors to rouse Jonah to obey God. And it shouldn’t take the Federal Government to tell Catholic Colleges to actually be Catholic. But if that’s what it takes, if God has to shame them into it, so be it . God has a history of drawing Israel to repentance by making use of the nations around them to provoke, shame, and punish them. As Scripture says,
The LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance….[Yet] you deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth….[The Lord says], for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. [So] I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. (Deut 32: varia)
Religious Liberty Threatened – To be clear, there are very serious threats today looming over religious liberty. An increasingly intrusive government and menacing new laws are seeking to unreasonably restrict the Church, and her work of evangelizing the culture. We ought to resist any such attempts to limit religious liberty in this age of highly selective “tolerance.” We have discussed such threats on the blog before.
But the moral lesson in these cases seems to be that we had better get our own house in order. Certain “Catholic” Colleges may go on for a while gleefully dissenting and ignoring Church mandates, but in the end they are going to be called to account by Caesar who will say, “Either give God what God is due, or stop pretending and pay the taxes that every other secular organization pays and observe the requirements every other secular entity does.” In other words, decide what you really are and do so quickly.
For the state to respect the rights of Catholics, Catholicism has to be intelligible. Hence these dissenters also endanger the religious freedoms of those who are faithful. Yes, we need to get our house in order.
One may argue that bishops could have been more forceful, Rome more demanding, or that the Catholic faithful should have voted with their feet long ago and stopped frequenting and supporting fake Catholic institutions . But in the end, God may well be allowing a secular authority, which has no understanding of things religious to insist upon truth-telling. In so doing it may well be that God is following an old pattern where Pharaoh had to give Abram a good swift kick in the pants, and where God used nations like Babylon and Assyria to purge and prune Israel.
Catholic or Consequences – Like it or not, the world demands of Catholics what they seldom demand of other denominations: that what it means to be a Catholic should be clear and that it be lived to deserve the title. The secular government may mean harm in this, but God can use it for good. (cf Gen 50:20)
What do you think? Remember, if this post feels edgy, I am doing that to provoke conversation.
