Reverence or Ruin: How the 4th Commandment is Necessary for Civilization

Fix it or Forget it – It cannot be underestimated how important the family is for the very existence of society and civilization. The widespread breakdown of the family in our own time already shows the grave results that flow from such a breakdown. Can our civilization be secure or stable if such a breakdown is allowed to continue? The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity. (Catechism 2207, 2210)

The Fourth Commandment is  Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you. (Ex 20:12)

Lack of Respect – One of the Key maladies of our day is a lack of respect of the young toward their elders. I remember when I was young that my Father would not allow us to watch the Flintstones. He banned it because he said that it made adults look stupid (it did) and that viewing it would not help us children to respect our elders. Children today of course are expose to much worse. A regular theme of sitcoms is that children run the show and parents and adults are all a bunch of idiots. Music from the 1960s on has produced a steady diet of anti-authoritarian themes which question and undermine the wisdom of elders and the past. Many children today are bold toward their parents, teachers and other elders. They often act as though they were speaking to a peer or an equal. Much of this comes from a culture that has largely jettisoned the insights of the 4th Commandment.

Reverence or Ruin: One of the most essential fruits of the fourth commandment is to instill respect. Respect is essential for there to be teaching. For if a child does not respect his elders, how can he learn from them? If he cannot respect, he cannot learn. And if he cannot learn then the wisdom of the past including the faith, cannot be communicated to him. And if the these cannot be communicated to him, he is doomed to error-ridden and misguided life fraught with foolish decisions. When this happens broadly in a society to children in general, (as it has in ours), civilization itself is threatened as whole generations loose the wisdom of the past and are condemned to repeat major errors and take up behaviors long ago abandoned as unwise and destructive. Without heartfelt reverence being instilled we are doomed to continue seeing an erosion in the good order and the collected wisdom necessary to sustain any civilization.

But reverence must be instilled. It must be insisted upon and their should be consequences for rejecting its demands. Too many parents today do not command respect. They speak of wanting their children to be their friends. But children have plenty of friends. What they need are parents, parents who are strong and secure, firm in their guidance, loving and consistent in their discipline, and not easily swayed by the unreasonable protests of children. No one will follow and uncertain trumpet and children need firm, clear and certain direction. If we want children to rediscover respect for their elders then we must insist upon it and command it of them.

What are some of the implications of the 4th commandment? The Catechism is actually quite thorough in describing them in Paragraph #s 2214-2220:

The Origin of respect – Respect for parents derives from gratitude toward those who, by the gift of life, their love, and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom, and grace. “With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?” (Sirach 7:27-28)

Obedience – Respect is shown by true docility and obedience. “My son, keep your father’s commandment, and forsake not your mother’s teaching” (Proverbs 6:20)… As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey his parents in all that they ask of him when it is for his good or that of the family. “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.”(Col. 3:20) Children should also obey the reasonable directions of their teachers and all to whom their parents have entrusted them. But if a child is convinced in conscience that it would be morally wrong to obey a particular order, he must not do so. As they grow up, children should continue to respect their parents. They should anticipate their wishes, willingly seek their advice, and accept their just admonitions. Obedience toward parents ceases with the emancipation of the children; not so respect, which is always owed to them.  

Honor and care in old age – The fourth commandment also reminds grown children of their responsibilities toward their parents. As much as they can, they must give them material and moral support in old age and in times of illness, loneliness, or distress. “Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure. Whoever honors his father will be gladdened by his own children, and when he prays he will be heard. Whoever glorifies his father will have long life, and whoever obeys the Lord will refresh his mother.”(Sir. 3:2-6).

Wider family implications – The fourth commandment also promotes harmony in all of family life; it thus concerns relationships between brothers and sisters. Finally, a special gratitude is due to those from whom they have received the gift of faith, the grace of Baptism, and life in the Church. These may include parents, grandparents, other members of the family, pastors, catechists, and other teachers or friends.

Societal Implications – The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. [But] It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it. (Catechism # 2199)

Another important key in instilling respect is for those in authority to be “respectable.” Parents and all those in authority have obligations and duties that flow from their status. To overlook or ignore these obligations places significant burdens upon children, subordinates, and others. This in turn can lead to bewilderment and contributes to an undermining of the respect and honor which ought ordinarily be paid parents, elders and those in authority. Thus, while parents and lawful authorities ought to be respected it is also true to say that they must conduct themselves in a manner that is respectable and observe their duties with care. What are some of these duties? The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a fine summary of them and the text is largely reproduced here.

The duties of parents – Parents must regard their children as children of God and respect them as human persons. Showing themselves obedient to the will of the Father in heaven, they educate their children to fulfill God’s law…They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service…self-denial, sound judgment, and self- mastery are learned…Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them…Parents should teach children to avoid the compromising and degrading influences which threaten human societies…parents receive the responsibility and privilege of evangelizing their children. Parents should initiate their children at an early age into the mysteries of the faith of which they are the “first heralds” for their children. They should associate them from their tenderest years with the life of the Church…Parents’ respect and affection are expressed by the care and attention they devote to bringing up their young children and providing for their physical and spiritual needs. As the children grow up, the same respect and devotion lead parents to educate them in the right use of their reason and freedom. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. (Catechism 2221-2231).

The 4th Commandment gives clear guidance and warns, it is either reverence or there will be ruin.

Here’s a quirky little video from 1950. It’s rather hokey actually but it’s a neat glimpse from the past, idealized to be sure but the basic message is great.

Adore the Lord in Holy Attire – On Proper Dress for Mass

Last week we had a discussion on the women wearing veils in Church. One of the themes that emerged in the comments was that the discussions about what to wear in Church should be broader than just a veil. More specifically BOTH men and women should consider how they dress when going into God’s house. Hence I would like to explore some background issues and  enunciate some principles. You of course will be able to add to them.

1. Scripture – There is very little in Scripture that seems to spell out the proper way to dress for sacred worship. There is the general directive to Adore the Lord in holy attire (Psalm 96:9; Ps 29:2) But this seems more an allusion to holiness (God’s and ours) more than to clothing per se. There are directives for the Passover meal that one should have staff in hand, with loins girt and sandals on their feet (Ex 12:11). But this seems a specific rule for the Passover meal only and hardly something that would done in the synagogue or temple. To gird one’s loins meant to pull up the lower part of one’s outer garment and tighten the belt. This exposed the lower legs and allowed greater mobility for them. It was a sign of being flight or of being at work. It is the ancient equivalent of “roll up your sleeves.”  (more HERE). As a general rule Jewish people would not show their legs unless circumstances strongly required it. They would surely not come to the synagogue or the Temple in this manner. Scripture also speaks of Phylacteries and Prayer Shawls. But these sorts of clothing and accessories seem to have come under some critique in the New Testament (Matt 23:5) and their use was not continued in the New Testament Church worship.

2. Church norms and rules – There are no official and specific Church norms or requirement for lay persons who attend Mass mentioned in Canon Law or the Sacramentary. Surely for priests and other clergy there are many rules and norms but I am unaware of any currently binding norms for the laity. Although the veils were once required for women, the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated and the current code is silent on any requirement.

3. Hence it seems that Culture supplies most of the norms regarding what is considered appropriate attire for Church. And, alas our culture is currently quite unhelpful to us in this regard. Here in America we have become extremely casual about the way we dress for just about everything. It seems we almost never dress up anymore. This has changed somewhat dramatically in my own life time of just less than 50 years. “Sneakers” or “tennis shoes” as we called them were for sports or running around and playing in the neighborhood. But we would never even think of wearing them to school and certainly not to Church. I remember having a special set of shoes just for church. In the 1960s, it was also expected that I would go to Church in formal, pressed trousers, a button down shirt, and, except in the hottest months, a tie and even a suit jacket in winter. My sister and mother always wore a dress. Pants would not even have been considered for them. For the younger girls a skirt and a blouse might be OK but preferably a dress with a hat or veil.

But things changed dramatically around 1970. The photo above right was taken in 1969 at St. John the Evangelist Parish in Canton, Massachusetts. It was the end of an era. Within five years neckties were lost and jeans and a t-shirts came to be the norm. Most of the women as we discussed lost the veil, and dresses gave way to more casual pants suits and then also to other more casual things like jeans etc. Shorts for men and women, unthinkable in previous years also began to appear in church as did tank tops and other beach attire. Within ten years the culture of dressing up for Church was almost wholly abandoned. Now  wearing a tie to Church would seem stuffy and formal.

But this is where our culture has gone. It is not just Church. Years ago when my family went out to eat we almost always dressed up. Maybe it wasn’t a full neck tie but at least trousers and a button down shirt. Maybe not a formal dress for mom and sis, but at least a skirt and blouse. A restaurant was considered a semi-formal outing. School was also considered a place where things like jeans and informal t-shirts were out of place. Going down town to shop meant we changed out of shorts and put on something appropriate. Shorts were basically for running around the house, playing in the yard and such. But you just didn’t go out to more public settings wearing shorts and flip flops or even sneakers.

Pardon me for sounding like and old fud but I am not really that old. My point is that culture has changed,  and changed rather quickly. This has affected the Church as well. What were fighting is a strong cultural swing to the extremely informal. Most people don’t even think of dressing up for most things any more let alone Church.

4. Hence at the cost of seeming old and stuffy I might like to suggest a few norms and I hope you’ll supply your own as well:

  1. Men should wear formal shoes to Church. We used to call these hard shoes (because they were) but today many formal shoes are actually quite comfortable.
  2. Men should wear trousers (not jeans).
  3. Men should never wear shorts to Church.
  4. Men should wear a decent shirt, preferably a button down shirt. If it is a pullover shirt it should include a collar. Wearing a plain t-shirt without a collar is too informal.
  5. Men should consider wearing a tie to Church and in cooler weather, a suit coat. Some may consider this a bit too stuffy and formal but who knows, you might be a trend setter!
  6. Now as I talk about women I know I’ll get in some trouble!
  7. Women should wear decent shoes to Church. Flip flops, beach sandals etc. seem inappropriate.
  8. Women should not wear shorts to Church.
  9. Women, if they wear pants, should never wear jeans to Church. Some nice slacks that are not too tight can be fine.
  10. Women should consider wearing a dress or at least a skirt in preference to pants. It just looks a bit more formal than pants.
  11. Women should wear a nice blouse (if they are not wearing a full dress). The blouse or shirt they wear should not be too tight.
  12. Sleeveless garments are pushing it a bit but can be acceptable.
  13. Women should never wear tank tops, tube tops, spaghetti straps, or bare midriffs to Church.
  14. Well, you may have at this list. Add or subtract as you will.

A final thought: Clothes say something about what we think, what we value. They also influence how we behave and feel. That our culture has become so casual about everything says something about us. I cannot exactly articulate it but it seems to say, “nothing is really all that important.” But that is not true. Going to God’s house IS  important. Being ministered to by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is astounding. Casual attire in these circumstances is simply inappropriate if we really think about what we are doing, where we are going and who it is we will meet. It does not necessarily follow that we must wear tuxedos and formal gowns. But decent semi-formal attire seems wholly appropriate. Sunday is special, God’s House is special. Somethings really ARE important and our clothing and demeanor ought to reflect this truth.

The Problem of Privacy: God is Watching….And So Are Many Others!

At the bottom of this post is a remarkable video from CBS news that indicates that if you have or use a digital copier, everything you have copied on it going back years is stored on a hard drive in the copier. The drive is evidently so large in them that they can store over 20,000 documents and hundreds of thousands of pages. Hence if you have ever photocopied personal materials containing social security numbers, checking info, personal data, etc, it is on that hard drive. The CBS news crew showed how easy it is to remove the hard drive and download its contents. It’s a stunning little segment and I recommend you watch it and share it with 500 of your closest friends.

Now I have titled this blog post the “Problem of Privacy”  and I mean it in two senses.

The first is the usual sense that many of us are experiencing something of an erosion in the privacy we have come to expect. Our data is out there in cyberspace and can too easily be intercepted by the nosey and the criminal. GPS devices help track our whereabouts, Internet browsing habits are retained at search engines, “cookies” in our computer also track our habits.  YouTube faithfully records our viewing habits and do our cable boxes. And,  as you can see in the video below,  just about everything we have ever copied on any copier built after 2002 in dutifully recorded and kept. Why I am not sure, but it’s there for the viewing. In many ways our life is an open book. In some ways having our info out there is a convenience. In other ways we are alarmed and suspicious. But in this sense privacy has become a problem. There is less and less of it each day. And look out, those full body scanners on the way at airports.

There is a second sense however in which I use the the phrase the “Problem of Privacy.” In a very important way we must remember that there has never been anything private about our life to God. He sees everything. He is the searcher of minds and hearts. The Book of Hebrews says that to him everything lies naked and exposed (Heb 4:13). No thought, deliberation or action of ours is hidden from God.

One of the problems of the modern age is that we are too easily forgetful of the fact that God witnesses everything we do. In school settings I have often reminded students pretending they had done nothing wrong: “Now be careful! God is watching and he knows everything you do. He also knows if you are lying to me! You might get away with something with me but you won’t avoid God!” But it is not only children who need to be reminded of this. God sees and knows everything we think and do. In this sense there is no privacy. God is watching. Deep down we know but our weak minds forget. And when we do remember our crafty minds try to reinvent God by saying dumb things like, “God doesn’t  mind” or “God understands”  or “God will not punish.”

So, absolute privacy is an illusion. We may well be able to carve out some privacy from one another and well we should. But we should not seek privacy from God nor can we. There is something increasingly medicinal about practicing the presence of God. The more we experience that God is present and watching the more we accept him on his own terms and do not try to reinvent him, them more we do this the more our behavior can be reformed. A little salutary fear can be medicinal while we wait for the more perfect motive of love to drive out sin.

And, frankly too, acknowledging that not only is God watching but others are too can also have some good effects. We may not approve of  their ability to see us, but in the end it can help to remember that they do. A few examples might help illustrate what I mean.

  1. Internet Porn – As a confessor the sin of Internet pornography has increasingly found its way into the confessions I hear. One of the things I try to remind penitents of is the fact that when they are on the Internet they are out in public with a name tag on. All their browsing habits are stored both on their own computers and out at the sites they visit and the  browsing engines they use. If they think they are  merely in the privacy of their own room they ought to think again. Personally, this knowledge keeps me far away from bad sites of any kind on the Internet. There is a kind of salutary fear in knowing that I am out in public when on-line. The same is true for cable TV. Those boxes send data  about what I watch and how long,  back to the Cable company. My browsing and viewing habits are known to those who might wish to find them. Frankly it keeps me out of trouble. I hope other virtues do as well, but remembering that I am in public is very helpful.
  2. The same is true for e-mail and other forms of Internet communication such as face book and blogging. Once you press send, or publish, you’ve just made history. The contents of what you have said are out there to stay. You may delete it, but it will stay as data on servers for as long as the sun shall shine. Be very careful what you say for no matter how private you may think it is, it is not. You are always in earshot of some server which loves to keep your data. What you type in the darkness will be brought to light and what you post in secret will shouted from the housetop. Here too I am assisted by this fact. I may not like that what I send or post is ultimately public. But in the end it makes me careful about what I say or type.
  3. Accountability has also been a help in my life. As a priest I think it is important to live a rather transparent life. I almost never just slip away from the rectory. I always tell someone on the staff where I am going, at least generally and when I expect to return. I am a public figure. Sure I have some privacy up in my rectory suite but over all I make it a rule to account for my whereabouts. I also usually wear my clerical attire as I go about (except on a day off). There are surely times when I expect the rectory to be a private home (after 9pm) but here too I live with three other priests and though we have our separate apartments, the communal quality of the rectory also provides a salutary kind of accountability in terms of personal behavior.

What I am ultimately saying is that too much demand for privacy can also be a problem. In the end the Lord intends for us to live in community where we are accountable to others. Some degree of accountability and transparency is helpful and necessary for us. It is clear that there are significant problems with the erosion of our privacy today. We ought to continue to insist that proper boundaries should be respected. However we should also remember that some demands for privacy are unrealistic. At some level we simply need to accept that the being online is the same as being in public with your name tag on. That’s just the way it is, so behave yourself. You might change your name on-line but guess what, it’s really those little numbers that identify you. Mine are: 76.1**.3*.6*5 (I have put asterisks as a form of non-disclosure there are acutal numbers in the place of them). Where-ever I go those little numbers say it’s me even if I lie about the fact that its me. Now we may lament this but I think it is better simply to say, when I am on-line I am in public with a name tag on. There is nothing private about Internet or e-mail or texting or anything else that uses the public airways, or communication lines. That’s just the way it is and knowing this can be salutary.

Finding the proper balance between our public and private lives can be difficult. Surely privacy is to be insisted upon in many cases. But it is also true that overly expansive  assumptions of privacy are neither possible nor always healthy. Being in public will always be a necessary part of our life and being aware when we are in public is important.  You are in public right now because you are on-line.

OK, as usual you all can help by making distinctions, giving examples, and delivering rebuttals.

Before you comment take a few minutes to watch this video. And never sell your copier again without insisting that you be able to destroy the hard drive. This report was a real eye-opener and will make me wary of how and when I copy confidential documents and personal information.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Growing Crisis: Over 40 Percent of Babies Are Born Outside of Marriage in the US

I want to discuss a very alarming new study that indicates that over 40% of children are born outside of marriage in this country. This situation is growing very serious and needs to be addressed in our parishes and homes. Here is a brief excerpt of the article:

The number of children born outside marriage in the United States has increased dramatically to four out of ten of all births. Figures show that 41 per cent of children born in 2008 did not have married parents – up from 28 per cent in 1990. Researchers have concluded that although Christian values still play an important role in American society, public attitudes have changed. Having a child out of wedlock does not carry the stigma and shame it once did, they say.

The study also found that in America there is a declining number of teenage mothers and rising numbers of older parents….

The U.S. research, taken from census reports and health statistics by the Pew Research Centre, also outlines a trend of couples in western societies marrying later in life and delaying parenthood until they can afford it.

The share of births to unmarried mothers had increased most among white and traditionally Catholic Hispanic women.

The article can be read here: 41% Of Children Born Outside of Marriage in US

The numbers are really quite striking and increase from 28% to 41% in just 18 years. Note that the article lays the matter clearly at our feet, fellow Catholics citing that we have shown the greatest increase in unmarried mothers.

As a Church we have to do a better job of addressing this very serious matter. It would seem that we should address it by re-emphasizing some of the following things:

  1. Fornication and cohabitation are serious sins – We need to teach and re-emphasize that fornication (pre-marital sex) and adultery are very serious sins. They are mortal sins and,  if one commits them and dies unrepentant,  they are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. This is not the opinion of some grouchy old priest or Victorian parents it is the clear and consistent testimony of Scripture both in the Old and New Testaments. I have written on the Biblical teaching here before and you can read it here: Sober, Serene and Scriptural about Sex. I have also posted a PDF document that summarizes the Biblical teaching about pre-marital sex here:  Biblical Teaching on Pre-Marital Sex. To be sure, some commit the sin of fornication in weakness but have recourse to confession and strive to master what is surely a strong passion. That is commendable. Yet to be so bold as to live together outside of marriage hardly demonstrates a contrition or a firm pupose of amendment. We must simply be clear  that it is boldly sinful to cohabitate.
  2. Fornication and cohabitation undermine marriage – We need to demonstrate that cohabitation and fornication undermine marriage.  Sex is a gift from God to the married to strengthen the love,  loyalty and marriage of man and women. Since they share a great blessing and pleasure together their bonds are strengthened and their union encouraged. From this shared love and pleasure their children come forth quite literally as a fruit of their love. But when fornication and cohabitation and other sexual misbehavior becomes widespread and acceptable in a culture, one of the great and unique benefits of marriage (sexual intimacy) that serves as a kind of glue and incentive for marriage is thus removed.  That this true is demonstrated by the sky-rocketing of rates of divorce and further cohabitation.
  3. Fornication and Cohabitation give scandal– Many people today think that giving scandal merely means to shock someone. But that is incorrect. To give scandal means to cause some one to fall by encouraging them or leading them to sin. One of the most scandalous aspects of fornication and  cohabitation is that they NO LONGER cause shock. This means that this bad behavior is now having deep effects by robbing people of their shock and shame. It is very wrong to contribute to something that might cause my brother or sister to fall. Giving bad example or contributing to the notion that there is nothing wrong with premarital sex helps to lead others to this behavior. In the end we will be held to account for causing scandal or contributing to it unless we repent.
  4. Fornication and Cohabitation are an injustice to children– Many who engage in pre-marital sex say they will contracept (a sin in itself)  and so no children will be affected. But that is simply not true. First, as already noted, promiscuity contributes to the overall undermining of marriage which surely harms children. But more specifically, the fact is  that high numbers of fornicators and cohabitors DO conceive and this leads to higher rates of abortion and also single motherhood. It is a blessing if a child not aborted but it remains true that children born out of wedlock are born into less than ideal conditions. God has set forth that the best environment to rear and raise children is stable, faithful, heterosexual marriage. A child is best raised by a father and mother who are consistently present and who give complimentary witness. A father contributes to development in a way a mother cannot. A mother contributes to development in a way that a father cannot. To engage in risky and sinful behavior that places children at greater risk of abortion or incomplete homes is an injustice. We don’t often think of sexual sins as sins of injustice but they are. In the end, it is the children who pay.

You will no doubt wish to add to the list or perhaps nuance what I have said. But in the end I think we have to be firm and clear about the wrongful nature of this sort of sexual misbehavior. I will say that the Church was not as clear as she should have been with me when I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s. But I can assure you the fallen angel who is the devil, and our fallen culture ARE clear as to what they think.

It is tragic to think that almost half of the Children born in this country are born into situations that are far from ideal. It is even more tragic that this does not have to be. Many think we really can’t turn this thing around. I disagree. The example of a concerted effort at eliminating smoking has had significant impact. If we come together and agree and are firm and clear I am sure we can make a difference. Even just taking the PDF document on Scriptural teaching I have produced above  and sharing it with you teenagers can help. But we need to do more and better. Things are at a critical stage just now.

For further data and research read here: Child Trends Data  (NB Though the report written in 2001 indicates out of wedlock births had leveled off, that assertion has been superceded by the more recent data which shows it has now again spiked).

This video depicts an important parental connection in helping young people develop a proper notion of sexuality and how it relates to marriage:

UPDATE: on Anti-Christian Bigotry Article

On Monday I blogged on Anti-Christian Bigotry in a California School District. I also mentioned the recent Supreme Court victory allowing a Cross to stand in a War Memorial Park on Federal land in California. It has now come to pass that someone who did not like the decision destroyed the Cross which has stood there since the 1930s.

I wonder if you have seen this in the news?

Here’s the Fox News Report:

Anti Christian Bigotry in California School District is Rebuked by Judge.

I have marveled over the years at the kind of fear and anger the Christian Faith generates in some sectors of our society. Even the suggestion that there might a a small nativity scene in a park, or Christmas tree near City Hall, or a display of the Ten Commandments often elicits a hew and cry and brings forth camera crews and elicits lawsuits. But the venom seems especially reserved  for symbols of the Christian faith in particular and to some extent the wider Judeo-Christian heritage. A reference from the Q’ran in school is seen by many of this same crowd to be “tolerant” and “diverse.”  But to quote the Bible is an egregious violation of the (so-called) separation of Church and State. A comedy skit on a TV show that even indirectly depicts Mohammad is bemoaned as intolerant and anti-Muslim (which it may be) but a photo of a crucifix submerged in urine is called “art” and receives funding from the National Endowment of the Arts. Well, you know the basic drill.

Most Americans are not offended by religious display. It remains a small but very vocal minority which seeks to remove all reference to America’s spiritual and religious heritage. And due to this movement’s particular hostility to things Christian one is left to conclude that we are not dealing with a rational objection here but rather one rooted in bigotry, hatred or at least aversion to the Christian faith.

The latest round in anti-Christian fervor has taken place in San Diego (Spanish, by the way and meaning “St. James”!)  California. I will excerpt the story here from briefing by the Thomas More Law Center and provide a few comments of my own in red. The Full briefing with other links can be found here: Poway School Board Continues Fight to Ban God  .

In a closed-session meeting held on Monday night, the Poway Unified School District board in San Diego, California, voted to appeal the ruling of Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez that held school officials violated math teacher Bradley Johnson’s constitutional rights when they ordered him to remove two patriotic banners from the walls of his classroom because they referred to “God.” The appeal will be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNotice, the specific reason they said they wanted the posters removed was because they referred to God. The posters did not endorse a specific denomination or even reference Jesus, they simply mentioned God. Note too, they were all quotes from official US documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the National Seal, and the usual conclusion to any presidential speech: “God bless the United States of America.” Now the School officials SAY that they were concerned about references to God. But where they? As we shall see they allowed other religious references to remain. It would seem that their objections focused only only on religious references to God that emanated from the traditional Judeo-Christian heritage of this Nation’s past. This God has to go but other religious figures from Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu sources can stay. Also, as you will see anti-religious slogans were also permitted to remain. So, what are we dealing with here? Is it some sort of misguided but at least consistent and principled stance against any religious or sectarian display in public schools?  Obviously not. It is an inconsistent singling out of the Judeo-Christian heritage of this land and seems more bigoted than principled.

The banners included the phrases, “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” , “God Bless America.” [“All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator.”]. The school district claimed Johnson’s banners, which had hung in his classroom for two decades without complaint, advocated an impermissible Judeo-Christian view point and may be offensive to a Muslim student. I could not find in any of the articles I read on this that a Muslim Student had actually complained. The School officials seem to have merely concluded that a Muslim student might be offended. But I wonder if they would? Muslims are not Christians but neither are they secular. If I were in a largely Muslim Country and saw references to Allah and was greated Allahu Akbar (God is Great) I would not be offended. After all I too think God is great. I do not share the Muslim faith or worship God under the title or vision of Allah. But somewhere I suspect that they and we are both striving for God. I think their notions of Him are quite flawed but I am surely not offended by references to Allah. It is always possible that a militant Muslim of some sort might be offended by a reference to “God” but the militants aren’t going to be pleased no matter what. So I seriously doubt that the average Muslim is going to be offended by a sign that says, “In God We Trust.”

However, the school district left untouched displays that included a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s anti-religion song “Imagine,” which begins, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama. OK the gig is up, they’re singling out Christians and the Judeo-Christian Heritage.

In a public statement made shortly after the vote to appeal the ruling, School Board member Jeff Mangum stated, “[I]f this is allowed, what else can go up on the wall?” The board member’s question was answered by Judge Benitez, who noted in his ruling that school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming. Looks like the Judge smelled a rat of rank hypocrisy and selective outrage

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal lawsuit on Johnson’s behalf after the school district ordered him to take down his banners in January 2007. The Law Center vows to defend Judge Benitez’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary…..Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented,…. [School Officials]  “have no objection to a 40-foot display of sacred, Tibetan prayer flags in a science classroom, among countless other religious and political displays. But they do have a personal objection to Mr. Johnson’s patriotic banners because they recognize a fundamental truth that school officials dislike: God plays a prominent role in our Nation’s history and heritage.”

The Ninth Circuit is unfortunately not friendly to traditional religion however. I suspect there may be trouble in this appeal but there is hope if it gets to the US Supreme Court which commonly overturns the 9th Circuit. An example of this happened very recently when the Supreme Court allowed a War memorial Cross to stand on a hill top on Federally owned land in California. You can read more of that here: Supreme Court overturns objection to cross on public land

This video summarizes the school case and even includes a little humor.

On Creative Genius and Music as a Kind of Onomatopoeia

A few days ago we discussed whether Angels sing. My own conclusion from the discussion is that there is little or no evidence that Angels sing. About the closest reference is Job 38:7 and even there it is not perfectly clear that they sing. Perhaps the most positive way to state my point is that musical expression is a particular gift and genius of the human person. And our capacity for music is not just to make crude sounds. Rather we are possessed, at least collectively, of creative genius in this regard. The video below illustrates this genius.

Do you remember your grammar and the grammatical term Onomatopoeia? An Onomatopoeia is a word that sounds like the object it describes. Words like oink, meow, Wham! Sizzle, and my personal favorite:”Yackety Yak”

There are times too when music takes up a kind of onomatopoetic quality. In the video below Moses Hogan, one of the great modern arrangers of the old African American Spirituals describes his arrangement of “Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho.” He has the male and female voices in a frenetic dialogue with lots of staccato notes dominating in the male voices.  This creates the very sound of an intense battle! The song sounds like what it is describing. It’s a kind of “musical onomatopoeia.” There are other aspects of the same concept, you’ll hear the trumpet in the soprano and the battle reach climax in a moment of dissonance. And wait till you hear the walls fall at the very end in a cascade of notes! 

In this three minute video Moses Hogan describes his intent of echoing the sound of a battle and then the song is sung. Enjoy this brilliant and beautiful arrangement of the Spiritual. Admire too the wonderful discipline of the choir that is necessary to execute this spiritual flawlessly.

“No more silence, shout out with one hundred thousand tongues!”

A catchy headline in the Washington Post or the cry of a faithful lay woman calling church leaders to task?  It is a line written by Catherine of Siena to a priest of her day. It is the cry of a woman who loved her church and was heartbroken and angry at the scandal in which it was embroiled.  The French cardinals in a power grab moved the papacy to Avignon and created a schism. Closer to home, parish priests were in many cases not living faithfully their vocation and political-religious scandals abounded. Catherine lived through some of the church’s darkest days and indeed, she had something to say about it.

 Speaking the truth in love

 Catherine was rallying for reform but not the kind of reform that so many women’s voices are calling for today. Catherine was not calling for the church to change, to come into the 15th century to adapt to the questionable norms of the day, Catherine’s rallying cry was for the church to return to its roots, to return to faithfully preaching and living the Gospel. What makes Catherine so appealing to me is that she was faithful to the church and its teaching , her daily life was steeped in prayer, daily Mass and service to those most in need . Though she would never call herself a teacher, in letters and in conversation she was a spiritual guide for people, she was committed to bringing the Gospel to bear on the political and social issues of the day. Catherine was also passionate and zealous about the church’s need to reform. What makes her the real deal as a reformer is that Catherine “spoke the truth in love.”  Catherine was not bent on reforming the church in an image within her own mind but rather to reform the church in the image of Jesus’ teaching and the church’s very own tradition.

 A model for the moderns

 Today we celebrate the feast of Catherine of Siena and it seems now more than ever we need to read her life, study her writings and find in her a model of a person who that loves the church so much she is unrelenting in her prayer, service and fidelity to it.

 Here are excerpt from a prayer that Catherine wrote on the feast of the Chair of Peter.

  •  To you, O heavenly doctor, my soul’s boundless love,
  • I sigh mightily.
  • To you, O eternal infinite Trinity,
  • I the finite one cry out
  • within the mystic body of the Holy Church
  • For you to blot our by grace my soul’s every stain.
  • And I cry out to you:
  • wait no longer,
  • but through the merits of this pilot of your ship—
  • St. Peter, I mean—
  • and with the fire of charity
  • and the deep abyss of eternal wisdom
  • come to the aid of your bride
  • who is waiting for help.
  • Do not scorn your servants’ desire
  • but even now,
  • O worker of peace
  • guide this ship into the port of peace
  • and direct your servants toward yourself
  • so that the darkness may be lifted and the dawn may appear—
  • the dawn which is the light
  • of those who have been planted in your Church
  • out of pure desire for the salvation of souls.
  •  So, listen to us
  • as we pray for the guardian of this chair of yours,
  • whose feast we are celebrating.
  • Make your vicar
  • whatever sort of successor you would have him to be to your
  • dear elder Peter,
  • and give him what is needed for your Church.
  • I am a witness
  • that you have promised to grant my desires soon;
  • even with more confidence then
  • I beg you to wait no longer to fulfill these promises, O my God.
  •  And you dear children, since we are committed,
  • it is time to work for Christ’s Church,
  • the true mother of our faith.
  • So I urge you
  • who have already been planted in this Church
  • to be like pillars for her.
  • Let all of us together,
  • having cast off all selfish love and laziness,
  • work for that in this garden of saving faith
  • with the fervor of prayer
  • and with our deeds,
  • that we may perfectly fulfill the will of God eternal,
  • who has called us to this for our own salvation
  • and that of others,
  • and for the unity of this Church
  • in which is our souls’ salvation.
  • Amen