A little over a week ago I posted on the question, What Did Jesus Look Like? Among the things we discussed, was what data the Shroud of Turin supplied. Many consider it authentic (including me). But even for those who do not it can still aid in our speculation of what Jesus may have looked like. Now it seems that the History Channel will be airing a special on March 30th from 9-11pm EDT that considers the data from the shroud, and using forensic science and other methods, seeks to present three-dimensional renders of the “man of the shroud.”
While the Archdiocese of Washington cannot endorse TV shows in any official way, nevertheless, as an update on my previous post I want to inform you of this interesting looking addendum to our previous discussion. The home page for this projest is Here: http://www.raydowning.com/ And this is a video trailer of the project.
I’ll admit that I struggle with the concept of “civility.” I keep it as a very firm rule for myself. I try to be clear but also charitable in what I say. I also try to avoid “ad hominem attacks” which are attacks on the person rather than the argument. I also try to avoid assigning motive when the motive is not clear to me.
But I also admit that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular, say of preparing the meal, than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them. Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive debate are common. But in the upper midwest and parts of the deep south conversation is more gentle and reserved. At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently quite “normal” for Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc. Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter and must not have been since I am a firm believer that Jesus never sinned. Jesus even engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong, they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it, but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture expected things like this from prophets. Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity.
So there seems to be a lot of variability in the concept of civility and civil discourse. In general our culture seems to prefer a gentler style of discourse, with the regional variability I have already mentioned taken into consideration. But we have recently been through a very tough Healthcare debate (battle?) in which the discourse went beyond what many think was civil. Over at the USCCB blog is a posting which raises concerns about it. I would like to excerpt it here and add some of my own comments in RED. And as always I’d like to know what you think. (You can read the complete and uninterrupted USCCB Blog post here: USCCB Media Blog) Meanwhile here are my excerpts and comments.
The heat in the aftermath of passage of health care reform reveals the depth of feeling among those for and against the landmark bill that affects all Americans. Such heat, however, cannot justify the verbal and physical violence that has ensued.
If we needed health care because of the crisis affecting the sick, especially the weakest among us, we need even more a move toward civility, if not for our own betterment then at least for the betterment of our children.
Politics has become a kind of blood sport. News junkies over the weekend heard reports of crowds shouting racist remarks and individuals spitting at African American lawmakers, including John Lewis, who suffered violence years ago when he marched for Civil Rights. Surely he – and all of us – has a right to expect that that chapter of despicable, racist violence long over. This event is not verified or recorded in any of the video from that day. At best it is a story that is going around that we can only hope is untrue. It is reported that Congressman John Lewis did mention hearing some slurs but did not clearly indicate if they were racial slurs or what. Further it is not certain how many, if any, engaged in this behavior. Was it one, many, etc. It is not certain. If it did happen it is reprehensible. But likely it involved just one or a few. I do think we have made a lot of progress in this area and that such behavior is not tolerable in our society. The vast majority of those who were against the bill would surely and adamantly agree that any such behavior in this regard was unacceptable. John Lewis is surely a hero of the Civil Rights Movement. What ever variability there may be in how people size up civility, racial slurs and spitting are beyond any one’s tolerance.
We’ve seen reports of homes and offices of lawmakers vandalized and heard of death threats. Anonymous messages are being left on voicemails – I even got one from a nun, for goodness sake. If that isn’t proof that we’ve gone astray I don’t know what is.Yes, and for the record this happened on both sides of the debate. Congressman Stupak, interviewed on NBC news indicated receiving threats from pro-choice people when he was holding out due to abortion funding. After the vote the threats switched to the pro-life side! Alas, here too we can only hope that those who make such threats are in the vast minority. It is true however that threats of this nature are a regular part of the lives of public figures, not just politicians, but also media personalities, movie and sports figures, and others.
The wonderfully unedited Web may share some blame as it gives free reign to those who say whatever suits their strategic purpose, truthful or not. Their presentations – usually anonymous – underscore a significant failing of the Web, lack of editors and accountability.Ah and here is where it comes home my friends. What is said here has a lot of truth. The anonymous quality of many who participate can lead to much higher levels of unkindness and inaccuracy. If no one know who I am I can say just about anything. In general our discourse at this blog has been civil but we have had our moments. The impersonal quality of a lot of the communication can lead to a kind of forgetfulness that a real person, or person is on the ther side of the screen. Further, writing does not always allow the nuance of the spoken word and personal interaction where tone of voice and facial expression can often supply clarifying data that one is speaking ironically, or facetiously, or just in good fun. True we do have our “emoticons” like 🙂 and 😉 and LOL! that help but we have to be very careful when we write to remember that much data is lost when the word is only written. Accuracy is also a bit of a problem when the writer is anonymous for they are less concerned with their reputation and will more likely say inaccurate things that they would otherwise have to verify. Hence our reserve to speak about things we are not sure of is diminished.
The intolerance and incivility did not begin with legislation passed Sunday night. It is not unrelated to the divisions that exist in our country and, sadly, even in our church. Yes, how we Catholics speak to each other needs further reflection. It has been my experience that most Catholics are far more passionate about their politics that their faith. This is sad but it also affects the way we speak to one another. We often use political terminology such as right/left; conservative/liberal which may not well apply to the Church settings. I fielded a lot of remarks in the past week accusing the Bishops of being lap dogs for the GOP etc. But I guarantee you when it comes to immigration reform or capital punishment, that others accuse them of being “lap dogs” for the Democrats. What if they were neither? What if they were Catholic and trying to articualte Catholic principles in a polarized world? What seems to happen is that we take a lot of our politics into the Church with us. To be sure there are some very serious divisions in the Church that need often frank discussion and cannot reduce to a “Can’t we all just get along” mentality. Finding the balance is not always easy.
It starts with how we view others – as enemies rather than as fellow travelers on the journey of life. It includes whether or not we’re willing to give another the benefit of the doubt, accepting that their intentions are good, even if their goals differ from ours. It involves accepting the fact that each of us is a child of God and precious to Him and our brother or sister. – Well said.
Last Tuesday, March 23, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted the bishops’ disappointment that the health reform legislation did not include all they sought….Even in disappointment, the bishops were civil and generous. Their position is worth emulating.
[There is] a maxim attributed to St. Augustine, “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity.” In all things charity surely is the message we all need today. It’s not a bad start to Holy Week.
So, there it is. How exactly to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility But it is clearly getting edged out, to be sure. In an era when shared values and reverence for a shared and immutable truth have been largely jettisoned what we end up with is power struggle. Such a scenario is usually ugly.
In the Black Community where I minister there is an expression, “Now don’t go and make me lose my religion!” What it usually means is that we can get so wrapped up in our anger and frustration that we cast off charity, which is the highest call of our faith. We need to check ourselves occasionally. In a world increasingly hostile, where do we stand? It may be true that, as we discussed above, there are some cultural differences when it comes to what is acceptable in discourse. But in the end charity and civility cannot be wholly cast aside. Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean. And whatever you do make sure you don’t lose your religion! 🙂
Here is a video I have posted before showing the “angry” style of Jesus culture. He is no wilting flower here nor are his listeners shy about expressing their opinion. Our culture is not generally very accepting of such discourse.
We live today with very high expectations of many things. Culturally we have very demanding standards for beauty, especially in regard to women. We expect them to have appealing “curves” but be slender etc. Even ordinary weight is considered by many as unattractive. All this obsession with perfection leads to low self esteem among women and men too. Further, these high expectations of zero body fat and perfect shape, hair color, skin tone etc. leads to hypercritical and hurtful remarks. There is an old saying that “expectations are premeditated resentments.” Hence this attitude also may have to do with marriage difficulties as the near perfect bodies of youth give way to the more “settled” bodies of middle age and beyond. (Gravity and age do have their effects and even if you weighed what you did in High School it doesn’t look the same!) Plastic surgery is a miracle for those with truly catastrophic injury or deformities but today it is too often the refuge of those who have become obsessed with how they look and how they think others regard them. Oh to be free of such obsessions! The picture to the right depicts a woman but men have the problem too.
Help me Lord to be little more comfortable in my own skin. Help me to accept that you like both tall and short people because you made them both. Both the blond and the brunette are from your hand, wavy hair, straight hair wirey hair are all from you and apparently to your liking. Thin and hefty, black, white and all between are from your artistic hand. Help me to love me as you made me. If I should lose weight for health’s sake help me, but if its only about what others might think of me, free me.
Watch this video and see how a very lovely young woman is not lovely enough. She has to be altered, “perfected.” And when simple natural enhancements are not enough her image must be furthered altered on a computer. Message: the perfect beauty does not exist for the world of media. She must be invented. Then everyone can pine after and spend large amounts of money and time trying look like someone who doesn’t even exist.
Hope is one of those words (like love) that has to be rescued from a world that has overused and misused it for so long that its original meaning is almost lost. Hope has come to mean something amounting to a vague wish for something or a substitute for the word “maybe.” For example a person might say, “I hope it doesn’t rain tomorrow.” Usually what hope means here is that “I wish it wouldn’t rain,” or “It probably will rain but it sure would be nice if it didn’t.” Another example: A person is asked, “Will you be at the meeting tomorrow?” And they respond, “I hope so.” But what this expression most often means “Maybe I’ll be there.” In both examples, doubt clouds the use of the word, the desired outcome seems unlikely. It is true the word hope is not always used in rather doubtful situations but too often it merely expresses a wish whose outcome is more doubtful than likely, when things could go either way.
I cannot set forth a whole treatise on hope here but would like to set forth certain teaching to try and rescue hope from it’s secular meaning or at least distinguish the Theological Virtue of Hope from secular hope.
The Theological Virtue of Hope is Confident Expectation – And this brings us to the theological meaning of the word hope which is a much more vigorous word in its religious setting. The definition I memorized of hope back in Seminary is the older one in use prior to the current Catechism but I list it here since it captures the vigorous quality of the word:
Hope is the Theological Virtue wherein one confidently expects God’s help in attaining eternal salvation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Defines Hope in the following way :
The theological virtue by which we desire and expect from God both eternal life and the grace we need to attain it (Glossary, cf # 1817)
Notice first of all how much more vigorous hope is in these definition. It is a “confident expectation.” The Catechism in # 1817 quotes from the letter to the Hebrews which says, Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Heb 10:23). This is more than a vague wish of something that is unlikely or could possibly go either way. This is more than a “maybe God will save us.” Rather it is vigorous because the One who has promised is trustworthy, true and able. It is also vigorous because true hope is a Theological Virtue. That is to say it is infused into the soul of the believer by God himself. Hence, although it interacts with our human nature and builds on it, it does not wholly depend on our mood or temperament.
The Theological Virtue of Hope has God for its proper object – St. Thomas Aquinas makes it very clear that eternal happiness with God is the proper and true object and purpose of hope: The hope of which we now speak attains God by leaning on his help….[and] the good which we ought to hope for from God properly and chiefly is the infinite good…For we should hope from Him nothing less that Himself….Therefore the proper and principle object of hope is eternal happiness (II,IIae, 17.2). Both definitions above also make this clear. With this in mind we can see that “hope” has suffered the same fate as the word “love.” Too often people say, “I Love God…..I love my wife….I love my new car.” Obviously love has lost its meaning through overuse and misuse. So to with hope. We say, “I hope in God and to be with him eternally.” And then we say, “I hope it doesn’t rain.” But theologically hope does not pertain to things like rain, the outcome of football games, or to getting a raise, etc. Hope in Theology always has God for it’s object. I have no thought that we will ever get love and hope back to their proper objects and context but mention their origin so that we can understand that when the Church and Scripture use these words they do not mean them in the flat and often vacuous way the world does.
The Theological Virtue of Hope pertains to what we do not yet fully see or possess. – Though hope is confident expectation it is not absolute fact or current possession which some of our Protestant Brethren assert when they claim a “once saved, always saved” philosophy. St. Paul writes of hope this way: For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Rom 8:24-25) In other words, if I were to say, “I hope I find my Bible.” and I then I find it and am holding it, hope vanishes. I don’t hope for what I already have. Hope pertains only to what I currently do not yet have or fully possess. I confidently expect that I will possess it one day for God has promised it, but I do not yet have it. I am not “saved” (past tense) as some Protestants assert but am justified through the Blood of Christ and am being saved (present active participle) as long as I hold to God’s unchanging hand by his Grace. Hence, hope is confident expectation, but not possession.
This then leads us to the two primary sins against hope – As the previous point demonstrates, a careful balance is necessary. Confident expectation of God’s help is to be vigorous. But this vigorous and confident expectation must not suffer due to either excess or defect. St. Thomas as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguish two sins against hope: Despair and Presumption.
Despair – By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice – for the Lord is faithful to his promises – and to his mercy. (CCC # 2091) While despair may have many complicated psychological motives it ultimately concludes that God cannot or will not save me or give the graces necessary to obtain the life he offers. Despair can pertain to thinking I will not go to heaven or, more immediately, that it is not possible live the holy life to which God summons us. Our modern world considers things like chastity, forgiveness, self control etc. to be unrealistic if not practically impossible. This is a form of despair because it denies that God’s grace can equip, empower and enable people to live holy lives. But hope confidently expects from God the graces necessary to attain to eternal life. Hence this type of despair is a sin against hope. In final despair a person rejects the gift of confident expectation of God’s help by denying that God is willing or able to save them. Thus he or she sins against hope. St. Thomas in the Summa also links despair to the captial sins of lust and sloth. The object of hope is a good that is possible by God’s grace but arduous to some extent. Now if bodily pleasures and preoccupations cause one to have a distaste for spiritual goods and thus cause a person to reject spiritual goods as “not worth the effort” then he ceases to hope for them through lust. On the other hand there are some who, seeing that something is possible but arduous, grow sad and downcast and come to see it as impossible due to this sadness or aversion to significant change required. Thus they despair through sloth (cf II IIae 20.4).
Presumption – There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit) (CCC # 2092) Among many in the house of faith (both Protestant and Catholic) the second form of presumption is quite evident. We have talked at great length in this blog about the standing presumption by many if not most that just about every one goes to heaven. At too many funerals bold canonizations take place. Confident expectation of God’s help is essential to hope but presumption sins against hope by in effect claiming to already have “in the bag” what God offers on condition. We must freely accept his transformative grace and by it attain to the holinesswithout which no one will see God (Heb 12:14). This requires a profound work of God to take place in us. It is freely and unconditionally offered but it must be fully accept by us. Our acceptance will lead to changes that many resist and God will not force. Presumption rejects the arduous nature of what we hope for and claims to already “have” what is offered. In this way presumption sins against hope for once one has what they hope for, hope ceases. Although they DO NOT have it, by claiming they DO have it, hope dies in them, for who hopes for what he already has? (Rom 8:24). Clearly balance is required! Confidence yes, current possession or possession without condition, no. One of the best Scriptures against presumption is from Sirach:
Rely not on your strength in following the desires of your heart. Say not: “Who can prevail against me?” for the LORD will exact the punishment. Say not: “I have sinned, yet what has befallen me?” for the LORD bides his time. Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not: “Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.” For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath. Delay not your conversion to the LORD, put it not off from day to day; For suddenly his wrath flames forth; at the time of vengeance, you will be destroyed. Rely not upon deceitful wealth, for it will be no help on the day of wrath. Sirach 5:1-10
An Act of Hope:
O my God,
relying on Your almighty power
and infinite mercy and promises,
I hope to obtain
pardon for my sins,
the help of Your grace,
and life everlasting,
through the merits of Jesus Christ,
my Lord and Redeemer. Amen.
This blog contains something of my personal story. If you want to skip the “personal story segment” and shorten your reading, jump down to (What is Nihilism?)
What a Year! Those of us who are a little on the older side lived through and remember the dramatic culture changing year of 1968. What an awful year in so many ways. The Vietnam War was at it height and wasn’t going well from the Tet Offensive to anti-war protests here at home. The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King was earth shaking. Terrible riots followed that dreadful event making matters even worse. Those riots completely reshaped many cities. Robert Kennedy was assassinated later that year. Demonstrations and riots also accompanied the Democratic Convention in 1968. And all through it a steady beat of the sexual revolution eroded modesty and illicit drug use became very public. Disrespect, even hatred of authority in any form was epidemic and reverence for any form of tradition cast aside. Hippies, love-ins, crash pads and a general haze of pot and hash hung in the air of College campuses and places like Haight Ashbury in San Francisco. Slogans like Free love! If it feels good do it! Make love not war! etc. were common. Many College campuses ceased to function under the weight of almost constant student protests. The cultural revolution had reached critical mass.
Yet not all of us in 1968 were radicalized yet. I had a flat top crew cut and was just a young kid. We decorated our bikes with streamers for the 4thof July and attended parades. My patriotic father was heading off to the war, and like any typical boy I was accustomed to building forts, playing German spotlight and king of the mountain. Our little neighborhood in north suburban Chicago seemed worlds away from Haight Ashbury, or even Grant Park in Chicago where Chicago Hippies smoked pot and did LSD. I remember once driving past Grant Park on the way to a downtown museum and asking my mother with shock, “Mom! Why do those men have hair like girls!?” These strange sights were scary and made no sense. In April of that year Dr. King had been assassinated and though news was less 24/7 than today I remember being terrified to see whole sections of the South and West Side of Chicago on fire in the news. My mother only told me when I was older that she had barely escaped with her life. She had been substitute teaching on the South Side that fateful April Day when the riots closed in. An angel in a police uniform escorted her out. It was 1968. The Cultural Revolution had reached critical mass. The nuclear fission bomb of cultural revolution had exploded. But the fallout had not reached the suburbs yet.
Fast Forward just ten years. It is 1978 and I am a Junior in High School. By now the radiation of the late 1960s had spread a kind of radiation sickness to areas not initially devastated. By now I had long hair, down to my shoulders. I was a little too shy to be far advanced in the sexual revolution and anger and a kind of hatred and ridicule of authority was my thing. Pop music was OK but heavy Rock Music was my real thing. It fed my anger and made me feel righteous in my disrespect of parents and others in authority. Rock music confirmed and validated my anger and also the dogma that old people didn’t know anything worth learning. I was somewhat at odds with my father and though I could not withstand him, I avoided him and nursed great hostility for him in my heart. And Rock music supplied me all the material I needed. Nihilism had now reached the suburbs and I was one revel in its hostility. Who were you to say what was right or wrong!? What do a bunch of old gray haired men in the Vatican know that is worth anything. Yes Nihilism had reached the suburbs!
What is Nihilism? – Nihilism is fundamentally a philosophical doctrine that exults in the negation of one of more traditionally meaningful aspects of life. It comes from the Latin “nihil” which means “nothing.” Culturally nihilism exalts in tearing down traditional forms and understanding. In its most radical form, Nihilism argues that life itself is without any intrinsic meaning or purpose. Moral Nihilism argues that there are no moral norms or criteria that are universally valid and that morality itself is just a contrivance; that good and evil are just human constructs. Intellectual Nihilists deny that anything can really be known. Metaphysical Nihilists deny that anything is actually real! But in the end what Nihilism enjoys most is reducing to nothing that which was something. It hates the past, denies that previous generations have anything to teach us. It accepts almost no limits and denies that anything is really true. Everything must go and be replaced by… nothing. Yes it is absurd but it is really more about anger and rebellion than anything reasonable. How could it be reasonable since reasonableness presupposes standards and norms? Nihilism is hostile to the notion that anything can really be known or stated with certainty and is fundamentally deconstructionist because it loves to tear down the moral, social and cultural fabric that took centuries to develop. In the end, Nihilism exults in nothingness.
But sadly most people today suffer from some form of Nihilism. Most people deny the fact of objective moral norms. Even more deny the notion of absolute moral norms. Most people today no longer consider things to be true or false. Rather, most everything is seen just as opinion or a subjective point of view. It may be true that many things are just opinion but does this mean that there is really no objective truth to be found? It would seem so, according to many if not most people today. All of this of course leads to a rather deep cynicism as well as an incapacity to come to agreement on many important issues of the day. Since no agreed upon norms exist, life amounts to a power struggle between factions. Nihilism has so permeated our culture that most people don’t even know its there. It’s like talking to a fish about water and the fish says, “What water?” Most people congratulate themselves for their Nihilism by calling it other things like “open-mindedness”, “tolerance”, “acceptance”, “progressiveness” and the like. There are real virtues by these names but it is likely that most who claim these virtues for themselves are actually just suffering from some form of Nihilism. Yes, I want to argue that nihilism has reached the suburbs, the kitchen table, the family hearth.
And more than ever this is why we need Catholic culture and faith. It is only with something that we can battle nothing. I have come a long way out of my Nihilism that reached full flower in the late 1970s. I had turned my sights away from God and the Church and found only “nothing.” I cannot say I have fully emerged from Nihilism for it has so permeated everything. And yet I credit the Catholic faith for restoring to me to truth and its existence. I credit the faith for restoring my hope and healing so much of my anger and cynicism. I thank the Catholic Faith for restoring to me my sight. Truth inevitably leads to beauty and goodness, and what a beautiful view it is. There is great serenity and freedom in the truth. I know that Nihilism brought me only anger and struggle against perceived enemies (i.e. my father, the Church et al.) that was far from serene. So here I stand more blessed than I deserve, coming out of nothing into everything, out of darkness into light. The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be. (Matt 6:23-24)
This video presents what had been my “theme song” in High School. One of my favorite rock groups was The Who and they published a song in 1978 that resonated very deeply with my Nihilism at that time. I am embarrassed that I ever thought this a theme song. But it surely does capture Nihilism well. Notice how the moral Nihilism gives way to anger, then cynicism, then despair and ultimately a kind of death wish. The song ends by saying in a rather exalted tone: “Here comes the end of the world!” Nihilism alright, in the end: nothing!
Here are the words to the song you can hear on the video:
I’ve had enough of bein’ nice; I’ve had enough of right and wrong I’ve had enough of tryin’ to love my brother.
I’ve had enough of bein’ good; And doin’ everything like i’m told I should; If you need a lover, you’d better find another
Life is for the living; Takers never giving
Suspicion takes the place of trust; My love is turning into lust; If you get on the wrong side of me you better run for cover
I’ve had enough of bein’ trodden on; My passive days are gonna be long gone; If you slap one cheek, well, I ain’t gonna turn the other
Life is for the living; Takers never giving. Fooling no one but ourselves; good is dying; Here comes the end
Here comes the end of the world
I’m gettin’ sick of this universe; Ain’t gonna get better; it’s gonna get worse; And the world’s gonna sink with the weight of the human race
Hate and fear in every face; I’m gettin’ ready and I’ve packed my case; If you find somewhere better, can you save my place?
Fooling no one but ourselves; Love is dying; Here comes the end; Here comes the end
Here comes the end of the world
Here in Washington DC today Gay and Lesbian couples lined up to apply for “Marriage” Licenses. It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the DC City Council means.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Marriage in the following way:
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC # 1601)
The latest actions by the DC Council, along with Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa have legally redefined the term marriage. Other states will likely join the list. The secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.
To be fair, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:
In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses.
This final blow completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.
Proposal: So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is and I would like to propose a new (really an old) term and hear what you think. I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.” According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”
The word matrimony also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complimentarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother” and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.” Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from SECULAR marriage.
To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock.” But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we could train couples to say, “We want to be wed next summer.” or to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.” Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry” and “married.” So the more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”
What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?
There is a song about the sadness of moral relativism in an unusual place: “The Greatest Hits of the Monkees.” Some who are old enough may remember growing up with the songs of the Monkees. I confess their song “Only Shades of Gray” was not one I remember well from those days. But it is a fascinating song about moral relativism. Some think it’s just a song about growing up. But to most it speaks of a time when things were more certain and compares it to these more modern times when it seems everything is disputed and up for grabs, no more black and white, only shades of gray. It is all the more poignant that the song was written in the turbulent 60s and perhaps represented the anxiety generated by those times when just about everything was being thrown overboard.
Now I know that it is wrong to point any particular age as the “golden age.” Scripture itself warns against this: Do not say: How is it that former times were better than these? For it is not in wisdom that you speak this (Ecclesiastes 7:10). I am also aware that not everyone feels the same about the “good old days.” For some they were not all that good. We should not forget the terrible wars of the early half of the 20th Century. Further, I serve in a parish that is predominantly African American and for many of my parishioners previous days featured “Jim Crow” laws, disenfranchisement, lynching and enforced segregation.
And yet, it remains also true that some fifty years ago we had a much wider consensus on basic moral teachings and appropriate behaviors. Pre-marital sex was considered gravely wrong and guarded against. Remember chaperons and separate dormitory facilities? Easy divorce and remarriage was considered wrong. Abortion was illegal, it never even entered our minds to give children contraceptives. There was also strong consensus against homosexual activity. Families were larger and most were intact. There was also a general appreciation of the role of faith and prayer in American life. I could go on but perhaps this is enough.
Here too I can hear the objections: “We might have had those standards but we didn’t live them well….Things went on behind the scenes, families weren’t perfect, many kids still had sex etc. etc….” But I will respond by saying, At least we had those standards and saw them as truths to be respected. It is an extreme measure, a kind of nihilism, to say that since we do not live up to our standards perfectly we should not have them at all.
And I also know we were more wrong about some things in the past. We were more racist and less open to legitimate diversity, less concerned about pollution. But here too it is extreme to say that because we were wrong about some things in the past the whole thing should be thrown out. Why not keep the best and purify what is needed?
So here we are today, is a radically relativistic time where there is less and less agreement about the most basic of moral issues. And, without a common basis for discussion, such as Natural Law, or the Judeo-Christian worldview we are left to a battle of wills, an increasing power struggle where the one who shouts the loudest, has the most money, wins an election or has the most access wins, at least for the moment. Reason and principles increasingly do not transcend political, economic and social distinctions. There are fewer and fewer shared values that every one agrees on no matter what their party or background. Whatever our struggles of the past, we used to agree on more. Many of those certainties have been replaced by a wide presumption that everything is just shades of gray.
Listen to the song. Don’t forget my disclaimers. I do not propose a simplistic old=good; new=bad scenario. I just write to provoke thought. Please feel free to comment. I couldn’t find a good video of the Monkees performing the song (I think copyright may be involved) so I have included a group that sings it a lot like the Monkees did. First the words, then the video.
One of the privileges our modern age demands is the right to declare that certain lives are not worth living. In utero testing sometimes reveals the possibility or even the certainty of birth defects. Abortion is often recommended to mothers who carry “defective” children and sometimes that recommendation becomes pressure.
And yet there are so many stories of people who have overcome enormous obstacles and who live full and rich lives. Some are missing limbs, others are blind, still others struggle with disease. Some have overcome poverty and injustice, others paralyzing accidents or great tragedies. And they are living witnesses to us that we ought never be the judge of what lives are worthwhile and what lives are not worth living. It is true that none of us would wish to be born missing limbs, or blind or in poverty, or with chronic conditions. But we must reverence those who are, learn to appreciate their gifts, and summon them to courage and greatness.
We must declare with great certitude that there is no such thing as a life not worth living. We say this not as some politically correct slogan but rather with firm conviction that every human life is willed by God. We were willed before we were made for the Scriptures say, “Before I ever formed you in the womb I knew and I appointed you…” (Jer 1:4). None of us is an accident nor are our gifts and apparent deficits mistakes. We exist as we are, the way we are for a purpose, a purpose for us and for others. We all have an irreplaceable role in God’s kingdom and show forth aspect of His glory uniquely. Every human life is intended and is worth living because God says so by the very fact that we exist.
The following videos show forth the resilience of the human person and give powerful witness to the fact that life is worth living. You may not have time to view them all now but I hope you’ll come back and see them all. That is why I post this over a weekend. Despite trials and setbacks all these individuals show forth the power and glory of God working though our human struggles. We might not choose the struggles they have for ourselves but we need to see that their lives are full and proclaim the dignity and resilience of the human person.
Here is the story of John Bramblitt who, though blind is a fine painter indeed.
Here is the story of Abby & Brittany, Conjoined twins born in 1990. The title of the video is “Joined for Life.” Abby says at the end of the video, “The best thing in the world about being conjoined twins is that there’s always someone to talk to and you’re never alone.”
Here’s the story of Nick Vujicic a man with no arms or legs who is a motivational speaker. He likes to say that he went from having a life without limbs to a life without limits.
I have posted this video of Patrick Henry Hughes before. Blind and crippled from birth he manifestes a profound musical ability.
