Category: Culture

Posted on

More Church Closings – So What is God Teaching Us and How Will We Respond?

It has become routine these days to here of multiple church closings in various dioceses throughout this country. The recent news comes from the Archdiocese of St. Paul – Minneapolis which is planning to close 21 parishes over the next three years. The plan is a bit ambiguous in that some of the closed parishes may actually remain open for some services as a “mission” of another parish. But they will no longer be full-service parishes with a priest and other essential services. Each “merged cluster” of parishes will have some say over its own fate and what buildings will be used and arrangements can be made. That is a relief to some of the older parishioners. But, I am sure that communities that try to keep two buildings up and running may soon discover that maintaining two or more sets of the the large and older buildings is very costly. If they continue to decline in membership, as it seems most of them will, some painful choices await them. (The Parish in the Photo at right is Holy Trinity in Syracuse, NY and it closed in Feb of this year along with 14 other parishes in that diocese).

One of my own frustrations with the closing of large numbers of parishes is that we do not do a better job of using these situations as a teaching moment. The usual approach is for media, secular and Catholic is  to interview grief-stricken members of a closing parish and to ask them how they feel. Well, of course, they feel awful. Some are also angry at the diocese in question, and the bishop. The usual goal of these sorts of interviews is for us to feel bad with them. And there is much to regret. Some very old parishes with wonderful histories and beautiful buildings are being lost in large numbers.

But where is the assertive teaching about the need for evangelization, summoning fallen away catholics back to the sacraments, increased family size, and so forth? The “ain’t it awful” attitude doesn’t get us very far. We have some serious repenting to do as Catholics. It is so easy to blame “mean” bishops, arrogant chancery offices and so forth.  Surely there is some blame to be had in these areas. But in the end this is about the numbers of the faithful. It is simple to say the priests should do something, but  it is also a fact that shepherds don’t have sheep;  sheep have sheep. And it is a simple fact that the sheep are not in the fold. Every survey agrees, only 27 – 30% of Catholics even bother to go to mass any more, much less support their parishes financially. We simply cannot continue to maintain our parishes and other entities with this decline of people in the pews. The faith has largely been set aside by most Catholics who still expect their parish to “be there” at important moments like wedding and funerals, baptisms and crises.

And for those who do remain faithful and attend each Sunday, (God bless them), there are also questions. How serious have they been about evangelizing as they saw their parishes growing empty? How did it get to this point? There are some demographic trends that many will point to that really don’t seem to excuse what we are experiencing. For example, there is “people have moved to the suburbs” argument. True. But are there still not homes in the city? There ARE some parishes that saw their neighborhoods replaced by office buildings, but these are rarer. The “they all moved to the suburbs” explanation does account for the low percentage of Mass attendance which seems to be the real culprit here, along with declining birth rates among Catholics. These are choices made by Catholics in droves and we are paying the price. If even 50% of Catholics were going to Mass most of these parishes would not be closing. This is a teachable moment and we all, clergy and people have a lot to repent for.

Indeed, I would like to propose that all of us who face the reality of only 27% of Catholic going to Mass have some soul-searching to do. As parishes close in waves, what repenting are we personally doing? Are we just blaming the clergy, or the liturgy? I assure you there is plenty of blame to go around. It seems to me that every parish, especially those that are getting very small, have some serious things to ponder. Let’s begin with the clergy and radiate out to the parishioners:

  1. How serious are dioceses about declining numbers? Our dropping attendance is shocking. What is the plan of any given diocese to address this?
  2. Are clergy and people being trained to address this problem?
  3. Does the diocese see the  viability of parishes only in terms of money? Or do they look inside the numbers and toward the future?
  4. What discussions take place with the pastors of declining parishes?
  5. Is the pastor ever asked to account for declining numbers or asked to present a plan for parish renewal?
  6. Is the pastor merely rewarded for maintaining buildings and finances, or does the diocese also give him other priorities such as Church growth and involvement in the life of parishioners and communities?
  7. How serious is the diocese about training priests to be better evangelizers?
  8. How serious is the bishop in teaching his people, in times like these, about the necessity to be sober and serious regarding our steep decline?
  9. Does the flock ever hear from their bishop about the this matter except when he puts them on a Church closing list?
  10. Does the Bishop visit declining parishes to admonish and encourage them to evangelize and grow the parish?
  11. Do the faithful in a given diocese really even know serious the decline in numbers is? Have they been challenged on this?
  12. How does the Bishop evangelize? Does his flock see him reaching out to the fallen-away and unchurched? How?
  13. And what of the pastor?
  14. He is just in maintenance mode or does he really want to grow God’s Church?
  15. What is his plan to growthe Church?
  16. Has he ever considered studying various plans of evangelization to see what might work best in his parish?
  17. Is he engaing leaders in this central task?
  18. Does he ever talk to his people about the declining attendance and summon them to sobriety about it?
  19. Are his homilies well prepared and the liturgies beautiful so that, when people do bring a friend to Church, they can be proud to bring them?
  20. Is the Pastor praying (fasting?) for new members and growth?
  21. Is he asking others to do so?
  22. Does he seek to understand why his numbers might be decliningand why people don’t come to Church?
  23. Does he teach that missing Mass is a mortal sin? Does he explain why?
  24. Does he speak of the glory and the necessity of the sacraments so that his people see them as more than just rituals or rites of passage?
  25. Do his people understand how and why coming to Mass and confessing regularly are essential for them and their loved ones?
  26. Does he thereby inspire an urgency for the work of evangelization and help people to know that the eternal salvation of others may well depned on our work of evangelization?
  27. Do his people know that their own salvation may well depend on whether they have been serious about announcing Christ and growing the kingdom?
  28. How does the pastor evangelize? Do his people ever see him personally reach out the fallen away, the unchurched, and those who have been hurt by the Church? How?
  29. And what of the people in the pews?
  30. Have they been serious about summoning lost loved one back to Church, co-workers, the unchurched?
  31. Have they witnessed to their faith and personally invited people to discover the Lord in the liturgy and sacraments?
  32. Are they urgent and persistent in this work?
  33. And what of the “domestic church,” the family? Are the faithful willing to examine the low birth rate among Catholics and consider this has played a role in Church closings, the decline in vocations, the precipitous decline in Catholic schools, and so forth?
  34. Are Catholics willing to repent of this and consider that we may in fact, as a community, be contracepting and aborting ourselves right out of existence? (CARA Statistics show that the rate of baptisms per 1000 Catholics have dropped 75% since 1955).
  35. Are Catholics willing to consider more fulling embracing life and encouraging others to do so?
  36. Are Catholics striving to encourage marriage and family life? Without strong families, parishes are not strong. (CARA Statistics show that the rate of marriages per 1000 Catholics has dropped by 76% since 1955).
  37. Do we prize the larger families in our parish and support them spiritually and even, where necessary, financially?
  38. How supportive and encouraging are Catholics when the parish leaderships does summons them to evangelize?
  39. Are they willing to walk the streets and knock on doors, or go to the local mall and greet people in the Lord and invite them to God’s house?
  40. Would the average parishioner be willing to accept the goal and be accountable for bringing five new people to Church in the next six months?
  41. How serious are they about greeting new people who do come to Mass and helping them to find a role in the community?
  42. Or, it all this just up to “Father” and the “Evangelization Committee?”
  43. How faithful is the average Catholic in being at Mass every Sunday without fail?
  44. What example do Catholics give their children and other youth in this regard?
  45. How faithful are Catholic parents in teaching their children the faith? Are they as serious about attending to this as they are to making sure they qualify for academic scholarships or excel in sports?
  46. How serious are parents about preparing their children for sacraments and supporting religious education efforts in parishes?
  47. How financially supportive are Catholics of their parish and diocese? Does God get more from a Catholic than the movie rental agency or  the local sports bar?
  48. Are the clergy and parishioners of declining parishes willing to try new things? Will they reach out to new ethnic and racial communities? Will they make necessary liturgical changes, and support the possible need to set aside personal preference and the “we’ve always done it this way” mentality?
  49. Does the Pastor and parish leadership see evangelization as job one? Or, is the parish just in maintenance mode?
  50. Are we going to be serious about this, or just watch parishes close and say,”Ain’t it awful!”

So, parish closings are sad but teachable moments. And also a time for some repentance and soul searching. In a rampantly secular time we have to be very serious about handing on our faith and inviting others to God’s house. Blaming others is not enough. What will I do about it? If we are not willing to take personal responsibility for growing our parishes, last one out, turn out the lights. There is a kind of judgment on us right now. And we have a decision to make. Will we preach, invite and summon others to the Catholic faith, or not? To preach and teach the faith, uncompromised, not watered down, to share it with joy and confidence is our only hope. By God’s grace our parishes can and will grow but God is going to do it through you. Not just your pastor or the person next you. God wants to do it through you.

How say you? My list is long, but I’ll bet you want to add to it. Comments are wide open for additions, distinctions and rebuttals.

Posted on

You Can’t Have it All – A Meditation on Simplicity

The first video at the bottom of this post is a remarkable portrait of a man who is overwhelmed, simply overwhelmed. He cannot live up to the expectations that are upon him, expectations from himself, and others.

One of the paradoxes of our time is that we have attained to an amazing possession of creature comforts (at least in the West) but, in many ways we have never been so uncomfortable. Stress and worry along with a gnawing dis-satisfaction accompany our high standard of living. The more we have the more worry. In a way,  we have “too much to lose” and we want and expect so much that we’re never satisfied. There is a kind of slavery that comes with possessions. If we are not careful our possessions end up possessing us. Further they set loose desires in us that become extreme and difficult to master. In the end our desires expand with each new thing we get. It is like a man who over eats. His stomach stretches and so he must eat more each time to feel full.   The Book of Ecclesiastes says,

Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless….The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether he eats little or much, but the abundance of a rich man permits him no sleep (Eccles 5:10,12)

The Second video is a Traveller’s Insurance Ad that well depicts how our possessions cause us worry and make us restless. Of course, they claim to have the solution. If you just buy their insurance, all your worries will vanish. Nevertheless it is a cute and poignant ad.

Two videos that well depict our times.

A Source of the Problem – Clearly the sense of being overwhelmed and fearful because we “have too much to lose”  are notions that are created in us by some thought or philosophy. I want to propose to you that one of the deepest sources of our stress today comes from the notion that “you can have it all.” That’s right, the house in the suburbs, with cathedral ceilings in the great room, granite counter-tops, wide screen TVs, nice yard, great location, fancy SUVs, well, you know the list. But this is a lie. We cannot have it all. We have to make choices. Life involves trade-offs. Choosing one thing means that we have to say to say “no” to other things. Parents can’t always have double careers, double-incomes  AND raise their kids well. Choices have to be made. Fathers can’t always climb the career ladder and still be reasonably present to their wife and children. The big house in the suburbs isn’t always a viable option if it means long commutes, time away from family, high mortgages that require overtime and part time jobs. Buying all the latest electronic gadgets isn’t always wise if we want to set money aside for the children’s education, or for retirement. We simply can’t have it all. We have to decide what is important and make real choices that reflect our priorities.

But as it is we often want too much and right away. We entertain the illusion that we can somehow have it all. This attitude then fuels unrealistic expectations. Not only can I have it all, I should have it all. And if I don’t have have it all then I am either resentful, or worried that I don’t measure up to other people’s unrealistic expectations. The old saying goes, Most of us spend money we don’t have, and buy things we don’t need,  to impress people we don’t like. All of this is a recipe for stress, anxiety and anger.

What to do? Decide! Decide what is important to you and build your life around that. It’s going to mean that some other things have to go. If family and raising your kids is your priority, then always accepting the promotion may have to go if it means significantly less time at home. Some people do choose to wholly dedicate themselves to some work or cause. Fine. But think twice about getting married just now and don’t be so irresponsible as to have kids if you’re going to be off chasing your star. You likely can’t have both. As for possessions, simplify. It is far better to live in a smaller house in a less “up and coming” neighborhood and actually know your spouse and kids, than to live in the big house on the hill and have the whole place filled with anger and anxiety about money and you off at work for long hours pleasing the boss so you can get the promotion and actually afford the darn thing. The book of Proverbs says: Better a little with the fear of the LORD than great wealth with turmoil.  Better a small serving of vegetables with love than a fattened calf with hatred (Prov 15:16-17).

In the end, less is more. We want too much. We think we can have it all. Not true, it just distracts and tortures us. Psalm 86:11 says, Make simple my heart, O Lord.  Ask the Lord to help you desire what is good and best and then to build your life and priorities around that. You can’t have it all. You have to decide. Life involves trade-offs. We must learn this deeply. Otherwise expect to be overwhelmed and owned by what you claim to possess. A simple heart is a gift to pray for: Simplex fac cor meum Domine! (Make simple my heart O Lord!) Ps 86:11.

Here is a remarkable portrait of modern man: overwhelmed and anxious, fearful that he does not measure up to the unrealistic expectations of the world. And yet he seems unable to decide what is really important.

And here is a cute but poignant video about how our wealth affords us no rest.

Posted on

How About Halloween?

How should we as Catholics and Christians respond to Halloween? In recent decades there seems to have been the emergence of two camps. One sees Halloween is generally harmless fun. The other sees Halloween as a dangerous dalliance with the occult, the demonic and evil. While it is true that there are some excesses evident in current Halloween celebrations, I would largely find myself in the “harmless fun” category especially if we allow Halloween to be a Teachable moment from the Christian perspective.

Part of the reason that I see it as harmless fun is rooted in my experience. Back when I was a kid in the 1960s and early 1970s we would often dress in ghoulish costumes and attempt to look as frightening as possible. One year I went about as a skeleton. My grandfather, who was a doctor had an plastic skeleton of a hand that was very realistic. I would hold it in my hand and pull my shirt over my real hand. It was so real looking that people often wondered if my hand was horribly injured for real. Another year I was a zombie. Another year a ruthless pirate. There were a few years where I dressed more mildly as an astronaut and a Navy officer. But it was all good fun. Even in the ghoulish years it never occurred to me that the “dark side” was attractive or that devil worship was in my future.

In a way, what was more evident to me was that we were mocking evil, death and the occult. All this dressing up stuff was not in admiration of bad stuff it was about being goofy and making all the devilish stuff seem silly.

There are surely some concerns today about Halloween. One is that it has gone too far. Some adult costumes at adult parties in Georgetown and other places are downright immoral. Let’s be clear that this is wrong and is excluded from the more benign posture I am suggesting here. It is also true that there are some who take all this evil stuff seriously. There probably is a rise in Satanism today but I can guarantee there is a lot more than Halloween at work there. But for the vast majority of kids and young people  I think it is still safe to conclude that Halloween is just good fun like it always has been.

As Christians we might help by putting a bit of perspective on the day. It is a sort of teaching moment for us all. Here are a few teaching moments we might ponder.

  1. The word “Halloween” is derived from Catholic tradition. All Saints Day which occurs the next day (Nov 1) was called in older English “All Hallows Day” The evening before was called the “een of All Hallows.” It was eventually shortened to Halloween. The Church put the feast of All Saints in place to answer a pagan custom that feared that the dead walked the earth on the last day of October. The Church’s answer was that the dead were not all ghouls and zombies. Among the dead were also the saints who were glorious and holy. And although the scary traditions continued the Church largely succeeded in pushing back the fears about the dead. Now the celebrations on All Hallows Eve were more about fun than fear.
  2. Scripturally we might highlight a couple of texts that point to our truest attitudes  about death and demonic realities. As regards death, we ought not fear it for Scripture says, Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:54-56). So, in a certain sense we mock death and dismiss its power to trouble us.  The graveyards, corpses, blood, skeletons, and coffins of Halloween allow us, on a yearly basis, to confront our mortality  and confront our often repressed fear of death and Christ victory actually gives us a basis to do this.
  3. Regarding the evil spirits and demons another scripture comes to mind,  And having disarmed the powers and principalities [of evil], Christ made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Col 2:15) And so again it is possible for us to see all the Halloween display of the evil and demonic not as a celebration but a mockery. Like Christ and because of his triumph  we can make a spectacle of them. And here too we confront some of our natural fears about evil and things related to it: monsters, bats, owls, ghosts and goblins. The world can be a scary place, strange and mysterious place, and we tend to fill its dark corners with “monsters.” Halloween, allows us (especially children) to roam a night filled with frightening things but in fact  to find only friends and neighbors and candy! Again, vague fears are collectively confronted and processed and we can additionally find courage in the fact that Christ has conquered.

I know what I have said may be controversial to some of you. But I might humbly suggest that trying to suppress a strong cultural tradition by “demonizing it” (pardon the pun) usually backfires and only makes it more appealing to those who love to tweak us with their extremes. Maybe a better strategy is to emphasize a more benign and scriptural interpretation and to claim what is truly ours as Christians on the strange little night we call Halloween.

 

Posted on

Kindness is Not the Same as Love

In yesterday’s post we pondered that being holy is more than being nice. Today we do well to ponder that that being loving is not the same as being kind. Here too we live in a reductionist culture that has tended to reduce love to kindness. The results are often quite problematic as we shall see.

Kindness is a very great thing and has an important place in our relationships. Kindness is evidenced by goodness and charitable behavior, a  pleasantness, tenderness and concern for others.  According to Aristotle, kindness is an emotion manifesting itself by the desire to help somebody in need, without expecting anything in return. Peter Kreeft defines kindness as “sympathy, with the desire to relieve another’s suffering.” [Envoy Magazine, Vol 9.3, p. 20]

However, as Kreeft himself notes,  it is a very great mistake to equate kindness with love. Kindness is an aspect of love, but it is necessarily distinct from love. For is sometimes happens that love, which wills what is best for the other, may deem it best not to remove all suffering. A father, in fact may impose punishment on a child out of love. Kindness generally seeks to alleviate suffering and negativity. Love understands that suffering often has a salvific role. My parents disciplined me out of love. Had they been merely kind to me, I would likely have been spoiled, undisciplined and ill-equipped for life.

Paradoxically the more we love the more we will often see mere kindness diminish. Consider how kind we can be to strangers. We may sometimes give money to strangers with little questions asked. But if a son or daughter asks for money we may often want to know why and, even if we give it, we will frequently lecture them about being more responsible with their money. The interaction may be less kind, but it may also be more loving for it seeks to end the problem rather than merely relieve the symptom of the problem.

The good eclipses the best – And herein lies the danger of reducing love to kindness. In simply seeking to alleviate the suffering of the moment or to give people what they want, many deeper issues go unresolved and worsen. Welfare has created a slavish dependence for many in our culture. And it  is not just the poor in our cities. There is corporate welfare, and many other subsidies and entitlements that too many can no longer go without.  Rather than addressing the root causes of poverty, dependence or poor economic conditions and bad business models,  kindness interrupts love’s deeper role and treats only the suffering of the moment. In this sense the merely good (kindness)  replaces the truly best (Love). True love gives what is best, not merely what is immediately preferred.

Further, Many false expectations are centered in the exaltation of kindness over love. Generally this is manifest in the fact that suffering of any kind is seen as obnoxious and even the cause for legal action. It has also led to our demands for comfort to go on steroids. Demand for euthanasia flow from this sort of thinking as well.

A final and very terrible effect often flows from mistaking mere kindness for love is that it disposes many towards atheism. Here I simply want to quote Peter Kreeft because he says it so well

It is painfully obvious that God is not mere kindness, for He does not remove all suffering, though He has the power to do so. Indeed, this very fact — that the God who is omnipotent and can, at any instant, miraculously erase all suffering from the world, deliberately chooses not to do so —  is the commonest argument that unbelievers use against him. The number one argument for atheism stems from the confusion between love and kindness. [Peter Kreeft, Envoy Magazine, Vol 9.3, p. 20]

Kindness is a very great attribute and it surely has its place. But we must carefully distinguish it from love. Exalting kindness over love amounts to a denial of the wisdom of the Cross. Kindness focuses on comfort and alleviating suffering and this is a very great thing. But love is greater thing for it wills what is best, not what is merely desired.

Please note this is not a blog against kindness, only an attempt to distinguish and to subsume kindness under love. But kindness is an important and necessary virtue. This video is a beautiful story of how kindness is also tied to sacrificial love.

Posted on

What Is Original Sin?

Sometimes Original Sin gets simplified into the eating of an apple. Actually an apple is not mentioned. It is fruit surely but what fruit we do not know. But what’s the big deal about eating an apple or piece of fruit? OK, maybe they shouldn’t have eaten it. But really, did an apple lead to all the pain and grief we experience today?

As you may have guessed, No, it was not an apple or fruit  per se that led to all this. What was the Original Sin, what did it consist of? Consider that Original Sin was actually of cluster of sins: pride, disobedience, ingratitude, lack of trust, and a complete disregard for the wisdom and love of God. I am struck by how the Catechism describes Original Sin:

Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.  All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” (CCC #s 397-398)

Notice the cascading effect that begins with a lack of trust. How did Adam and Eve (and all of us) fail to trust God? Simply in this, God had warned them of a certain tree, the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Pure and simple he warned they stay away from it for it would bring death to their souls. Now to “know” in the Bible always means more than intellectual knowing. To “know” in the Bible means to have deep intimate and personal experience of the the thing or person known. Hence it is clear that God did not want Adam and Eve ever to have to experience the horrible reality of evil. He sought to protect them from its devastating effects. So God’s forbidding was made in protective love. We were called simply to trust God that evil is dreadful and we shouldn’t insist on knowing  that for ourselves, just trust God.

But the Devil tempted us in this sort of way:

“You can’t trust God! He is holding something back from you. Sure he gave this nice garden and all but that is just to placate you. He knows that if you eat that fruit you will become like gods and begin to rival him. No! God is trying to keep you from your true destiny, to rule and even to tell him what to do! Do not trust Him or what he is telling you. it is only to keep you down, he isn’t really good at all. Listen to me. I promise you will not die, you will become like gods!

So there it is Adam and Eve. Who are you going to trust? God who gave you everything or the Devil who has given you nothing but promises something on the other side of the sin? Who will it be?

Sadly, you know the rest of the story. And Adam and Eve’s temptation is repeated in every sin we are tempted to commit.

 “Come on” says the Devil, “God is trying to limit your freedom, keep you down and doesn’t want you to be happy! His demands are unreasonable, he is trying to take away your fun and fulfillment. Sin will make you happy. God’s way is restrictive. Do as you please. Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!”

And so often we buy into it. And are we happy? Maybe for a moment, but the misery of sin is too clear to be denied. The Devil is a liar. But what do we do when we sin? We trust him over God. In so doing the Catechism says we abuse our freedom. How? Because freedom for a Christian is “the capacity to obey God.” We are free when when are able to carry out what God says. Now the world and the Devil say that freedom is about doing whatever you please. No, not if it is sin because sin never leads to freedom, it leads to bondage. Jesus says, “Whoever sins is a slave to sin.” (Jn 8:34)  Look at the world today and try to tell me that sin leads to freedom. Look at the addiction to drugs, alcohol, sex, anger, revenge and greed and tell me that sin leads to freedom. No, sin is never freedom, it is bondage and many get so stuck in destructive behaviors that they don’t know how to stop. The video below powerfully illustrates the horror and bondage of sin, it shows its awful reality. It is not freedom at all, it is sorrow, bondage and humiliation.

In sin, we choose ourselves over God as the text from the Catechism says. We think we will become like gods, but in reality we sink lower than the animals and do things to each other and ourselves that even animals don’t do. God wants to raise us to share in his nature to be sure but we insist that we can do it ourselves. We cannot. Look at our grandiose attempts and tell me if you think we have been successful.

The following video does a pretty good job of depicting where Satan’s promises to Adam and Eve led. Watch it if you dare and remember that the Devil is a liar.

 

Posted on

Will the Real First Amendment Please Stand Up

There is much ado about the Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons debate in regard to the matter of church and state. Many have tried to portray Ms. O’Donnell as ignorant of Constitutional Law. I cannot vouch for her overall knowledge of Constitutional Law but Ms. O’Donnell is right on this matter, the phrase, “separation of church and state” occurs nowhere in the US Constitution. Here is what the First Amendment actually says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Amendment 1)

To establish a religion is to set forth an officially endorsed State religion and grant it special favor over and against other religious bodies and denominations. The amendment is clear that Congress shall do no such thing. And neither shall Congress act to prohibit the free exercise of religion. There is no call here for some radical separation, as though somehow religion, or religious expression can never interact with Government. Congress opens daily with prayer. The Founding Fathers prayed together and often referenced God.

It is said that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter of a “wall of separation” but, for the record, a private Letter of Jefferson is not the US Constitution and if Jefferson really intended a wall of separation then he never got his own memo. He himself, as President, permitted the funding of Christian churches among the native Americans [1] and frequently, as a public official, mentioned God. One of my favorite series of Jefferson quotes are chiseled on the wall at the Jefferson Memorial:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. 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.

These are primarily quotes from several sources but are from his time as Governor of Virginia. Of the four panels of quotes in the Jefferson Memorial, three of them have Jefferson mentioning God.

The Establishment clause does not forbid a role for religion in the public square or in government. An extreme position is proposed today that seeks to eliminate all public display of religion and to scour the mere mention of religion from public schools and in public buildings and gatherings. This is extreme and novel. It has reached a peak in our time, but most of us who are a little older, remember a time when prayer and religious expression were not banished from public settings. There was a time not long ago when it was still possible to mention Jesus Christ in public schools and refer to Christian teaching as an essential component of American ethics, law and heritage. Today even Santa Claus (hardly a religious figure if you ask me) is shown the door. The word Christmas is banished from schools and replaced by the word holidays (don’t tell them it is just a mispronunciation of “Holy Days”). Go ahead and mention Mohamed and learn the tenants of Islam in the name of “diversity” but don’t even think of mentioning Jesus.

All of this is an extreme misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause and it marches under the banner of “Separation of Church and State” a phrase that  doesn’t occur in the Constitution at all.

A final thought. I have  heard some secularists say that, although God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, He appears nowhere in the Constitution and that this should be the model, no mention of God. But they are wrong. God, in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ IS mentioned in the US Constitution. He is saluted in the very closing words, just above the signatures of the Founding Fathers. Here is how the Constitution concludes:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names:

There  He is, “our Lord,” and there follows a year (1787) which is calculated based on the year of our Lord’s birth. If the founding Fathers intended the radical interpretation of Establishment Clause employed by secularists today, they would never have concluded their seminal document with a reference to “our Lord.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the US Constitution.

 

Posted on

Is Anger Always a Sin?

Some one wrote in the following question:

How would you respond to a someone who (in Zen like fashion) states that anger is always counterproductive?  Is anger always a sin?

The simple answer is “No, anger is not always a sin.” In fact, in some situations anger is the appropriate response. If anger were always a sin, the Jesus never got the memo since he displays quite a lot of anger in the Gospels. We’ll look at that in a moment.

To being with, some distinctions are in order.

  1. We ought first to distinguish between the internal experience or feeling of anger and the external manifestation of it.The internal expereince of anger as a passionate response to some external stimulus is not sinful since we cannot usually and immediately control the arising of feelings or passions. Anger usually arises out of some sense of threat. It signals us that something is wrong, threatening or inappropriate as we understand or interpret the data. Sometimes our perceptions are incorrect but often they are not. Anger, in this sense, is not only sinless, but necessary as it alerts  us to the need to respond to something that is a threat or unjust and it gives us the energy to address it. In this sense, it is not sinful. It is a passion and an energy to set things right or to address a threatening situation.
  2. Now it is possible that our anger can arise from less than holy reasons. Some of the things we fear, we should not fear. Some of our fears are rooted in pride, and an inordinate need for status and affirmation. Some of our fears come from misplaced priorities. For example we may be excessively concerned with money, property, popularity  or material things. And this concern triggers inordinate fears about things that should not matter so much. And this fear gives rise to feeling easily threatened at loss or diminishment. This in turn triggers anger, since we sense that something is wrong or threatening. But we ought not be so concerned with such things since they are rooted in pride, vanity and materialism. In this case the anger may have a sinful dimension but the sin is more rooted in the inordinate and sinful drives than merely the anger itself. This is because, even when anger arises from poor motives or objects, it is still not something all that voluntary.
  3. Now external manifestations of anger can and do sometimes have a sinful dimension when they are beyond what is reasonable. If I am experiencing anger there may be little or no sin in that. However if I express that anger by hurling insults, or physically attacking someone I may well have sinned by a sinful expression of my anger. Even here there can be exceptions. It may be appropriate at times to physically defend myself. I can think of no exception to the rule against hurling insults and personal attacks. However, it remains true that we live in thin-skinned times and people often take personal offense when they should not. We will see in a moment that Jesus did not often hesitate to describe his opponents’  in rather vivid ways.
  4. Hence, of itself, anger is not a sin.The Scriptures say, Be angry but sin not (Ps 4:4) So anger is not the sin. However, the expression of anger may become sinful. Further, it is possible that some of our anger springs from less than holy sources.

When is the external manifestation of anger an appropriate response?  Most simply put, anger is appropriate when its object is appropriate and reasonable.

For example, it is appropriate to experience anger when we see or experience injustice. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. harnessed appropriate anger of Americans toward the injustice of racism. He elicited it,  and focused  its energy in productive ways. Notice that he was very careful to teach against violence and revenge. Anger did not to give the Civil Rights Protesters the right to hate. What Dr. King did was to elicit a just anger on the part of many Americans. This anger in turn gave them the motivation to act creatively and energetically to resist  injustice and effect change through non-violence. This sort of angry response was appropriate, reasonable and even holy. The tradition of non-violent resistance to injustice remains strong in those who protest abortion, and other sins, crimes and social injustices. It is the anger that motivates the desire to speak and the zeal to take action to rectify injustice.

Anger is also appropriate and even necessary in some forms of fraternal correction. To fail to manifest some level of anger may lead to the false conclusion that the offense in question is not really all that significant. For example if a child belts his brother in the mouth and knocks out a tooth a parent ought to manifest an appropriate amount of anger to make it very clear that this sort of behavior is intolerable. To gently correct a child in a smooth and dispassionate way with no inflection in the voice can lead to the impression that this really isn’t so bad. Proper anger has a way of bringing the point home and making a lasting impression. Again, note that the anger in question should be at a proper level, not excessive, and not too weak. This of course requires a good bit of self-mastery.

Meekness– And this leads us to an important beatitude and fruit of the Holy Spirit which helps us to master anger: Meekness. In modern English, meekness has lost its original vigor and tends to signify a person who is a bit of a pushover and easily taken advantage of. But,  in its original meaning, meekness describes the vigorous virtue wherein one gains authority over their anger. Aristotle defined meekness (πραΰτης ) as the mean between being too angry, and not being angry enough. As we have noted, there is a place and a need for anger. The meek person has authority over their anger. They are able to summon its energy but control its extremes.  Hence the meek are far from weak. They are the string ones who have gained authority over their anger. St. John Chrysostom says in this regard: He who is not angry when he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is a hotbed of many vices. (Homily 11). St Thomas Aquinas says: Consequently, lack of the passion of anger is also a vice, [for it is] a lack of movement in the will directed to punishment by the judgment of reason (II, IIae 158.8).

What of Jesus? One the one hand Jesus seems to have taught very strongly against anger:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:21-22)

On the face of it it would seem that Jesus condemns anger without exception. However, if that is the case then Jesus broke his own rule for he exhibited a lot of anger in the Gospels. What Jesus DOES clearly condemn here is unrighteous and wrathful anger. Notice that he give two examples of the kind of anger he means. The first example is to use the term of contempt: Raca. This term is hard to translate so it is simply rendered in the Aramaic. Essentially what it means to do is to strip a person of any dignity and to regard them with utter contempt. Notice that Jesus links this kind of anger to murder since, by it, the other person is so stripped of any human dignity that to murder them is no different than killing an ox or mule. This sort of anger depersonalizes the other and disregards them as a child of God. The term fool; has a similar, though less egregious, purpose. Hence, it would seem that the Lord is not condemning all anger her but rather the anger of contempt and depersonalization. To absolutize Jesus’ teaching here to include any anger would seem unreasonable given what we have said above and it would also call into question Jesus’ own example which includes not a little anger.

Most people are familiar with Jesus’ anger in the cleansing of the temple. But there are other places as well where he manifest not a little anger:

 Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matt 23:29-33)

Jesus said, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire!  He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?  He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God!” ( John 8:44-47)

Passages like these do not exhibit the “Mr Rogers” kind of Jesus common in the modern imagination. Jesus was no “Caspar Milquetoast.”  His vigorous anger is also on display in the video below.

What to make of these angry displays?

  1. Not sinful – Clearly they are not sinful displays of anger since the scriptures assure us that Jesus never sinned (e.g. Heb 4:15).
  2. There may be an important cultural dimension to remember here. In the culture of the ancient Jews there seems to have been a wider acceptance of the expression of anger than in our own American setting. Even in America there is a wide variance in the acceptance of anger. I once dated an Italian girl in college and she and her mom could really set to it: lots of loud shouting in Italian!  And then in a moment it was over and they were on to the next topic. In their family anger was a more accepted expression than in the typical American setting. The cleansing of the Temple by Jesus was also an expression more acceptable than our culture would usually permit. Turning over the tables etc. was a “prophetic action.” Prophets did things like this. In that culture it was more acceptable than perhaps in ours. But even we find a place for civil disobedience. We may not always like it, but we respect that it has a place in our culture.
  3. Yet Jesus clearly is angry. He is grieved at the hard heartedness of his opponents and his strong tone is an authoritative summons to repent. A lowered and lyrical voice might not convey the urgency of the situation. These are hardened men and there is a need for pointed and passionate denunciation. This is righteous anger.
  4. We ought to be careful before simply taking up Jesus angry tone for two reasons. First, he was able to see into their hearts and properly conclude as to the proper tactics necessary. We may not always be able to do this. Secondly, the wider Western culture in which many of us live may not be as prepared to accept such an angry tone. It may be a less effective tactic in our setting and  prudential judgment is a necessary precursor to using such tactics.

But in the end, anger is not, ipso facto, sinful or wrong. It is sometimes the proper and necessary response. We do well to be careful with our anger, for it is an unruly passion. We ought to see above all the fruit of the Spirit which is meekness and ask to Lord ot give us authority over our anger and a prudence as to its effective use.

 This video shows Jesus’ anger:

Posted on

The Rosary-a tool for evangelization

The Rosary and other religious symbols worn as jewelry  or tattoos are getting a lot of attention these days. In a recent blog post in the Washington Post, the author opined that this  is part of a growing movement of separating the spiritual from the religious. Religious jewelry “caters to people who are expressing their personal spirituality rather than an affiliation with organized religion.”

Putting my jewelry to work

I am someone who owns a rosary bracelet, that though it can easily be mistaken for a silver beaded bracelet, is for me, my traveling rosary, always within easy reach if the opportunity to steal a few minutes of prayer presents itself.

For a recent talk that I was giving, I re-read Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, The Most Holy Rosary. I had forgotten how beautiful it is. I recommend you celebrate today’s feast of the rosary by reading it!  The Pope speaks about how in the rosary we learn Christ through Mary. We don’t just learn about Christ, we learn Christ.  “The Rosary is also a path of proclamation and increasing knowledge, in which the mystery of Christ is presented again and again at different levels of the Christian experience. Its form is that of a prayerful and contemplative presentation, capable of forming Christians according to the heart of Christ. When the recitation of the Rosary combines all the elements needed for an effective meditation, especially in its communal celebration in parishes and shrines, it can present a significant catechetical opportunity …. In this way too Our Lady of the Rosary continues her work of proclaiming Christ.

This Saturday, October 10 at 2:30 p.m., the archdiocese hosts its annual pilgrimage to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. We make a pilgrimage to “Mary’s House” to ask her intercession on our behalf for a particular intention that is on the heart and in the mind of the church at this time.

Mother of the Church and Mother of Families

As part of our commitment to the New Evangelization, we will ask Mary, Mother of the Church to pray with us that our work will bear fruit in our parishes. As Mother of Families, we ask her to join with us in our pray for the people we love most who are inactive in the practice of their faith or alienated from the church. We will ask Mary, to intercede with her son, Jesus, to give us courage to speak about our faith and to be bold in inviting family, friends, co-workers and neighbors to take a second look at the church– to come home– and join their church family.

The right first step

Do you have someone in mind whom you would love to invite to join you at church or with whom you would like to have a serious conversation about their faith or their participation in the life of the church? Are you wondering how to begin a conversation? Do you need a little more courage to be bold? Why not make the commitment to join us for the rosary and for Mass? Make this your first step –to pray on behalf of the person– and to entrust the person to Mary’s care.

A tool for the Evangelizer

 Pope John Paul II writes “The history of the Rosary shows how this prayer was used in particular by the Dominicans at a difficult time for the Church due to the spread of heresy. Today we are facing new challenges. Why should we not once more have recourse to the Rosary, with the same faith as those who have gone before us? The Rosary retains all its power and continues to be a valuable pastoral resource for every good evangelizer.”