Category: Culture

Posted on

"No Believing Humans Were Interviewed in the Production of this Humanist Ad" – Part two of a Reflection on the Humanist Ad Campaign

This is part two of an examination of some Bus and Subway Ads that are running here, at least in the Washington DC area. The have been placed by the American Humanist Association. Yesterday we consider five of their ads and, if you missed yesterday’s post you can read it here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/12/wheres-the-human-in-humanism-humanist-ads-violate-their-own-humanist-standards/

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.

Video One:

Consider Humanism – Ambassador Carl Coon from American Humanist Association on Vimeo.

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.

Video two:

Consider Humanism – Richard Dawkins from American Humanist Association on Vimeo.

The video quotes Proverbs 3:5 Trust 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.

Posted on

Where’s the Human in Humanism? Humanist Ads Violate their Own Humanist Standards

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.

Posted on

The Problem of Privatized Faith As Illustrated in a Washington Post Article

Frankly I don’t even like to discuss condoms. It just seems impolite in mixed company. But the world’s obsession with condoms (as George Weigel quips, “salvation through latex!”) has surely been on display these past weeks. The Pope’s admittedly poorly reported remarks, (even by L’Osservatore Romano) have set forth a tsunami of celebration in some sectors who insist the Church has changed her position. Any presentations of the facts or later clarifications issued by the Vatican seem to have no effect on the spin in secular circles that a “sea-change” has happened in Church teaching. It has not, but myths often take on a life of their own.

In today’s Washington Post yet another article has appeared that I would like to excerpt and then comment on. The Article is by Michael E. Ruane who interviews a number of Catholics outside of St. Matthews Cathedral after Mass on the condom question. The sorts of things said by Catholics in this article are not unexpected. In fact they are emblematic of the fact that most Catholics get their ideas about their faith more form the world than from the Church. This of course is not wholly the fault of the laity since we in the clergy and Church leadership have not been famous for our savvy ability to communicate the faith effectively.

Let’s take a look at this article and see what we can learn of the nature of the problem. As is the case with previous articles, I would like to present the excerpts in bold and italic letters and then my own running commentary in plain RED text.  (The Full Post Article can be read here: Faithful Have Mixed Views).

The gray-haired chief usher for the Latin Mass was headed with his metal cane for the steps of Washington’s Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle when he paused to consider the latest church teaching on condom use. “As a Catholic,” said Lucius Robertson, 91, he opposed the use of condoms. “As a John Doe,” he said he approved. “It’s strictly personal,” he added, “a singular decision.”  In this opening paragraph we quickly see into the heart of the problem: faith has been privatized. We live in the age of the designer religion wherein anyone gets to invent their own dogma, or selectively determine what dogmas they will accept. Everyone gets to be their own pope. Catholics are often no exception to this trend and many seem perfectly willing and able to dispense with whatever doctrines displease them and still declare themselves to be a “good Catholic.” For such as these faith has no apparent communal dimension, nothing outside them self which should require adherence in order that to qualify for membership. No, such a notion that some one other than me gets to say what is the true faith is obnoxious to many. They insist that faith be a purely private declaration of what seems true “to me.” To suggest that certain criteria ought be met in order to “be Catholic” offends against their God-given right to design their own faith and, I would argue, their own God.

Our 91 year old usher here might not accept all these notions I have stated but his understanding of the faith is surely tainted by them. He insists that an important matter of Church moral teaching is “strictly personal” and “a singular decision.”  Never mind that the Church, founded by Jesus Christ,  has set forth a clear forbiddance of the use of condoms. Never mind that we as Catholics are expected to give assent and religious submission to what the Church formally  teaches and proposes for belief in matters of faith and morals.  I am frankly not sure I understand what our usher means when he says he opposes condoms “as a Catholic” and approves them “as a John Doe.”  But one thing seems certain, our usher (possibly in an unintentional way) articulates a notion of faith that is personal rather than communal. Many problems come from this widespread current notion which illustrates very well the ego-centric tendency of our modern age. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that faith is not a merely personal or private matter:

“Believing” is an ecclesial act. The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. “No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother” (CCC # 181)…..Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others…..It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith…..The Church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, faithfully guards “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. She guards the memory of Christ’s words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles’ confession of faith. As a mother who teaches her children to speak and so to understand and communicate, the Church our Mother teaches us the language of faith in order to introduce us to the understanding and the life of faith. (CCC 168-171 selected)

Thus the Catholic faith cannot be privatized as so many insist on doing. You and I are not free to decide what it means to be a Catholic. That has been given to the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. Just about every other error demonstrated in this article flows from this one misunderstanding of “privatized faith.”

Mixed feelings were common Sunday among Catholics attending Mass at St. Matthew’s at they tried to understand statements last week by Pope Benedict XVI that appeared to ease the church’s long-standing ban on using condoms. (“Appeared,” is the key word. The Pope introduced no change and eased nothing).

In a new book, the pope indicated that condoms could be used to prevent the spread of life-threatening diseases, like HIV. In the past, official church teaching has forbidden condom use under all circumstances, as part of its opposition to birth control.  The Pope did nothing of the sort. Here are the actual words of the Pope from the interview that many claim amount to an endorsement of condom use: Peter Seewald:  Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms? Pope Benedict:  She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution…. Now notice the words “NOT,” “REAL,” and “MORAL.” The Pope notes further in the interview: ….the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of condoms. What the Pope did note was that some people have fallen so far in their understanding that the even the use of a condom may show at least some progress. At least they have some notion of protecting others. But again this only illustrates how far they fallen not that condoms are good. Again for the record the Pope says of condoms that they are not (again, NOT) a moral solution.

Experts have been debating whether the pope’s comments, which the Vatican has sought to clarify, opened the door to discussion of the broader ban, even as many American Catholics have already indicated they disagree with it. Experts are not debating this. Some dissenters may see it in their interest to perpetuate a misunderstanding of the Pope’s remarks. But official Vatican sources have clarified and asserted that there is no change in Church teaching here.

A 2003 Washington Post poll found that 88 percent of Catholics believed that using a “birth control pill or condoms” was morally acceptable. Much of that sentiment was in evidence at St. Matthew’s Sunday. The Poll is probably accurate. However I’d be interested in looking inside the numbers. Are there differences between practing Catholics and non? What are the age differences? 

“I don’t think there should be a ban on condoms,” said Kay Gautsch, 68, who was visiting from Racine, Wis. “The pope says use them for AIDS prevention, but I think birth control is very important. The Pope did not say “use them for AIDS prevention.” Ms. Gautsch is simply mistaken. She has likely received all her information on this from the secular media. This is not simply her fault. We who are clergy and, indeed,  all Church leaders share in this problem. We have to find more effective ways of reaching our people directly and giving them the true story. Cardinal Wuerl makes this point is the video below.  

“On the alternative, you have abortion, you have children [whose] parents can’t afford their kids,” she said. “I think that’s responsible parenthood, to use condoms and limit the size of your family.” “I would hope the ban would change,” she said. “People are using their common sense and . . . responsible health concerns when they use condoms. It’s a good thing.”  More privatized religion on display here. She also has a pejorative tone:  “People are using their common sense….” when they oppose Church teaching, according to Ms. Gautsch. Of course this thereby means that official and ancient Church teaching against contraceptive methods and emphasizing chastity lacks  “common sense.“

Marie Claire Odell, 50, of Silver Spring, who was just leaving church, said the apparent easing of the ban was due. “The Catholic church is not that swift to recognize” the need for change, she said. “They just recognized Galileo. Quite honestly, it takes them a while, but hopefully they’re getting there.  “I think it’s about time,” she said. “Let’s be serious. Let’s jump into the 21st century. I think you’ll find a lot of people saying the same thing.” Yes, of course that is the main thing isn’t it? You see, according to Ms Odell and others whom she represents, we have to update, be with the times, this is our main role apparently. Things like Scripture and Tradition have to give way to the “21st Century” which has apparently found  a better, more enlightened way.

This position (“the Church must update”) is really a plural version of the problem of privatized religion. This version applies the “right” to redefine the faith to an age more than a person. This privatizes the faith by making it subservient to the whims of a particular time and place. A given generation ought to be free to remove or adapt whatever seems “unacceptable” to that given time or place. In this thinking, being hidebound to ancient Tradition, Conciliar decrees, and Scriptures from ancient times that were far less “enlightened” than ours is really obnoxious. This widespread notion seeks to privatize the faith by eliminating the testimony and presence of previous generations. They have no place at our modern table. This is a private, 21st Century party, don’t you see? And the Ancient Fathers and Evangelists are not invited unless they adapt and update. The main task of the Church for Ms Odell and others like her seems to be that we “jump into the 21st Century.”   Again, the faith is privatized, compartmentalized and subjected to the whims of individuals and times and places. It is the problem of privatized religion in another, larger package.  

One thing Ms. Odell is right about, “you’ll find a lot of people saying the same thing.” We do indeed have a lot of work to do in making the teaching against artificial contraception sensible to modern westerners. She also speaks for a lot of moderns who see reinventing the Apostolic Faith as their God-given right. A lot of work to do here. Perhaps some more blog posts here can be my contribution, both on contraception and also the problem of privatized religion. (Here’s one I wrote a while back: Wisdom of Humane Vitae)

Well the Post Article goes on with pretty much the same sort of stuff. You can read the rest of it here: Faithful Have Mixed Views. It seems they had trouble finding anyone who supports the Church’s teaching unambiguously. I suspect that is a problem with Post but will also admit it is a problem with us. There are deep problems in the Church today with selective and privatized faith.

Much will be required to get Catholics back to a proper notion that the Faith is revealed by God to the Church and she hands on the faith intact. The faith cannot be of our own making, neither can we pick and choose its content.

But these are egocentric and arrogant times and many people see it as their God-given right to be their own pope, their own Bible, their own magisterium. And, even if they don’t explicitly claim this as a personal right, they assign it to the age or the locale, the “common sense” of the times. It is surely puzzling that an age such as ours, so afflicted by increasing disorder, promiscuity, addiction, crime, violence, abortion, war, injustice to the poor and the breakdown of basic elements like family, can presume to claim for itself some sort of special wisdom and enlightenment. We live in strange times, privatized times, closed off from the wisdom of our elders and forebearers. A faithful remnant remains in the Church, to be sure. It is just disappointing that the Post could not find one to speak unambiguously to the beauty of truth.

The problems illustrated in this Post Article are not entirely a problem of the laity. It is clear that we in the Church have got to do a better job of effectively and efficiently proclaiming the faith and getting that message directly to our people, unfiltered by a secular media. In this three minute video, Cardinal Wuerl, speaking last month at the Order of Malta Conference, describes the challenges and the necessity of telling our people the rest of the story:

Posted on

On a Strange and Horrible Biblical Story and the “Bad” Memory of God.

One of the most strange and horrifying stories of the Bible is the story of Jephthah  (Pronounced “Jeff-tha” and alternately spelled Jepthe) and his ritual murder of his daughter. It is a tale of faith and piety gone terribly wrong and a teaching of what happens when error and false religion are substituted for the true faith.  It is also a tale of how God can work even with the worst of us to accomplish his ends. Let’s look at this “fractured fable” of a story.

The story of Jephthah  is told in Judges 11. He is described as a mighty warrior and would one day be numbered among the Judges of Israel. As the chapter opens we are told:

Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior. His father was Gilead; his mother was a prostitute.  Gilead’s wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. “You are not going to get any inheritance in our family,” they said, “because you are the son of another woman.” So Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the land of Tob, where a group of adventurers gathered around him and followed him. (Jdg 11:1-3).

Jephthah the Ganger – Tob is a land to the extreme east of Jordan. Having been dispossessed of any personal resources Jephthah became ranked among the roving bands of dispossessed youth who had little to lose. While the text above says describes Jephthah as gathering “adventurers”  around him, many translators render the Hebrew as “worthless men” or “ruffians.” In effect Jephthah is a gang member, the head of a group of marauders who allied themselves with local inhabitants who felt over-taxed or had other grievances against local rulers. They sustained themselves by raiding caravans or towns and enemies of thier friends.

It is quite a remarkable thing that the likes of Jephthah would rise to Judge Israel for six years. Judges were those who, in the years prior to kingship in Israel, served as charismatic leaders. They usually rose to power in response to some crisis or need.

And, sure a enough, a crisis did arrive that would catapult Jephthah to power. The text says,

Some time later, when the Ammonites made war on Israel, the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob.  “Come,” they said, “be our commander, so we can fight the Ammonites.”  Jephthah said to them, “Didn’t you hate me and drive me from my father’s house? Why do you come to me now, when you’re in trouble?”  The elders of Gilead said to him, “Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead.” Jephthah answered, “Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me—will I really be your head?”  The elders of Gilead replied, “The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say.” So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them (Jdg 11:4-10).

The Israelites needed a warrior and Jephthah had gained the reputation of being a skilled and fearsome warrior. He would be their man and he came to Judge (rule) over Israel. He first, as a formality,  sent messengers to negotiate a settlement with the Ammonites. In a lengthy message he sets forth both an  historical and theological basis for Israel’s claim on the Transjordan area to which the Ammonites were now laying claim. Among other things the Israelites had lived in the land over 300 years. But the Ammonites rejected all negotiations. So Jephthah prepared for war. (cf Jdg 11:12-28)

Here is where things get strange. Prior to going to war Jephthah vows a vow. It is an immoral vow, on the face of it. It is a vow that would require something wicked of him. The text says:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, Whosoever shall first come forth out of the doors of my house, and shall meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, the same will I offer a holocaust to the Lord. (Jdg 11:29-31)

This is a wicked vow. It is wrong to vow to kill some as a sacrifice to God. It is forbidden explicitly by to offer any human being in sacrifice to any god let alone Him: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12:31; cf also Lev 18:21) It is murder that Jephthah vows. It is false religion that he embraces.

Some have tried to soften the vow by translating the vow as “whatever” comes out of the house, Jephthah would offer in sacrifice. Thus he could have meant an animal. But it is difficult for the Hebrew (צֵא הַ) to support this notion. The gender of the word would have to be in the feminine form to support this theory. But the form is masculine which everywhere else means “whoever” and it is coupled with the verbs  “to come out” and “to meet.” It does not usually pertain to things and animals to do this. Hence, it seems the plain meaning of this text is that Jephthah vowed to kill the first human who came forth to meet him upon his return. One may suppose he figured that a slave or servant would be the first to greet him?

What makes the vow even more troubling is that it was generally presumed that one who was called to be a judge had an anointing from God. Verse 30 does speak of the Spirit of the Lord coming upon Jephthah How could one anointed by God be guilty of such a gross violation of God’s law.We can only recall  that God’s approval of one area in a person’s life is not an approval of every area of their life. Most of Israel’s greatest leaders had serious flaws: Moses and David had murdered, Jacob was a usurper, Abraham “pimped” his wife and so forth. God can write straight with crooked lines. St. Paul reminds us that we carry the great treasure of God within “earthen vessels.” An old gospel hymn says, “If you can use anything Lord, you can use me.” God does not call the perfect, that much is clear.

The story of Jepthe then has it’s horrible twist and dreadful end:

Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”  “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”  “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite (Jdg 11:33-40).

In the end, Jephthah is met by his only daughter and is “forced” to fulfill his vow to kill her as a sacrifice. But in fact he is not forced for no one is compelled to fulfill a wicked vow. Yet the plain meaning of the text indicates that did just that. There are attempts by some scholars to try and show that Jephthah really didn’t do it. But, their attempts are very contrived and, in the end, set aside the plain meaning of the text which quite clearly indicates Jephthah went through with his vow.

What happened to Jephthah? We can only speculate. But it would seem that he had come under the influence of the false religions of the pagans. In particular, he seems to have come under the influence of the Canaanite practices of human sacrifice. The Jewish people had often fallen prey to just such a syncretism. Their faith in the God of Israel was often selective and weak. Superstition often drew them to the Baals and other gods of the surrounding nations. Their straying often led them to great wickedness, sexual promiscuity, deviance and even human sacrifice. Jephthah seems to have been among their number. His rejection by his brothers in Israel and his wandering at the fringes of the land were surely factors in his religious confusion and the evil that flowed from it.

And what of us? We too do well to consider the rapid descent into evil of our culture as we have increasingly and collectively rejected the true faith. Things once thought shameful are now practiced proudly by many. Things once thought immodest are flaunted. A terrible toll of abortion also mounts as our children are sacrificed to the gods of promiscuity, contraception, illicit sexual union, career, and convenience. As God has been shown the door in our culture, and kicked to the curb, we have descended mightily in to confusion and corruption, to debauchery and decay. It begins with forsaking faith in the One, True God. This nation, though always pluralistic and non sectarian, did once have a clear place for God. Now He has been escorted to the margins. And we, like Jephthah, are increasingly able and willing to do the unthinkable.

On the Bad Memory of God – One final thought on the story of Jephthah. It occurs to me that God has a “bad memory.” I say this because God the Holy Spirit holds Jephthah up later in scripture for our admiration. It’s right there in Hebrews 11 where Jephthah is said to be among the cloud of witnesses:

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies….. Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus (Heb 11:32-34; 12:1-2)

It is a remarkable thing to see Jephthah listed among the great Old Testament saints. Perhaps we can say that Jephthah repented? We can surely hope. But it is also possible to celebrate the “bad memory” of God. I hope you will understand, I mean no irreverence here. Scripture says, For I [the Lord] will forgive [my people] their wickedness and will remember their sins no more (Jer 31:34). And also, “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more,” says the Lord (Heb 10:17) I don’t know about you, but I am depending and the “poor memory” of God. I am hoping for a poor recollection on the part of God of certain incidents and passages in my life  🙂  And if Jephthah can make the cut, perhaps there’s hope for me too!

There have been a number of musical oratorios based on the Story of Jephthah. One of my favorites is “Jepthe” by Carissimi. In this first video I have assembled some images to the story and set it to a Chorus from Jepthe by Carissimi. The song is led by the daughter and is one of the happy moments in the Oratorio. The text says, Cantemus Omnes Domino! Laudemus belli principem, qui dedit nobis gloriam et Israel victoriam (Let us all sing to the Lord! Let us praise the prince of war, who gave glory to us and Israel Victory).

*
The final chorus of Jepthe by Carissimi is a minor masterpiece and a deep lament for the only daugther of Jepthe. The text says: Plorate filii Israel, plorate omnes virgines, et filiam Jephte unigenitam in carmine doloris lamentamini (Weep O children of Israel, weep, all you virgins, and in sorrowful songs lament the only daughter of Jepthe). The final lamentamini repeats over and over as we are drawn into the deep sorrow of loss.

Posted on

Five Advent Reflections

The Following are “Five Advent Reflections”  I have prepared. If these interest you I have prepared them also in PDF format which you can get by clicking here: The Season of Advent

1. Advent is Witnessed by Creation  – Autumn and early winter are times of great seasonal change. The leaves turn brilliant colors then fade and fall. The shadows lengthen as the days grow shorter and colder. The warmth of summer and vacations seem distant memories and we are reminded once again that the things of this world last but a moment and pass away. Even so, we look forward as well. Christmas can be a wonderful time of year. Likewise, the winter ahead has delights. Few can deny the mesmerizing beauty of falling snow and the child-like excitement a winter storm can cause. Advent draws us spiritually into this season of change, of longing and of expectation. As the days grow shorter and the darkness increases we light candles on our Advent wreathes and remember that Jesus is the true light of the world, the light that shines in the darkness. These lit candles also symbolize our on-going commitment to come out of darkness into God’s own marvelous light. (cf 1 Peter 2:9). A Gospel Song says:  Walk in the light, beautiful light, come where the dew-drops of mercy shine bright.

2. Longing for Salvation – Advent also draws us back to our Old Testament roots. Israel was taught by God through the prophets to expect a Messiah from God who would set them free from sin and injustice. Across many centuries there arose a longing and a yearning for this messiah. Sin and injustice had taken a terrible toll and so the cry from Israel went up:

O that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at thy presence–as when fire kindles brushwood and the fire causes water to boil…We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one that calls upon thy name, that bestirs himself to take hold of thee; for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities. Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand. Be not exceedingly angry, O LORD, and remember not iniquity for ever. Behold, consider, we are all thy people. (Is 64:1-7)

In Advent we recall these cries of ancient Israel and make them our own. Surely Christ has already come yet we know that sin and injustice still have their terrible effects in our lives and in our communities. We very much need Jesus to be our Savior and to daily set us free. Advent is a time to acknowledge our need for the saving work of God and to long for the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that God has already begun this saving work in us, now we long for him to bring it to completion. We also await the full manifestation of his glory and this brings us to the second important meaning of Advent. .

3. Waiting  for His Second Coming – Advent is also a time to prepare for the second coming of the Lord. We say in the Creed, He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. This truth flows directly from Scripture which teaches clearly two things on which we must reflect. First, He will come again in glory. Second we cannot know the day or the hour that he will return. In fact, though some signs will precede his coming, the emphasis of Scripture falls upon the suddenness of the event:

  1. He will appear like lightning (Mt 24:27),
  2. with the suddenness of the pangs of child birth (1 Th. 5:3)
  3. in the twinkling of an eye and the sound of a trumpet (1 Cor 15:52).
  4. It will take place when we least expect (Mt 24:44),
  5. Just when everyone is saying, “There is peace and security!” (1 Th. 5:3).

Since this is to be the case we must live lives of readiness for that day. Advent is a time when we especially reflect of the necessity of our readiness. Here too an Old Gospel Song sasy, Ready!? Are you ready? For the coming of the Lord? Likewise, a spiritual counsels, Keep your lamps trimmed and burning. The time is drawing nigh!

4. The Fire Next Time! – Some of the images of the last day, images of judgement and destruction, can seem very frightening indeed. Consider for example this passage from the Second Letter of Peter:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace (2 Pt. 3:10-14).

Some of the imagery used here reminds us of the even more fearsome images of the Book of Revelation! But notice the complete message of this passage and others like it. The heavens and the earth as we know it will pass away but we who are ready look forward with joy to a “new heavens and a new earth” where the justice of God will reside in all its fullness. An African-American Spiritual summarized the teachings of the Second Letter of Peter by these classic lines, God gave Noah the rainbow sign, No more water, the fire next time. Here too, our first reaction to such phrases might be fear. But in the tradition of the spirituals, this fire was a fire of justice and truth that destroyed the power of injustice and oppression. Another spiritual expresses this, God’s gonna set this world on fire, one of these days Alleluia! [and] I’m gonna sit at the welcome table one of these days Alleluia! For the slaves, the Day of God’s visitation could only be a day of jubilee, a day of vindication and deliverance. And so it will be for us if we are ready. But what does it mean to be ready? To be ready is be living faithfully, holding to God’s unchanging hand in the obedience of faith and trust. To be ready is to be living a holy life and a life of repentance. If we do this we have not only have nothing to fear about the Last Day, we eagerly anticipate it and cry out, “Amen, Come Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20).

5. Remember, Repent, Rehearse – All these reflections help to place Advent in proper perspective for us. We are called to remember, repent and rehearse. We remember that Christ has already come and that he has called us to the obedience of faith and promised he will return in glory. We repent of whatever hinders our readiness for that day. And we rehearse for his second coming in glory by anticipating its demands and celebrating the glory that comes to those whom he finds watchful and ready. In a sense every Mass is a dress rehearsal for the glory of the kingdom. At every mass the following prayer is said, Deliver us Lord from every evil and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy, keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety, as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our savior, Jesus Christ. This beautiful prayer recalls that it is entirely God’s work that we be ready for his glorious return. Only he can deliver us, free us from our sin and remove anxiety about that day. Only he can give us joy and make us holy. We have but to yield to his saving work.

And this brings us back to where we started, longing and yearning for our savior. To yearn for him is to know how much we need him. To long for him is to constantly seek his face and call upon his name.  Therefore cry out with the Church, “Come Lord Jesus!” For it is written, The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let him who hears say, “Come.” And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price… He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Rev 22:17, 20)

Posted on

The Battle Hymn of the Republic as Bible Hymn of the Republic

I was reminded today of one of my favorite hymns as I read the first reading from today’s Mass. In particular these lines stood out:

[An] angel came out of the temple, crying out in a loud voice to the one sitting on the cloud [Jesus], “Use your sickle and reap the harvest, for the time to reap has come, because the earth’s harvest is fully ripe.” So the one who was sitting on the cloud  swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven who also had a sharp sickle……“Use your sharp sickle and cut the clusters from the earth’s vines, for its grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and cut the earth’s vintage. He threw it into the great wine press of God’s wrath. (Rev 14:14-19)

Ah, yes, the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on
– –

We live in a time that does not usually appreciate these fearsome images of God. These are dainty times where many have tried to tame God. And yet the image from the hymn above is thoroughly biblical as you can already see. This first verse of the Battle Hymn also recalls Jeremiah

God will thunder from his holy dwelling and  roar mightily against his land. He will shout like those who tread the grapes, shout against all who live on the earth. The tumult will resound to the ends of the earth, for the LORD will bring charges against the nations; he will bring judgment on all mankind and put the wicked to the sword,'” declares the LORD.  (Jeremiah 25:30-31)

Yet again Scripture is alluded to by the hymn in reference to the terrible swift sword which is from Isaiah:  In that day the LORD will take his terrible, swift sword and punish Leviathan, the swiftly moving serpent, the coiling, writhing serpent. He will kill the dragon of the sea (Isaiah 27:1).

The author of these words, Julia Ward Howe, lived in times that were anything but dainty or delicate. She lived in time of war, the Civil War. And she , like many of that time, possibly including President Lincoln, had come to see that horrible war as God’s judgment on a land that had enslaved, and cruellyand unjustly treated a whole race of people. Many decades before Thomas Jefferson had written, Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free (Notes on the State of Virginia). Yes, many abolitionists and others saw the Civil War in terms of God coming to render justice for the oppressed and to punish and purify by fire a land that strayed far from justice.

Julia Ward Howe had been stirred to write the hymn when, just outside of Washington DC, she heard the troops marching to the tune “John Brown’s Body.” The rythmn of that hymn stayed with her and that night she lodged at the Willard Hotel in Washington and recounts how she was was inspired to write:

I awoke in the grey of the morn­ing, and as I lay wait­ing for dawn, the long lines of the de­sired po­em be­gan to en­twine them­selves in my mind, and I said to my­self, “I must get up and write these vers­es, lest I fall asleep and for­get them!” So I sprang out of bed and in the dim­ness found an old stump of a pen, which I remembered us­ing the day be­fore. I scrawled the vers­es al­most with­out look­ing at the p­aper (Julia Ward Howe, 1861).

She describes it as a moment of inspiration. The words seem to flow from her effortlessly as is the case with inspiration. We have been blessed by these words ever since. It is true,  these words do not remain without controversy. Some object to such warlike imagery associated with God. Even more objectionable to some is the human tendency to have God take sides in a war or to attribute any war  to his inspiration. And yet, for one who has read Scripture, it is hard to wholly dismiss the notions advanced in this hymn even if they are offensive to modern ears. The Battle Hymn remains a masterpiece of English Literature and the music is surely masterful as well.

Other verses contain Biblical quotes and allusions as well. Perhaps a brief look at them.

Verse two says,

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:His day is marching on.

A powerful word painting here. The campfires of the bivouacked troops burning like candles before an altar to God’s glory and justice. The righteous sentence perceived by the flickering light recalls Daniel 5 where the hand of God wrote a sentence on the wall near the lamp stand at King Bleshazzar’s feast: MENE, TEKEL, PERES. The King trembled and all with him as the words appeared in the flickering candlelight. The righteous sentence of God announced that the King had been “placed in the scales and found wanting.”  His kingdom was about to end. God’s “Day” of judgment marches on. The Scriptures often refer to the Day of the Lord as the “Great and Terrible Day of the Lord” (eg. Mal 4:5-6).

Verse Three says,

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.”

“Contemners” are those who despise God and his justice, who hold his law in contempt. Against these is the fiery Gospel. The Scripture says the Lord Jesus will judge the world by fire (eg. 2 Peter 3:7) and that his word comes forth from his mouth like a sharp sword: Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty(Rev 19:5). The author allows the bayonets of the soldiers to allude to Word of the Lord whose fiery gospel judges the world. And in the second line the Lord promises grace to those who fight for justice. The last two lines are the reference to Genesis: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, while you strike at his heel (Gen 3:15). It also refers to the reiteration of this in Rev 12. The Lord is destroying Satan’s power and ending the injustice of slavery, and ultimately all injustice.

Verse Four says:

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

A clear reference is made here to St. Paul who writes of the trumpet blast, For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised  (1 Cor 15:52) and of the judgment we must face: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Cor 5:10). The third line is a reference to Malachi which promises a joyful judgment day to the Righteous: Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out leaping  like calves released from the stall. Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things,” says the Lord Almighty  (Mal 4:1-4).

Verse Five says,

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

The lily is a symbol of purity in the Scriptures. A sea a clear and calm as glass is described as surrounding the throne in heaven (Rev 4:6; 15:2). We are transfigured by Christ’s glory for we are made members of his body (Eph 5:30). Hence, when the Father sees Christ he also sees us, transfigured as it were in Christ’s glory.  We too are called to walk in Christ’s footsteps. We are to carry our cross as he did (eg. Lk 9:23). As his cross made us holy, our cross can help to make others free. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church (Col 1:24). Clearly Howe is appealing here to Northern Soldiers to be willing  to die in order to free the slaves.

The Final verse says is a kind of doxology:

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of time His slave,
Our God is marching on.

Christ is Lord of History (Rev 1:8;  21:6; 22:13) and the earth is his footstool (Is 66:1; Mat 5:35; Acts 7:49). He will come in Glory accompanied by his angels: They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.  And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other (Mat 24:30-31). The world has doubted and scorned him and his teachings, Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children (Luke 7:35).

Ah, what a hymn. It is remarkably Christological and Biblical. Some consider it controversial. But that’s OK, the Bible is too, and this hymn is rather remarkable stitching of Bible verses and allusions. For this reason, it is not only the Battle Hymn of the Republic, it is also the Bible Hymn of the Republic.

Posted on

UPDATED – Illustrating an Atrocity By Acting Atrociously – A Chilling Website Approaches It’s Horrifying Deadline

SEE UPDATE AT BOTTOM –  You may have heard that there is terrifying site out on the Internet called Birth or Not.  A couple that is expecting a child is pondering whether to keep the baby or abort him. They want you to vote, claiming that your vote will influence their final decision. In 15 days (Dec 3) they will make their decision. Why Dec 3? Because that is the “last day [they] can legally get an abortion in [their] state.”

This is a very shocking site for many reasons. First, if they abort it will be a late term abortion. Secondly, there is a seemingly cold calculation in their decision to abort. They are spending time, getting to know the baby, looking at ultrasounds, consulting family and friends, etc. as though this were all a leisurely decision. Of course no way of deciding on a abortion is good or better than another but at least it is more understandable when the decision comes under duress, or pressure. But this whole process is chilling as they casually read pamphlets, look at ultrasounds and ponder as they sip tea.  Here are some quotes from their website:

  1. Voting is such an integral part of the American identity.  We vote on everything.  We vote on things ranging from the best singer on American Idol to who the next leader of the free world will be.  Wouldn’t it be nice to voice your opinion and have it actually make a difference in the real world?  Why not vote on whether to continue or abort an actual pregnancy? Your vote can help a real couple to make a decision on this issue….We would like to keep you informed on our pregnancy as if it was your own; posting our thoughts and feelings as we struggle to make this decision.  We would like you to see what we see and feel what we feel.  We invite you take this journey with us as we contemplate our own options and encourage you to utilize this site to vote and voice your opinion in a way that will have a real consequence… in a way that truly matters.  Here, your vote will not go unheard.
  2. “Mom” says:  I went in for my weekly check up and the baby’s heartbeat was at 160 bpm and “Wiggles” continues to develop as expected.  The baby was turning around a lot and waving arms (and hands) at us….. the baby’s skeleton is hardening and accumulating fat around it.  Baby “Wiggles” is also developing unique fingerprints this week.
  3. ….your comments are appreciated.  Though there are indeed many hateful.  For every ten comments that are negative or spiteful there is one that is positive enough to blow them out of the water.  We have even had multiple people (accounting for approximately 6% of those who have sent us a message) who have offered to adopt if the vote result is Abort.
  4. When the vote closes, we will be reviewing the data, and making it all public.  When the vote closes, you will know all that we do… as we discover it together.  Until then, it looks like we might have something we see typically with voting:  An unknown result until the end.

IMPORTANT: On last Friday the vote was that over 80% wanted them to keep the baby, 20% said abort. By today the vote had dramatically shifted. Over 70% now say abort. Further, over 1 million votes have been cast.

Now you know you’d better get over there and cast a pro-life vote.

Indeed this whole thing of course is chilling and sickening. It is so atrocious that I can’t actually think they are seriously considering abortion at this point. It leads me to think that they are illustrating an atrocity by acting atrociously. As its deadly clock ticks away to December 3 (Feast Day of St. Francis Xavier – St. Francis, Pray for us!) we are all led into the gruesome reality of what abortion is. A child many of us have come to know, may be scheduled to die December 3. Abortion in this case, and a late term abortion at that, is no abstraction here. A real couple, with a real baby are (at least purportedly) considering aborting him. This couple has either successfully made abortion something very real for millions, or is one of the coldest couples on the planet. And we just don’t know for sure. I am holding out hope, even the likelihood, that they are really pro-life and are trying to make abortion something less abstract and more real for many. Of course the pro-choicers would call that a stunt. But this couple insists quite credibly that they really ARE undecided. It’s all very unsettling, chilling and frightening.

Please visit this site and cast a pro-life vote. Further send a note to the couple. But keep it positive, promise prayers….and really do pray! I personally can’t tell what this couple will do,  if this is real or just a “stunt.” I really do hope in the end that it is an attempt on their part to illustrate atrocity by acting atrociously, to draw us into to true horror of abortion. But just pray….pray! (And vote here: http://www.birthornot.com/)

 UPDATE– According to LifeSite News (HERE– Hat tip to Diane at Te Deum Laudamus) the Husband today admitted that the site is a hoax and that they never really intended to abort. You can read the article by clicking “HERE” in the line above.  I am still not sure of the couple’s actual intent from the article. I had hoped they were illustrating an atrocity by acting atrociously in the sense that they were trying to illustrate how shocking abortion really is by their act and that they were not really intending to kill the Child. This may be the case. But the article isn’t really that clear.  No matter, the whole thing is duplicitous and should never have been done. It is not right to lie in this manner even if the intent is good. In a little twist of justice, the wife lost her job yesterday since the company said she was gravely endangering their reputation. Perhaps that is why the husband fessed up today?

Posted on

The Body Doesn’t Lie, But Modern Culture Does

One of the great errors of our day is the implicit rejection of the truth that our bodies have something to tell us about who we are and what we are called to do and be. Most moderns see the body merely as a tool of sorts and assertions are made that “I can do as I please with my own body.” Further, that a person is male or female is purely incidental and merely an arbitrary quality one “happens to have.” That our sex should speak to anything deeper than genitals and other “mere” physical differences is set aside to one degree or another. Or so it is said. In effect, it would seem that our bodies have little or nothing to say to us. According to modern culture they are incidental.

The rejection of the body as instructive or in any way determinative has reached its zenith in attempted normalization of homosexual activity and so called “Gay Marriage.” Any non-ideological analysis of the body will indicate that the man was not made for the man, nor the woman for the women. Rather the man is made for the woman and the woman for the man. This is set forth quite clearly in the pure physicality of things. St. Paul calls homosexual acts παρὰ φύσιν “(para physin) – that is “contrary to the nature of things.”

The Soul is the Form of the Body – Now of course I can hear the objections that some how we are not only physical beings and to use simply physical arguments is not proper. This is true but the body cannot be ignored. This is because the soul is the form of the body. That is to say, our soul, its essence and abilities, give rise to the structure and physical attributes of the body. Consider for a moment a glove. Now, what is the form of a glove? In other words, what determines how a glove is formed, shaped and designed? Well, of course, it is the hand. It is both the shape of the hand and its capacities that give rise to the design and function of the glove. A glove with only three fingers or with eight fingers would be a poor glove indeed. The proper form of the glove is the hand. And it is not just the shape of the hand that dictates the design of the glove, it is also the required function of the hand that must be considered. Hence, fingers need to move and be able to work together for the hand to achieve its purpose. A glove that was extremely stiff or rigid, and permitted the fingers no movement, would be a poor glove. Hence a good glove protects the hand but also permits it to achieve its proper end. Thus the fully functioning hand is the form (or blueprint) for the glove.

In the same way, the soul is the form (or blueprint) of the body. Our bodies have the design that they have due to the capacities of the soul. We are able to talk because our souls have something to say. Our fingers are nimble yet strong because our souls have the capacity to work at tasks that require both strength and subtlety. We have highly developed brains because our souls have the capacity to think and reason. Animals have less of all this because their souls have little capacity in any of these regards. My Cat Daniel does not speak, not only because he has no larynx. He has no larynx because he has nothing to say. The lack of capacity in his animal soul (or life-giving principle) is reflected in the design of his body.

Sexuality is more than skin-deep – Now when it comes to sexuality in the human person, our sex (or as some incorrectly call it, our “gender,”  (gender is a grammar term that refers to the classification of nouns in romance languages)  is not just a 50/50 coin toss. Our soul is male or female and hence our bodies reflect that fact. I don’t just happen to be male, I AM male. My soul is male, my spirit is male, hence my body is male . So called “sex-change” operations are a lie. Cross-dressing is a lie. “Transgendered” and what ever other made up and confused assertions cannot change the truth of what the soul is. You can adapt the body but not the soul. The soul simply says, “Sum quod sum” (I am what I am).

Now again, the modern age has chosen simply to set all this aside and to see the body as incidental or arbitrary. This is a key error of the modern age and has led to a lot of the confusion we have about many things. We have already seen how the widespread approval of homosexual acts has stemmed from this. But there are other confusions that spread from this.

Consider for example how the body speaks to the question of marriage. That the body has a nuptial (i.e. marital) meaning is literally inscribed in our bodies. God observed of Adam “It is not good for the man to be alone.”  This fact is also evident in our bodies. I do not wish to be too explicit here but it is clear that the woman has physical aspects of her that are designed to find completion in union with a man, her husband. Likewise the man has physical aspects of him that are designed to find completion with a woman, his wife. The body has a “nuptial” meaning. It is our destiny, it is written in our nature, to be in a complimentary relationship with “the other.” But the complementarity is not just a physical one. Remember,  the soul is the form (or blueprint) of the body. Hence the intended complementarity extends beyond the physical, to the soul. We are made to find completion in the complementarity of the other. A man brings things to the relationship (physical and spiritual) that a woman cannot. A woman brings things to the relationship (physical and spiritual) that a man cannot. It is literally written in our bodies that we are generally meant to be completed and complimented by someone of the “opposite” (i.e. complimentary) sex. And this complementarity is meant to bear fruit. The physical complementarity of spouses is fertile, is fruitful. Here too the body reflects the soul and the fruitfulness is more than merely physical, it is spiritual and soulful.

[It is a true fact that not every one finds a suitable marriage partner. But, from the standpoint of learning from nuptial meaning of the body,  this is seen as less than ideal rather than merely a neutral “alternative” lifestyle called the “single life.”  This point is debated in the Church today however and I can only state such a conclusion as an opinion, not as the official teaching of the Church].

Another consideration in this has to be the question of celibacy in the Church and of the male priesthood. If the body, among other things  has a nuptial meaning whence does celibacy and virginity for the sake of the kingdom find its place? Simply in this. Priests and Religious sisters are not single. A religious sister is a bride of Christ. She weds her soul to Christ and is a beautiful image of the Church as bride (cf Eph 5:21ff). Fully professed sisters even wear the ring. As a priest, I  do not consider myself a bachelor. I have a bride, the Church. She is a beautiful though demanding bride! And do you know how many people call me “Father?”  Our Religious in my parish are usually called “Sister,” but the Superior is called “Mother” by us all. And here too, our bodies reflect the reality of our call. A woman images the Church as Bride. A man images Christ as groom. It is another error of modern times to say that a woman can be a priest. Jesus Christ didn’t just happen to be a man. He is the Groom of the Church, the Church is his bride. The maleness of the Messiah, of Jesus,  was not just a 50/50 coin toss. Nor was it rooted merely in the “sociological requirements of the patriarchal culture of his time.”  It is not merely incidental to his mission. He is male because he is groom. The priests who are configured to him are also male because the body has a nuptial meaning and the Church is in a nuptial relationship to Christ. Christ is the groom, the priests through whom he ministers to his bride are thus male. To say that a female can image the groom is, frankly, silly and bespeaks how far our culture has gone in thinking of the body as merely incidental, rather than essential and nuptial.

The body does not lie. Our culture lies and distorts, but the body does not. Many choose today to consider the body incidental, a mere tool that can be refashioned at will. But the Church is heir to a far longer and well tested understanding that the body is essential (not incidental) to who are. Our differences are more than skin deep. The soul is the form (or blueprint) of the body and thus our differences and our complementarity are deep and essential as well as necessary. Our dignity is equal but our complementarity cannot and should not be denied. God himself has made this distinction and intends it for our instruction. The body does not lie and we must once again choose to learn from it.

Here is a quirky and clever video that turns the table on the question of ordination. It also goes a long way to say that we cannot, in the end simply pretend to be what we are not. Our bodies do not lie, even if we try to.