I must say that I am quite surprised by the tone of tonight’s memorial service. In fact, I as I write this, it is still going on. It seems more like a pep rally. Perhaps my expectations were wrong. Given that six have been killed, I am surprised to hear raucous applause, and wolf-whistling.
From the look on his face, it seems the President is a bit surprised too. I think his remarks were well prepared and of the right tone. It seems clear that he did not prepare to address a pep rally. In a way he had to restore a proper tone to the whole thing. As he said, “Our hearts are broken…yet they are full of confidence” I thought, this is to be the right tone. Increasingly as the President spoke I think a more proper tone was restored.
To be sure, there is much to celebrate. It was proper for there to be applause when the President said, “Gabby opened her eyes.” There was heroism to celebrate, even some standing O’s to be granted.
But somehow the overall tone, especially early on, seemed a bit off to me.
I wonder if this is another symptom of how unchurched we have become? Even at the conclusion of the readings from scripture and the liturgically proper declaration, “The Word of the Lord” there was applause and whistles. Very strange indeed. I realize it was not a church service per se, but it was called a memorial service and some distinction exists in my mind between that and a pep rally.
Age may be a factor too. A lot of college students seem to have been in the audience and perhaps they are less schooled in demeanor in the face of tragic death.
What do you think? Is it just me? Am I becoming an old, stodgy man a bit too early (at 50)? Is solemnity departing from our culture? Have we lost a shared sense of proper demeanor?
Remember that this is not a political blog per se. You may wish to opine on the political aspects of tonight’s service. But my main concern is the tone of the service and what this says about our culture and how it might reflect on the increasingly un-churched status of many.
Please understand my questions are real. They are not intended as rhetorical questions. Please let me know what you think. My own impressions may be very different from yours.
Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, all those young boys in and around Bethlehem, two and under, whom Herod had massacred in order to kill Jesus Christ. We know not their number or their names but the Church lists them as among her martyrs. Some have disputed that they should be called martyrs since they did not submit freely for the sake of Christ but were “merely victims” of Herod. Nevertheless, the Church has long numbered them in her ranks of martyrs. St. Augustine says of them:
And while [Herod] thus persecutes Christ, he furnished an army (or martyrs) clothed in white robes of the same age as the Lord…. O blessed infants! He only will doubt of your crown in this your passion for Christ, who doubts that the baptism of Christ has a benefit for infants. He who at His birth had Angels to proclaim Him, the heavens to testify, and Magi to worship Him, could surely have prevented that these should not have died for Him, had He not known that they died not in that death, but rather lived in higher bliss. Far be the thought, that Christ who came to set men free, did nothing to reward those who died in His behalf, when hanging on the cross He prayed for those who put Him to death. (Serm. 373, 3, quoted in the Catena Aurea).
Today we honor their sacrifice. And through our honoring of them and worship of God, we seek to atone, for the many sins against human life beginning with abortion and including other forms of murder, and euthanasia, disregard for the safety and dignity of others, mistreatment and indifference to the plight of others, and all other sins against life.
Where does human cruelty come from? Surely it grows in us by stages, for most of us are not born with murderous fear of others. It is bequeathed to us by others and we grow it in our heart. Hatred rooted in fear is handed on down through the generations and the murderous inherit a thinking that there are some who are not worthy of their respect and love. Perhaps they are a threat, perhaps they did something in the past. Perhaps they may do something in the future. Herod was clearly a fearful man, so fearful that he was unmoved by the cries of wailing parents or of suffering infants. His heart had grow cruel through repeated insensitivity inflicted on others, due to raging and irrational fear.
An Old Latin Hymn says, Crudelis Herodes, Deum Regem venire quid times? Non eripit mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia (Cruel Herod what do you fear in the King and God to come? He seizes not earthly things who gives heavenly kingdoms). But in the end it IS his fear that drives him.
We know well that Holy Innocents continue to be killed in our world through abortion. And here too it is most often fear that drives the killing. How will the baby be afforded?! What changes will this baby bring that I cannot take? Perhaps the prenatal tests show a possible defect. I cannot deal with this! What if my parents know that I am pregnant? How will this pregnancy affect my career?! What if my father finds out I got my girl-friend pregnant!? And society says, What of poverty? What of overpopulation? What of deformity? How can we collectively handle all this?
And thus fear drives the current bloodshed. Fear makes us focus on our self, such that we think too little of what we do to others. Abortion thus becomes an “abstraction,” an “issue” that is debated, a “choice.” It is anything but real. The reality of fetal pain is out of sight and thus less real than the fear. What abortion is doing to our world, that too is less real than the fear. It is the fear that is real, and the fear eclipses everything else. And fear desensitizes and thus the killing of the innocent becomes plausible, a woman’s “choice,” reproductive “freedom.”
The only solution to fear is trust, faith in God. God alone can set us free from the awful fears that currently drive abortion. We in the Church must be realistic about the fears that many face before the mystery of new life and we must provide reasons for hope and trust. Fear is a cruel task-master and it drives us to do some pretty awful things. One of the most common lines in the New Testament is “Do not be afraid.” Hope, trust and Faith are important to us on this feast of the Holy Innocents.
There is also this dangerous thought on this Holy Feast.
I’ll explain what I mean by dangerous in a moment. But for now consider some biblical facts with me.
When God was drawing close to liberating his chosen people from slavery in Egypt there occurred the order to murder of the all the baby boys among the Hebrews. It is almost as though Satan sensed that God was up to something good and Satan raged through Pharaoh in murderous anger driven by fear. Thankfully the actual numbers were reduced since the Egyptian midwives engaged in civil disobedience, refusing to allow the practice to continue.
At the time of Jesus, when God was preparing to liberate his people from sin, there also occurred the murder of innocent baby boys. Here too it was almost as though the Devil sensed that God was up to something good and he once again raged, this time through Herod in murderous anger driven by fear. Thankfully too this infanticide also ended at some point.
Notice the pattern. When God prepared a great liberation the Devil, raging in fear, went after the babies. In our time, on a scale as never before, the Devil is going after our babies in murderous anger driven by fear. What is he afraid of? Is God planning something big in the near future? Is there a great liberation at hand? Is there a great advancement of evangelization and conversion in the offing? We can only speculate. But patterns are patterns and Scripture has a way of repeating its patterns and echoing down through the centuries.
Why is this a dangerous reflection? Because I want to make it clear that abortion, the killing of the innocents in our age, is NOT and never can be considered something good, or a “positive sign.” Such a speculation might cause some to wrongly conclude that abortion is part of God’s plan or something we should see “positively.” We should not. It must be fought. It is of Satan, it is rooted in fear.
End the Massacre And the Glory follows – I want to conclude by reminding you that the great liberation that followed the past infanticides did not occur until AFTER those murderous rages were stopped. Hence, to follow the pattern established in Scripture and to see a potentially great and liberating act of God we must first see an end to the slaughter. Work and pray to end abortion. May the Holy Innocents pray for us!
I put the following video together to honor these young martyrs. The musical setting is by Michael Haydn of the hymn for the Feast of the Holy Innocents: Salvete Flores Martyrum – It is from his Vesperae In F for Equal Voices, Soli and Orchestra.The singers are the The Group singing is Collegium Instrumentale Brugense. This music is available at iTunes. The Latin text of this ancient hymn is quite beautiful. I produce here the Latin text followed by a fairly literal translation. I would like to call your attention to the second verse and a very charming detail. That verse described these young, two year old martyrs and holding palm branches (the symbol of martyrdom) but as they hold them they play with them, in the way a young child will often fiddle with palm branches in Church. Beautiful and so very human!
Salvete flores martyrum, – Hail Martyr Flowers quos lucis ipso in limine – On the very threshold of the dawn (of life) Christi insecutor sustulit – Christ’s persecutor destroyed (you) ceu turbo nascentes rosas. – like the whirlwind does the budding roses.
Vos prima Christi victima, – You Christ’s firstfruits grex immolatorum tener, – A flock of tender sacrificial victims aram sub ipsam simplices – right up by the very altar palma et coronis luditis. – now play with your palms and crowns
Iesu, tibi sit gloria, – Jesus to you be glory qui natus es de Virgine, – who were born of the Virgin cum Patre et almo Spiritu, – with the Father and loving Spirit in sempiterna saecula. Amen. – unto to eternal ages. Amen.
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, and also my Archbishop, and, lest we forget, the sponsor of this blog! The full video of the interview is at the bottom of this post and I encourage you to see it all. However, here, I would like to focus on a few issues and and add, if I be so bold, my own commentary as well to the remarks of Cardinal Wuerl. As always in such formats, I will present the original questions and answers in bold, black, italic font. My own remarks in normal text red.
WALLACE: As you look across America, let’s talk about the spiritual state of our union as we approach 2011. I know one of the things that concerns you are all the shouting, talking heads on TV, and all the divisive blogs, and you say they come out of the same mentality as road rage. Explain.
WUERL: I think what happens is when people don’t feel they are accountable for what they’re saying — and that often happens when there is no one there to challenge what you are saying — people can — some people tend to say things that really need to be modified. They need to be contextualized. I think what we have to say to ourselves, as we look at this great country and all of the wonderful things that are a part of our history and our life together, we need to be respectful of each other. We need to be talking to each other out of the same tone that we would if we were directly across the table from someone. And that — that is a little bit of a challenge today because with blogs and with all the ease of communications, we sometimes forget directly across the table from us— I personally experience a rather bifurcated life in this matter. I think the Cardinal is quite right in noting that certain settings feature a rather terse and harsh tone, e.g. on certain blogs, on the Internet, talk radio and to some extent on TV “talking head” panels. But in person I often experience the opposite issue in that people don’t often speak as directly as I would like. I can sit in specific meetings and many people do not come right out and say what they mean. They hedge, “beat around the bush” and equivocate rather than speak directly to the issue and express their opinion clearly. This happnes interpersonally at times also.
One thing I admire about Cardinal Wuerl is that in his meetings, and I sit on many Archdiocesan panels and boards, the Cardinal encourages frank discussion and the airing of differing views. It helps us craft a realistic policies and responses to situations when all the views are on the table and there are no “pink elephants” in the room that every one ignores. Certainly there is an insistence on civil discourse in these sorts of meetings. But in the end, frank, honest, candid discussion is helpful. In many cases however I think that such discussions are rarer in our wider culture than I would wish.
Perhaps this is why some are so strident in settings where their true identity may not be known and where they don’t personally interact with their “interlocutors.” In effect they celebrate a kind of freedom, to the extreme, that they do not feel comfortable doing face to face. There is thus some value to the “protected” and “incognito” or faceless quality of Internet discussion. However, the Cardinal is right in pointing out that accountability is often less in such settings. This is true in terms of both tone and content. In relationships that involve real, physical presence we can be held accountable for being unkind and, because we cannot so easily “sign-off” from discussions or relationships of this sort, we will tend to be more careful how we treat others.
It is also true, that Internet discussions are really back and forth monologues more than real conversations. Right now I am typing and you will later (now) read and perhaps type back. Right now I have a monologue going and you cannot interrupt me, or challenge me, either on my tone or content. I might, as the Cardinal points out, need to modify what I am saying or how I am saying it based on your feedback. Further, as the Cardinal notes, one-sided conversations that occur especially in opinion based blogs often lack context. Talking about an issue is fine but context is important and recounting the “rest of the story” is not often respected.
An additional factor of opinion based blogs, radio shows, and news channels, is that they tend to attract people of like mind so that the conversation lacks depth and many of these subsets become increasingly isolated and opaque. What therefore touts itself to be a wide open discussion increasingly appears as a closed circle of like-minded people in the corner of the room at a cocktail party saying things to each other and going unchallenged in any substantial way.
In terms of this blog, we are discussing ways of widening the conversation and bringing more people to the table. Fr. Robert Barron is very good at doing this. He is able to engage people in a conversation who would never THINK of going to a Catholic blog. He does this by going out into the culture and commenting on things that most Catholic bloggers don’t (e.g. Bob Dylan as theologian, movie commentaries, etc.) At any rate we’re thinking of bring a lively conversation of the culture to bear more and more here and yours truly (age 49.5) is challenged to keep up with all the latest cultural stuff, especially among the young. More on these ideas later.
WALLACE:…Cardinal, the church does have some problems. And I want to pull up some polls. According to surveys, 75 percent of Catholics attended church weekly, back in the 1950s. That’s now down to 45 percent. And while 31 percent of Americans say they were raised in a Catholic family, only 24 percent now describe themselves as Catholic. Question, how do you account for that?
WUERL: I think what we’re facing is the erosion because of the heavy, heavy influence of secularism. We live in a world, and particularly, our country, that is awash in the continuous repetition of the secular view. And all these statistics say to me is, I’m not doing as good a job as I should in preaching the Gospels. I am not doing as good a job as I need to do in getting the rest of the story out there. And the rest of the story is it’s wonderful to live in a technologically advanced, highly scientific world, but with that is also the gift of faith, and what faith brings to that whole world. Those statistics simply say to me I need to be, the church needs to be much more effective in telling the story of Jesus.I like this answer. We DO have to be sober about the secularization of our society as the chief cause of the erosion of our numbers. But, as the Cardinal points out, this is an explanation, it is not excuse. It simply means that we will have to redouble our efforts and do a better, more effective job of preaching the gospel. We have talked about that a lot on this blog and will talk of it more!
WALLACE: Cardinal, even during the Christmas season, this is still a Sunday morning talk show, so I’m going to ask you about a political issue which has a strong moral component. How do you feel about the repeal of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays serving openly in the military?
WUERL: You have to put that in context of what the church would be concerned about. When we’re dealing with the question of military readiness or morale, those are issues that we have to really hear from others on. What the church is concerned about and what it brings to this debate, this discussion, are two realities. One, the understanding the long, long teaching of the church that every human being is worthy of respect. Every person must be embraced and respected and treated with fairness. Then you also have to take the rest of the Gospel message, the rest of Jesus’s message that human sexuality has a purpose. And this is not for simply personal satisfaction. Human sexually has to be seen in the context of the great gift of love, marriage, family. And so when the church addresses any of these issues that touch on sexuality, that is our starting point. And that’s why we often times are viewed, I think, as an opposition voice, because this is a highly, highly focused society on the pleasures of life. And the church is saying that’s true, but there is also responsible sexuality. – An excellent response and distinction: respect for the person, but clarity on moral issues. We live in a culture where many people insist that the Church do what she cannot. We simply cannot set aside Biblical and Dogmatic teaching on moral issues. We can surely respect that people struggle with them. But many people insist that, until we approve of what they do, we do not really respect them, that somehow, in our disapproval of something they do we intend to offend or disrespect them. But this not so. That someone takes offense at something you or I say does not mean we actually gave offense and even less that we intended to give offense.
The Catholic Church is careful to distinguish between a person’s orientation and their behavior. We also distinguish between temptation and sin. For example, that someone struggles with and is often tempted to anger does not make them a bad person. However, we cannot give approval to the unrighteous venting of anger. The temptation or orientation to anger is, of itself, morally neutral, the giving way to that anger in a harmful way is not morally neutral. It is the same with sexuality. Most people suffer some degree of sexual temptation. This is not, of itself, sinful. What is sinful is to give way to it, whether through fornication, adultery, pornography, masturbation, etc. Thus, the homosexual person is not bad because of an orientation and the manner in which they are tempted sexually. Rather, what is bad is, not the person, but the acts that flow from the temptation by yielding to it.
I understand that even with this distinction (respect for the sinner, clarity about sin) many Gay people are not satisfied. What they want is approval of the acts. But the Church cannot give this. Yet, as the Cardinal says, and that is every human being is worthy of respect even if we cannot approval all of what every human being does, starting with the man or woman in the mirror. We do not intend therefore any disrespect, we do not intend to offend. That some do take offense and feel disrespected is regrettable and we in the Church invite them to consider that our concerns are rooted in sincerely held Christian principles, rooted in biblical revelation, and the teaching of the ancient Church, and that we cannot simply cast aside what we sincerely believe to be reveled by God in this matter.
WALLACE: So are you in favor or against the repeal of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”?
WUERL: That is a question that has to be worked out politically. And there isn’t a specific Catholic Church position, but whatever happens, it has to be seen in terms of the church’s teaching position. And that is, human sexuality is something that is supposed to be exercised responsibly and within the context of marriage. It is good for the Cardinal to avoid getting into a policy discussion of exactly how the US military should handle this. In this blog many have remarked with anger how they consider the US Bishops often transgress their role by getting involved in matters of policy. It is clear that the Bishops must advocate moral principles and set forth a Biblical and Christian vision regarding matters of justice and the moral life. But that does not mean that they should comment on every specific issue regarding policy.
The Cardinal has articulated clearly enough that the Church insists upon sexual responsibility for all people. How the military chooses to regulate itself or its members around possible threats to military discipline related to sexual matters involves prudential judgments, judgments that they are best fit to make.
It is also possible in this answer that Cardinal Wuerl is deferring to Archbishop Timothy Broglio who is the Archbishop for Military Services and may have more of a reason to comment directly on policy matters in this regard since his priests who serve in the military are directly impacted by the decision. You can read his statment here: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=36796
WALLACE: And we have — and I apologize. We have about 45 seconds. In this special season, what message do you have for Christians and non-Christians alike?
WUERL: Christmas is a time when we all can look with hope to the future. That’s part of the message of Christmas. There is the best in each one of us. And we’re all capable of bringing out the best. And to do that together with one another, in a very pluralistic society, says that we can look to the future with hope, because if we respect and love one another, there is nothing we can’t accomplish. Yes, hope is the best note on which to end. The Pope also does this very well in his book Light of the World. In that Book Peter Seewald is often alarmist, but the Pope always goes back to the hope that is rooted in the promise of Jesus Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. Cardinal Wuerl has the same principled balance: sober about the challenges we face, but rooted in hope for we serve a Lord who said: “In this world you shall have tribulation, but have confidence. I have overcome the world (John 16:33).
The video at the bottom of this post was produced by National Organization for Marriage. It details an unjust pulling of a pro-life app from the Apple Store.
Back in November, Apple took down an app called “Manhattan Declaration” after receiving nearly 7,000 signatures in protest. The app in question had originally been approved by Apple. But it would seem its pro-life and anti gay Marriage stance upset some people.
As you can see by the name of the App it is a reference to the Manhattan Declaration which is a very well worded declaration stating traditional biblical values on a number of key issues including abortion, marriage and religious liberty. The document is carefully and respectfully worded. Here is a summary of the declaration contained in its opening lines:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to every one’s conscience in the sight of God.. (Excerpt – Manhattan Declaration).
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image
As you can see, the document is respectfully worded. Over 480,000 people, including Cardinal Wuerl (and yours truly). This is far more than the mere 7,000 who protested the app.
The bottom line is that Apple and Steve Jobs have taken down the app that would lead you to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/home.aspx and encourage you to read and sign the Manhattan Declaration. Now mind you, there are over 300,000 apps available and some of them take you to some pretty edgy and controversial sites. There are any number of political apps, and others including pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage sites. For Apple to take down this app amounts to taking sides in the matters of abortion, gay “marriage” and religious liberty. Given the numbers of apps and the number of Apple users, this amounts to a kind of censorship. Jobs and Apple have no reason to limit discussion on these important topics and ought to take a careful look at what they are becoming. An individual (Jobs) and a company who once advertised how they could take on “Big Brother” with their products have now become what they once rebuked.
It is true, Apple is NOT the government. It is also true that Apple is a private company and can decide what to market in their Apple Store. However when a company becomes as large and influential as Apple has and then engages in this sort of bad behavior, they cannot avoid the charge that they have become a kind of “Big Brother” themselves.
Go to the Manhattan Declaration site ( http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/home.aspx ) to read and sign the declaration, if you have not already done so. You can also sign a petition there asking Steve Jobs to reinstate the App. You can also e-mail Steve Jobs here: [email protected]
Forty years ago, when I was in grammar School, the militant secularism of today was almost unknown. The war on Christmas so common today was lampooned in those days by cartoonish figures like the “Grinch who stole Christmas,” or “Scrooge” in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Back in those days there were laments that Christmas was too focused on toys and Santa and not enough on Jesus. That, however, was an internal Church and family matter. But in the secular world, Christmas was still the common term used everywhere: Christmas trees, Christmas sales, Christmas holiday, Christmas break. It’s Christmastime in the city!
In the public schools I attended we sang Christmas Carols at the annual Christmas concert. And I don’t just mean the secular “Jingle Bells…Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer” variety, but even strongly Christian and religious songs: Joy to the Lord the Lord is is come!…..O Come All Ye Faithful….Come let us Adore him, Christ the Lord!….What Child is this who laid to rest on Mary’s lap is sleeping. In High School (in the 1970s) the Choir even sang O Magnum Mysterium by Victoria. Very high church…and all very religious. It was Christmas after all!
The rampant and militant secularism of today which banishes the word “Christmas,” banishes Christmas trees, Santa, and even the word “holiday” (since it is rooted in Holy day) becomes: Happy Winter Festival to you too! That sort of militant secularism, and triumphalist atheism was unknown forty years ago except in some very limited circles.
And yet during those times there was a common usage of the abbreviation “Xmas” It was common to get a Christmas Card and someone wrote, “Merry Xmas.” I don’t recall any of us thought of it as a secular thing in those days. I remember, as a child, asking my mother where the expression came from. She explained that “X” was the first letter in Greek for “Christ” and she promised to show me the symbol next Sunday in Church. Sure enough the next Sunday she showed it to me on the Church wall. It was really what looked to me like a P and and X. It was the “Chi – Rho” symbol you see at the top right of this post. Chi (X) and Rho (R) being the first two letters for Christ (x= ch in English and what looked like a P to me was really an “r” in Greek).
From Sacred to Secular – So Xmas WAS a Christian abbreviation for Christmas. It hasn’t been until more recent years that I have heard some claim that Xmas is an attempt to “keep Christ out of Christmas.” It is understandable that some would think in this was since, to the uninitiated, it looks like Christ has literally been “X’d out.” It takes a little explaining to recognize Christ in that “X” and, as world becomes more secular, and many Catholics are not taught the meaning of ancient symbols any longer, it certainly does look like Christ is missing from “Xmas.” Historically he is not really missing at all. But this not well understood.
Historical Roots of the “X” – The use of “X” for Christ comes from a time prior to the printing press when books were literally “manuscripts,” that is, “written by hand.” Abbreviations in those times were common. In the ancient manuscripts of Gregorian Chant there are many abbreviations like sclorum = In saecula saeculorum, Dne = Domine, ala = alleluia. In many manuscripts “X” or the “chi rho” symbol were used for Christ. Ink, paper and time were precious and Abbreviations. To some extent these have returned in the text world: LOL, IMHO, CUL8r, etc.
So “Xmas” does not really have secular roots or imply some intentional omission of Christ. It is an ancient abbreviation.
However, many today do take exception to its use and it CAN in fact be an attempt to “X” Christ out of Christmas by some. In virulently secular times where it is considered acceptable to exhibit outright hostility to Christmas and Jesus, it would seem Xmas is problematic. Other things being equal, we want to be as explicit as possible that it is Jesus Christ to whom we refer. We should also be sensitive to the fact that many are bothered by the term Xmas even if we are not.
Advice – Generally speaking I avoid the term today even though, due to my training, it does not bother me. Tactically speaking I also avoid it due to the fact that we need to unambiguously announce Jesus and “X” just doesn’t do that anymore. However, we should also avoid being too easily offended in a matter such as this where usage has recently shifted. We may take offense where none is intended. Thin-skinned Christians are not helpful to turning the tide of anti-Christian fervor today.
So, in the end, perhaps a middle ground regarding the term “Xmas.” Avoid its use for the reasons stated but do not easily take offense regarding it either. There are bigger battles.
Most of you have seen the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” More on that in a moment. But for now, the word “wonderful” is most commonly understood by most people simply to mean “really great.” But the word “wonderful” actually means “filled with wonder.”
Who of us can understand the incredible mystery of our own life? And not merely considered in itself, but also how it interacts with the lives of others and the events of this world? Why are we here now? Why do we meet and know the people we do? How does our life affect others, not just in the obvious ways but also the hidden ways unknown to us?
Imagine that one day you stayed late at work one day rather than take the commuter bus. Your open seat caused two people to meet who later married, had three children, one of whom will discover the cure for cancer. This is something you will never know, but God does. Maybe another day you drove a little slower than the driver in back of you wished, but your slower pace meant that your irritated tailgater was not in an intersection at just the moment he would have been killed in a horrible accident had he kept his pace. I know you may think these to be trivial examples but consider the mystery of each moment and all the “alternate universes” that would result if even a small change took place in our actions!
Our lives are mysteriously intertwined. We have almost no idea how even the little things we do cause enormous ripples and chain reactions that affect dozens, hundreds or thousands of people from moment to moment. What if I never wrote this post and you never read it but instead were reading something else right now, (good, or bad). The possibilities are almost endless as to what might happen had I not written and you not read.
God has us here in this place at this time for a reason. We have some very particular purposes in his plan and he alone knows them all. Try for a moment to appreciate your dignity in this regard. You have a critical role in a cascade of events that ripple from your life and your place in God’s plan. No one can take that place and your role is critical to millions of subsequent transactions in God’s wonderful vision. Psalm 139 has this to say:
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. All my days were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Selected verses).
The movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” is an extended meditation on this topic and if, for some strange reason, you have not seen it then you know what you must do! The protagonist of the movie “George” seeks to end his life and wishes he had never been born but an angel from heaven takes him through the strange and sad “alternate universe” that would result had he never been here. It is a world of terrifying loss for many and George comes to discover the dignity and necessity of his life in God’s plan.
In God’s vision no one can be said to be unnecessary or of limited importance. We have absolutely no way of knowing that and given the intricacies of human interaction and the ripple effects thereof we are pretty foolish for thinking we have little importance. Rather, it seems we are quite essential.
Enjoy this summary of the Movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” and remember that “wonderful” means “filled with wonder (and awe).”
Today we consider two of their video versions of the ads. These brief, 30 second videos follow the same format: “Some people believe…..What humanists think.” These videos have the same flaw as the poster versions in that they quote Scripture in a crude and inauthentic manner with no regard for context, genre, history or reference to any other Scripture texts that balance, explain or distinguish the quote in question. Further there is no inquiry into how the Christian or Jewish community have understood such texts in the past, or now, or how the thought quoted from an early period of the Old Testament my have undergone development and in some cases have been abrogated by later Scriptures.
I do not demand humanists believe everything I do (though I surely invite them). But what I do ask is that their scholarship be respectful and thorough.The humanists of the past centuries were more thoughtful and serious scholars than this current generation, at lest those who produced these ads. Christianity, and especially Catholicism, has a long, serious and vigorous intellectual tradition which these humanists would do well to explore. In these ads they are largely attacking a straw man, for when they say “Some believe” almost no one does in fact hold what they are quoting in the un-nuanced, absolute sense in which they claim. Scriptural interpretation is a careful discipline, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If these “humanists” really want to be true to their humanist leanings, they ought to talk to real human beings such as us and find out what we really think.
Here then are the two videos, each followed by my commentary and then a final ad which I doubt will ever be publicly posted, and you’ll see why.
The Text they quote is from 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” A text like this refers to the Ancient practice known as the “Ban” in Scripture. The Ban meant that everything and everyone in a given city or area was to be killed, no one was to be left alive. Every animal was to be killed as well and, all the material wealth would belong wholly to God by being given over to the use of the Temple. There are several places in the Old Testament where God is quoted as issuing the ban. We have discussed verses like this quite thoroughly on this blog here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/did-god-command-genocide/. This is an excerpt from the conclusion to that blog article:
In the end, it would all we can say about these passages is that they exist and put a kind of a tall fence around them. I personally think God did in fact order the Ban for the reasons stated….But the command was only for a brief time in a very particular circumstance for a very particular reason. Sometimes the best we can do with Scripture is to accept the history it records. Scripture is a collection of books that ultimately build upon each other and progress toward a better goal. In an early and brutal time God commanded tough solutions. Once his Law established deeper roots in a brutal world, God could insist that indiscriminate killing was no longer to be permitted. Later books and surely the New Testament would never support such a “solution” as the Ban.
Who Believes this? Now in the video and the printed version of the Ad, the humanists say of the Ban that this is “What Some believe.” But no one does believe this. In quoting the Jewish Old Testament and then saying that “some believe” they indicate that we should be able to find numbers of Christians and Jews who hold this sort of notion. But no one does. I am unware of any Jewish or Christian denomination or leader who would hold a belief that genocide is to be approved under any circumstances. There are some spiritual applications sometimes made of texts like these. For example, that we must wholly conquer by the power of grace, every demon which afflicts us, and every attachement to the world. But genocide is not an option. The most recent genocides have been carried out, not by Christians, but by non-believers such as Hilter and Stalin. Perhaps as many as 100 million people were killed due to such secular philosophies as German Fascism and Communism in the 20th century. Other more recent genocides have happened in parts of Africa due to tribal strife (e.g. Rwanda) and to some extent by Muslims against Christians (eg. in Sudan, Darfur, inter al).
So where are these Genocidal Jews and Christians? Surely the humanists who claim to think rationally and based on evidence can give extensive data on recent genocidal pogroms sponsored by Jews and Christians? Perhaps too, they can find teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church encouraging and approving the Ban? Remember now, these humanists sponsors of the Ad claim to be the “thinkers” and to base what they think on evidence and reason. So, surely we shall see the evidence of “ban theology” rampant today in Christian and Jewish denominations, seminaries, seminars, and training centers. Surely too the build up of means and weapons by Christians and Jews will be found in abundance by these evidence-savvy humanists, as we “believer” types prepare to carry out a ban on some poor and unsuspecting secular university?
Well, OK you get the point. It is really absurd to trot out the genocide accusation in these times.
The video quotes Proverbs 3:5Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. To which Richard Dawkins replies: There’s all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.
Well, there’s a little progress herein that, at least Mr. Dawkins is prepared to admit that what he thinks is a belief and not simply pure rational thought as some of the premises of this humanist ad campaign set forth. Apparently Mr. Dawkins didn’t get the memo from the Humanist sponsors of the ad that “we think….theybelieve.” Mr. D seems to be Ok admitting that he has beliefs.
But then comes all the superiority stuff as he suggests that his beliefs (and those of the humanists) are based evidence and logic whereas it would seem the rest of us poor clowns are only able to defend our beliefs based “nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. Really….? Nothing more? Now of course part of the problem for Mr D is that he thinks he and material science alone get to determine what is meant by evidence. So for example if I were to cite the evidence that my life is being changed by my realtionship to God, so that I was more chaste, more loving, more generous to the poor etc., that would not be evidence. Or, if I were to look out upon the marvel of creation and perceive the (rather obvious) fact of design, order, and purpose and conclude there was evidence of intelligent design, he would just wave his hand dismissively. The only evidence that counts is what he says counts.
I will admit that material science has limitsin what it can affirm or deny but there is more to knowing that physical evidence. To me there is plenty of evidence for my faith. I do see design and purpose in the things around me. I see order and natural law. I ponder things like the complexification and diversity of things in a world where the second law of thermodynamics suggests that things would do just the opposite, and fall back to their more basic components, without an outside energy to gather them into an intelligible and organized system, remarkably complex and yet symphonically unified. I marvel that things exist at all and consider that non-existence cannot produce existence. Hence there must be someone or something that exists which is not contigent and on whom the rest of contingent beings stand secure. I ponder the concept of infinitude and wonder how I could have a concept of the infinite in a world that is finite. I see evidence of one who is infinite here because a finite world cannot give what it does not have. Further, the atheist/materialist/secular humanist account of creation just doesn’t seem evident to me. It is humorously described in the graphic at the top of this post, and the humor is a bit simplistic of their view to be sure. I admit that, unlike these humanist ads. But the bottom line is that I just don’t see any evidence that everything could have come ultimately from nothing. Yet I am asked to “believe” this without evidence by the very ones who claim that they think only based on evidence.
Mr. Dawkins is free to pooh-pooh all this but it hardly seems fair of him to state without any distinction that my belief in God is based on nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. I mentioned none of these things in my brief litany of what I consider evidence. I could list more. It is a true fact that Scripture, tradition and authority help me to frame my thoughts. But he is no different. He too is heir to a tradition and authority (be it the scientific method, famous scientists, philosophers et al). And though he may not have sacred writings, he does have writings, books, articles etc. that have influenced and framed his beliefs.
Mr D seems unaware of history as well when he suggests that his interlocutors base their faith on “nothing more” than tradition, authority and revelation. Christianity, especially Catholicism, has a smart and long intellectual tradition. In fact much of the modern intellectual framework has emerged from a deep Catholic reverence for philosophy and learning. Consider the great scholastic period and the emergence of the modern university system that took place largely under Catholic patronage. An excellent parochial school system has also prepared countless students for higher learning. Things like the scientific method and the beginnings of unlocking the genetic code began in such settings. Modern medicine too, owes a lot to the Catholic practice of founding hospitals and fostering care for the sick. To suggest that somehow belief in God is anti-intellectual ignores a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary at least insofar as Catholicism goes.
Summary – The humanist ad campaign that trumpets it’s respect for evidential thought, in fact, demonstrates a lot a unfounded belief instead. There is in this campaign no real fact checking on their part, no authentic presentation of true Christian or Jewish doctrine, no real respect for the humans they strive to ridicule. Differ with me if you must but do not caricature my faith by presenting snips of it that are out of context, out-dated or just plain wrong. There is no “evidence” to me that these “humanists” talked to any real believing humans of the Christian or Jewish Faith, in the preparation of their campaign. Not very humanist of them.
A final puzzlement on my part. These humanist did produce two ad against the Muslims. They are on their website and quote the Q’ran and then rebutts. Here are the Ads:
*
*
Let me ask you a question. Do you think these ads will ever appear on a bus or subway like the anti Christian and Jewish ones did? I am actually surprised to see them even on the humanist website. Let’s see if these humanists will post them more publicly. Let me know if any of you see them on a bus or a subway.
In this video Fr. Robert Barron does a wonderful job of explaining and debunking the error of “Scientism” which insists that the only legitimate way of knowing things is through material science. Such an error underlies much of the Atheist/humanist thinking.
Some parishioners have recently expressed distress over an Ad campaign of the American Humanist Association. Rather provocative Ads are appearing on buses and subways here in the Nation’s Capitol and I suspect elsewhere as well.
As Christmas draws near, the “Humanists” have made it a practice in recent years to tweak Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) and attempt to make the concept of faith look ridiculous. They generally do this by quoting a sacred text and interpreting it in a mechanistic, fundamentalist and literalistic manner. The notion of quoting any other text that might balance it or perhaps make distinctions does not fit their scheme so they don’t do it. They claim to be thinkers but little thought is really evident in their attacks for they “think” that one-liners can represent a faith tradition thousands of years old.
Clearly too, they seem to violate their own “humanist” notions, for it seems in that they show no real human respect for their believing opponents. They claim to be the decent folks in the discussion but their disrespectful treatment of ancient faith traditions belies their self described decency and open-mindedness. In effect their charges against believers is that we are, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, homicidal, and generally unthinking. They of course show no bigotry at all in these charges and their simplistic use of our Scriptures. No they are the enlightened ones, kind and noble. They are “humanists” after all, and the rest of us are, well, “unenlightened” and responsible for just about everything bad there is on the planet. Or, so it would seem, based on their “kindly” assessment of us.
It will be noted that each Ad has the following format: “Some people believe…… We think…….” The implication being of course that they think and we do not. They do not see faith as a way of thinking. I am not sure what part of the human person they think faith resides in but they surely do not think it can be in the intellect. But of course faith IS a way of knowing. In know certain things and can think on them because God has revealed them. I know them by faith, but I do KNOW them.
Further, the secular humanist cannot claim he knows nothing by faith. In fact most of what we know, whether we are atheist or religious, we know by faith. It is simply not possible for most of us to personally verify everything we know. I cannot get on a plane and personally go to a foreign country and observe some event. I usually just trust what I read or hear on the news. I cannot get in a time machine and personally verify that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Neither can I personally verify that Paul Revere said, “The British are coming.” Yes, such things are in history books. But what if some folks were lying? Maybe the facts in the history books are wrong. So in the end I know these sorts of things by a human kind of faith. I trust that previous generations have largely handed the true facts. Faith isa fundamental human disposition. Without it we could not really claim to know much.
So what the humanists claim to “think” or know, is also largely based on beliefs and values that cannot simply be scientifically verified. For example, that men and women are equal is a fine value which I share. But it not really something that can be scientifically proved. Rather, it is based on values and a personal decision to regard the differences of men and women as of no significance in terms of what we mean by “equality.” But this is a belief. Another example, they claim that homosexual behavior is validly equal to heterosexual behavior. But this too is a belief, not a pure scientific thought. So even as they ridicule my belief and values they engage in belief and values of theirown. Even as they claim to “think” independent of faith, their thought, like mine is steeped in presuppositions rooted in faith and values.
So let’s take a look at some of their ads and videos.
Here’s the first ad.
*
Well of course the first thing to note of the Ad is the rather crude use of Scripture. It is not an authentic use of Scripture to simply quote one verse and think that you have captured all that Scripture has to say on that subject. Frequently, one verse will clarify another, or make distinctions. Sometimes one passage of scripture will balance another or tell the “other side” of the story.
Yet Another factor in this Ad is that it seems to treat all Christians alike in their interpretation of this passage. The fact is that a passage like this has a number of different interpretations and applications. If you were to walk into any Christian Church you would not find in most of them, women silent and having no practical authority. Women exercise great authority in churches and denominations. Even in the Catholic Church with a male only priesthood, woman have a lot of leadership. Hence this verse has not been read by most Christians in the absolute or literal sense that our Ad author wants us to think. St. Paul who wrote this passage elsewhere commends women who are catechists (e.g. Rom 16:1)and deaconesses (those who assisted in baptisms) . He speaks with great respect of many women who were patrons of the early Church (e.g. Lydia, Dorcas et al.) What Paul is probably saying here is that a woman was not to preside over liturgical functions or give the homily, reserved to priests and deacons. It is probably a liturgical context that Paul has in mind. This may still not please everyone but it is far from the extreme our Ad wants us to see.
As for marriage, Scripture does teach male headship. But that headship is rooted in love and service, not power. A husband is to love his wife (cf Eph5:19ff). The humanists are free to assert that they favor what they call “perfect partnership” (which seems to want to deny any form of headship). But that too is a belief. Notice that their response uses the word “should.” It is a belief, not a scientific fact, that equality can only exist in the absence of headship. Christians believe that authority exists, but it is exercised among equals. The Pope has authority in the Church but he is no more a Child of God than you or I. Before God we are equal but we do have some different roles among ourselves. But different does not mean unequal. Humanists have different beliefs in this regard but it is a belief, no less than ours. More on headship and equality here: http://blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/
*
*
When the Ad says “some” believe this, I’d like to know who. In quoting the Old Testament the Humanists are not seriously contending that some Christians or Jews hold slaves today or beat them are they? Here too their real goal is probably more to ridicule Scripture. It is an undeniable fact that slavery was a feature of the Biblical world. However, slavery was not exclusive to the Biblical world. Further, the slavery of the ancient world was different in many respects from the slavery of more recent times. In the ancient world slavery usually the alternative to death or jail. People were enslaved for three usual reasons. Either they had debts they could not pay. Or, they had committed certain crimes. Or, they had been soldiers in a war wherein they lost. Instead of killing the soldiers or merely imprisoning debtors or criminals they might be permanently or temporarily enslaved. This history helps explain why the Scriptures did not condemn this practice. It was an alternative to things that may have been far worse. and, frankly our modern prisons aren’t shining examples of humanism either. These historical differences did not make slavery a wonderful thing but it is not the same as the slavery of the 16th Century wherein people were enslaved who had committed no crimes, waged no war, and owed no debts. It went by the name of slavery but it was different reality and as people woke up to this it was ended. Christians, Jews and non believers were all part of the battle to end slavery. The “humanists” cannot claim some sort of credit for ending slavery. Many of different backgrounds including Christians and Jews fought powerfully to end slavery. As for you humanists who are committed to treating each person as having inherent dignity, welcome to the crowd. You cannot claim this for yourself alone.
*
*
Here too, to say that “some believe” that homosexuals should be stoned is simply a hateful caricature of Christians and the “humanist” author of this Ad knows it. No Christian or Jewish creed calls for the death penalty in this matter. In ancient Biblical times many punishments were severe as considered by today’s standards. Adulterers were also to be stoned. Children could also be put to death for dishonoring parents. But these severe punishments were largely set aside by the Jewish people as they came forth from the desert and settled in the Promised Land. The punishments were ameliorated but the moral teaching on these matters were not. It is a consistent Biblical teaching from the early to the last passages of Scripture that Homosexual activity is sinful. So is illicit sexual union between heterosexuals (fornication and adultery). This is our principled belief as Catholics rooted in consistent Scriptural teaching. Now the Humanists are free to disagree but they too are expressing a belief. They cannot scientifically prove what the ad calls the “validity of sexual equality.” In fact any scientific study would seem to point away from it. Homosexual unions are not fertile and any scientific look at the the body parts in question will indicate that the man is made for the woman and the woman for the man. Further the preponderance of disease related to homosexual activity and other forms of promiscuity among heterosexuals backs the biblical prohibitions more that the “humanist” permissiveness. Perhaps our humanist “thinker” should think through the evidence a bit more. Have “considered” humanism in this matter I find it wanting. More on Biblical teaching on Homosexuality here: http://blog.adw.org/2009/10/biblical-teaching-on-homosexual-activity/
*
Here we see our “humanist” interlocutor ridiculing what he or she does not understand. Christian tradition distinguishes between servile fear and filial fear. Now servile fear is not commended and should be conquered. Filial Fear however is based in love and consists in a deep reverence for God whom I dread to offend on account of my love and deep respect for him. Now my reverence for God is surely based on the fact that he will one day judge me, and Jesus who is quoted here, reminds us that it is better to fear him than to fear man. For, ultimately a man can only kill my body, but the Lord has authority over my soul and eternal destiny. Hence our reverence for God should be higher than for man. Here too one verse of Scripture is not the whole of Scripture and the crude use of Scripture made by our “thinking” humanist should also include other scriptures that balance the notion of servile fear. For example, There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:18). This particular text goes on to say that the love of God drives out sin in us and hence we no longer fear punishment as sin is increasingly driven away. Hence while the Lord speaks of the fear of punishment by God as more necessary than fear of man, Scripture elsewhere distinguishes that this sort of fear is something that should give way over time as we grow in love and faith.
Finally, the quote by Bertrand Russell also needs some additions or distinctions. I cannot imagine that he or humanists really argue that all fear is bad. There are some things of course that are rightly feared. For example, I ought to fear dangerous or reckless behavior. I ought to fear genuinely harmful things. I need not be in a panic but rather, an appropriate, reverential fear of things that can harm me is often called for and reasonable. Surely a “thinking” humanist would concur with this.
I sometimes wonder too if humanists fear us who believe. I say this because of the “over the top” quality of some of these Ads. They seem so rooted in a kind of bigoted fear that simplifies and tries to ridicule us. I sense fear fear in this.
*
*
Well now, this is the silliest Ad of all. Had our thinking humanist bothered to consult even the most basic Scriptural commentary he or she would have discovered that this verse employs Jewish hyperbole. This is not a call to hate. It is a Jewish way of speaking that emerges from the fact that the Hebrew language does not contain many comparative words such as more, less, greater, fewer and so forth. Hence if I prefer Chocolate ice cream to vanilla I would say in the Hebrew or Aramaic idiom, “I love Chocolate and hate vanilla.” But what I mean is that I prefer Chocolate, not that I really hate vanilla. Hence the Lord teaches us here that we must love God above all things and people and that he must have priority in our life. The humanist may reject this notion but it is still wrong for them to misrepresent our Scripture. Since all humanists are fair, loving and kind, according to this Ad, they really should check with us about what our Scriptures mean before presuming such terrible things about them or us. This Scripture is not saying what they claim it says. It seems once again that the real purpose here is to ridicule what they do not understand. This is rooted more in bigotry than kindness. There is nothing “kind” about this Ad and the humanist author might consider that his creed (pardon the expression) that he “BE KIND” does not seem to apply to Christians.
Well there are three videos I will post tomorrow that are also part of this campaign.
In summary, having considered the humanism on display in these ads, I have found it wanting. There is little in them that is any way considerate or humanist. All the kindness and moral high ground these Ads claim that humanist have seem to give way to condemnation rooted in ignorance, simplifications, and erroneous understanding of basic doctrines of faith. Indeed, I would call these ads amateurish at many levels. Even simple fact checking was not done. In the end these Ads are not rooted in critical “thinking” at all. They seem far more expressive of the kind of bigotry and fear based ignorance they claim to condemn.
Salvete flores martyrum, – Hail Martyr Flowers