Community in Mission

Consider the commercial below. It says, “Focus on what you love.” It presents a man who, having laid eyes on his beloved, sees only her; all others vanish. The accompanying song speaks of the woman as being oblivious to his faults, as represented by “the funny way you wear your hair.”

There are truths here to ponder. With God, we must look beyond all else and see, finally, only Him; we must see everything in reference to Him. Likewise, in marriage, should not a husband and wife each only be taken with the other? Love also helps us to be less angry at the imperfections of others. Indeed, love blinds us to many of the things that can produce quick annoyance if/when love cools and the “I do” becomes “You’d better!” Would that our love would make us more willing to endure foibles and wait upon the other to grow toward greater perfection.

There are also errors to ponder. As the crowds of people disappear in the commercial, we see the modern tendency to conceive of happiness apart from human community. Jean-Paul Sartre famously said, “Hell is other people.”

Consider just a few of the amazing blessings that come to us from and through others. We dwell in cities built by others. We dine at restaurants supported by a whole chain of people, beginning with the farmer and fisherman, the harvester, food processors, distributors, and extending to the cooks and the wait staff who serve us. We use technologies like cell phones and cameras, which were designed and developed by others. We traverse roads and cross bridges constructed by others and paid for by many. The list could go on and on. The young man who loves his young lady would not have her were it not for her parents, grandparents, and generations stretching back to God Himself. Yes, most of the things we enjoy come from God through other people.

Enjoy this commercial as well as the pleasant song that accompanies it. Ponder the truths and errors as you watch and listen.

The discussion and debate of issues is problematic today for many reasons, among them the use of flawed logic, the tendency to engage in identity politics, and the widespread rejection of natural law. I would like to highlight three issues in particular that commonly interfere with discourse on the Internet, including the “Comments” section of blogs such as this one.

I. The internet is “tone-deaf.” Any discussion that occurs in writing misses such personal elements as tone of voice, facial expression, and body language. A light-hearted delivery or a smile can change how words are understood. For example, the words, “You’re crazy!” can seem accusatory and harsh in writing, but accompanied by a smile or a joking tone, the words can be understood as playful. Sometimes the person’s tone can demonstrate irony: You’re crazy all right, but in a good way. You’re with God, but to the world you’re crazy.” Maybe calling someone crazy is a challenge, but the tone is gentle, asking for clarification more than making an accusation.

The point is that a written text seldom conveys the subtleties of human conversation. Many people take offense when none was intended or when the other party was merely trying to pose a question in a friendly rather than accusatory manner.

II. Reading things as absolutes – There is a tendency to interpret a point that is made in writing in an absolute way, thinking that the author means what he says without exception or that nothing else should be considered as a factor.

For example, earlier this week, in my blog on recent parish closings I wrote, “Bishops don’t close parishes, people do.” My purpose was to be artful and memorable, to provoke thought with a smidge of hyperbole.

I clarified that it was true in a juridical sense that bishops close parishes (by withdrawing their canonical status as a parish with an assigned pastor), but that bishops don’t routinely look around for parishes to close. Other things being equal, they want parishes to thrive and stay open. When a parish closes, the bishop is usually responding to what amounts to a lack of people. Generally, the parishes that are closed or merged are financially challenged. Perhaps they have old buildings that cannot be maintained cost effectively, or critical staff (including the pastor) can no longer be afforded. The lack of financial resources is usually tied to a lack of human resources: parishioners. In relatively rare cases, a financially sound parish is merged with others for the common good and to share resources effectively.

The primary driving force behind parish closings, however, comes down to a lack of people. It is not just that the mean old bishop is closing down parishes for no good reason. So, intending to make a short but memorable comment, I wrote, “Bishops don’t close parishes, people do.”

I do not mean this absolutely. I am not saying that the closing of every single parish is the direct fault of the people and the poor bishop is only doing what he must. Yet it is clear from the comments that many thought I did mean it absolutely, that I was saying that all parish closings are entirely the fault of God’s people and that bishops and clergy are completely innocent. Never mind that I went on to point out a number of other factors in church closings as well; surely I did not intend to imply that I’d made an exhaustive treatment of every possible cause.

Many also expanded my reflection by drifting from my restricted notion of cause to a wider notion of blame. That low attendance is a numerical cause for many parish closings is demonstrably true. Blame, by which I mean moral responsibility, for low attendance is a deeper and more complex issue.

I think there is plenty of blame for the clergy in this. We have not consistently preached the need to attend Mass. There has been poor catechesis and even outright error from members of the clergy. But there is also rebellion in the ranks that the clergy are no more responsible for than are parents for every poor decision of their adult children. The fact is, there is shared blame for the falling away from the faith. Clerical leaders are an important—but not the only—source of the problems today.

My point here is not to write another article on Church closings; it is to assert that interpreting everything in an absolute sense, a form of all-or-nothing thinking, can lead to strident reactions that produce much heat but little light. Interpreting a point that the writer (in this case me) makes in an absolute way, when it was not intended in that way, usually incites anger. The responder creates a straw man and then angrily denounces it. It is a straw man because it isn’t even the point that was made but rather an exaggerated version of it. The whole exchange goes south from there and doesn’t even end up being about the point that was actually made. This is bad argumentation.

III. Taking things personally – Many today take argumentation very personally; identity politics is a likely explanation. “Identity politics” is a reductionist mode in which people link their opinions with their very person. “This is who I am, and if you don’t agree with what I assert, you are offending me personally.” People also do this with group identities (e.g., sex, race, sexual orientation).

In such a climate, it is difficult to have productive debate because people take the disagreement personally and “shut down” rather than considering the counterpoints thoughtfully. They feel personally attacked rather than sensing that they are being challenged to reconsider or to better explain their view. Interestingly, they then tend to respond with a personal attack!

This was also evident in some of the comments on the post earlier this week. The “logic” of some respondents seems to have been this: Laity are being critiqued; I am a lay person; Therefore, I am being critiqued.” Well, maybe, but not all lay people are alike. More than likely, if someone is even reading this blog, he still goes to Mass and supports the mission of the Church. The laity includes a smaller number of Catholics (15-30%) who attend Mass faithfully and largely accept Catholic teaching, but a much a larger number (70-85%) who do not.

One can use a term such as “laity” and mean it generally, not as a personal attack on every single member of the large, diverse group. By interpreting the comments about the laity as applying to you personally, and rejecting them as not applicable, you may miss consideration of many of the points.

Anyway, this is my take on why discourse, especially in cyberspace is often so strident. Remember, I do not mean all of these points absolutely, and I might not actually have you in mind, even if you are a member of some of the groups I mention! For example, not all people who read and comment on my blog possess every trait that I mention here. A few people might even be an exception to everything I’ve said! You never know, especially if you presume good will on the part of the author. 😊

One of the great mysteries of God’s providence is that He often leaves things unresolved or unattended to for a very long time. Despite our fervent prayers, He often doesn’t rush to fix everything and He has His reasons for this.

Perhaps it is that we often grow through struggles. We discover strengths that we did not know we had.

Suffering sometimes brings wisdom; we can learn more by living with our questions for a while rather than getting quick answers.

Suffering can spur creativity. Many movies, works of literature, paintings, and poems, are the fruit of struggle and speak to the drama of life and the conflicts we endure.

Suffering sometimes fosters growth. There’s an old saying, “Things do by opposition grow.” Another one says, “Calm seas do not a mariner make.”

Perhaps if He rushed to solve things and intervened frequently God would remove too much human freedom, which He both respects and sees as necessary for us to be true sons and daughters rather than slaves.

Finally, and most mysteriously from our perspective, fixing one thing often affects many others. We have caused a great deal of “collateral damage” in our culture as a result of trying to fix things too quickly. Whatever our good intentions, many of our welfare programs have harmed families and parishes, from which help through charity traditionally came. Some of our advanced technologies have had harmful effects on the environment. And despite our many labor-saving devices, most of us are busier than ever. Yes, fixing one problem sometimes leads to more problems, or at least brings unintended consequences.

Yes, there are mysteries to God’s providence. Despite our many and seemingly reasonable requests that things be fixed (and quickly!), God in His wisdom often delays and leaves things unresolved. He has His reasons, but most of the answers as to why are none of our business.

Be careful before you rush to fix things in your life or in the lives of others. Fixing is often required, but proceed slowly and carefully; learn patience. Learn from God, who can fix everything instantly but usually does not.

 

Continuing with the theme of urgency from yesterday’s post, we do well to consider Mary’s fervent requests at Fatima for prayer, conversion, and consecration. This Saturday will mark the 100^th anniversary of Mary’s first appearance at Fatima.

It was a critical time in human history. The First World War had claimed more than 17 million lives. Mary urged prayer to end this catastrophe:

• Say the Rosary every day to bring peace to the world and an end of the war (June 13, 1917).
• Continue to pray the Rosary every day in honor of our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and an end to the war (July 13, 1917).

Thanks be to God, through the children’s prayers and surely those of others, the war did soon end. In October, Our Lady said,

• Continue always to pray the Rosary every day. The War is going to end, and the soldiers will soon return home (October 13, 1917).

War is a terrible result of human sinfulness as well as a punishment for it. Sin is its own punishment; when we sow the wind, we reap the whirlwind. Part of the horror of the First World War was the use of chemical weapons. So appalling was the suffering and so great was the loss of life that in 1925 most nations willingly signed the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited their use in international armed conflicts.

But Mother Mary urgently warned that if the people of this world did not repent, pray, and cease offending God, a war far worse would come:

• If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father (July 17, 1917).

Sadly, as we know, the Second World War formally ensued in 1939. Months earlier, in 1938, a remarkable display of the Aurora Borealis further south than ever observed made international headlines. It was a final warning. More than 60 million people died in World War II. Atrocities were multiplied, and the most fearsome weapon ever contrived—the atom bomb—would haunt the world long after the war. Russia, too, spread Marxist and atheist errors.

See what happens when we do heed the urgent request to pray? Wars can be ended, souls can be saved, and peace can be brought.

But also note the terrible consequences of failing to pray and be converted! Jesus once said to paralyzed man he had healed, See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you (John 5:14). So, too, for the people of that time who, though having received God’s mercies in the end of World War I, fell back into sin. The decadence, financial excess, and foolishness of the “roaring” 1920s, both in Europe and America, brought a harvest of corruption, both morally and politically. It ushered in both the Great Depression and then a war far worse than ever imagined.

Yes, prayer and conversion are both urgent and essential. This is true not only in terms of this world, but also of the world to come. This world’s travails are indeed awful, but they are temporary. Mother Mary sets far greater stakes before us: Heaven or Hell.

Where will you spend eternity? What about your children, siblings, and friends? Have you thought about this at all? Do you understand the urgency? Consider well some of what our Lady of Fatima said by way of an eternal warning:

• Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and pray for them (August, 1917).
• You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save sinners, God wishes to establish in all the world, devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace … When you pray the Rosary say after each mystery, O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven especially those who are in most need (July 13, 1917).
• People must amend their lives and ask forgiveness of their sins if they want healings … Do not offend the Lord our God anymore, because He is already so much offended (October 13, 1917).

Here is a mother urgently warning her children of the fires of hell, of the consequences of sin and the final refusal to repent. Here is a mother urgently calling for prayer, reparation, sacrifices, and conversion.

She is urgent; are we? To be urgent does not mean to be in a panic; it means to be sober and alert, to be persistent and consistent in attending to our final end and to that of others to the degree that we are able.

Caritas Christi urget nos: The Love of Christ urges us on! …. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:14, 20).

It was recently announced that a substantial number of Catholic parishes will be closing in Connecticut. This is just the latest in a national trend that is likely to affect the diocese where you live, especially in the north. I’d like to offer some rather quick thoughts and then ponder what I think is the root cause for our decline.

1. Bishops don’t close parishes, people do. While it may be juridically true that bishops formally certify or give recognition to the opening, closing, and merging of parishes, it is ultimately God’s people who create or withdraw the need for a parish. The hard truth is that Catholics are contracepting and aborting in large numbers, thus depleting our ranks. Further, in most urban areas of the northeast, barely 15% of Catholics attend Mass regularly. In comparison, during the first half of the 20^th century, when many of the parishes being closed today were being built, nearly 85% of Catholics attended Mass regularly. It is unrealistic for Catholics to expect that parishes should not be closed in significant numbers when there is so little attendance and concomitant support.
2. Some point out that large numbers of Catholics have left the Northeast and headed south and west. That helps to explain why many parishes in the south and southwest are growing (even booming), but it does not mean that the overall population of the Northeast has dropped dramatically. To some degree, there has been a failure to evangelize, but the deepest wounds are in the decline of Mass attendance and our failure to hand on the faith. We are currently burying the last generation to be taught that Sunday Mass was an obligation to be met under pain of mortal sin.
3. There is shared responsibility. It is easy to be angry at bishops and priests when parishes must be closed. Years of poor catechesis, a lack of effective preaching, and poorly celebrated liturgies have taken their toll and the clergy bear the first responsibility in this. However, dissent and division among the faithful and a drifting from the practice of the faith are also big factors. Many priest who do preach firmly and insist on clear doctrine are made to pay dearly.
4. At the end of day, the clergy cannot take full responsibility for the problem, nor can they address it alone. Why? Because shepherds don’t have sheep, sheep have sheep. Evangelization cannot be just a problem for the rectory; it is ultimately a family problem. Parents and grandparents must do more to summon their children home and witness the power of the liturgy and sacraments to transform.
5. Many blame the liturgy for the low attendance. While the liturgy as commonly celebrated today can seem bland and uninspiring, and much modern Church music “banal” (as the Pope recently remarked), the proposed solutions are bewildering in number and even where implemented attract only small numbers. For example, some have cheered the reintroduction of the Traditional Latin Mass, a form of the Mass that I happen to love. However, I don’t know of a single diocese in this country in which the number of Catholics attending that form accounts for more than 1% of all Mass attendees. Thus, the problem seems deeper than the external forms.
6. The heart of the problem is an overall malaise. There is little urgency; few seem to feel the need for the faith, the Church, the sacraments, or the Word of God. In my opinion, a steady diet of universalism (the unbiblical notion that all or the vast majority of people will be saved, no matter what) inside the Church, and a steady diet of pluralism and relativism outside the Church have played the largest role in the problem. There’s no real problem seen, no hurry, no need for what we offer. At best we are just one product on the shelf of a boutique dedicated to the non-essential niceties that people dabble in if they have the time. The common view in our culture is that religion is a nice little way of accessorizing your life, but otherwise, who cares?

Given what I think is the root cause, how should we begin to stop the steady erosion of the practice of Catholic faith? I would agree with Dr. Ralph Martin that the first step must be to revive a more biblical vision of urgency regarding salvation. Just because many people—even among the clergy—say that there isn’t a problem doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

Jesus was far more sober in assessing the situation. He devoted many parables and warnings to our need to attend to the salvation He offers. There are the sheep and the goats, those on the right and those on the left, the wise virgins and the foolish ones, those ready for the master’s return and those who are not, those who will hear, “Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” and those who will hear, “Depart from me. I know you not.” Jesus noted that the road to damnation was wide and many were on it, and “only a few” were on the narrow road to salvation (Matt 7:13-14).

But just try to tell any of this to most people today and see what kind of response you get. My sense is that urgency is at an all-time low. Yet biblically, directly from Jesus Himself, it is clear that the likelihood of being saved is greatly reduced when one does not repent regularly and walk in the faith actively, including a heavy dose of Scripture and frequent reception of the sacraments.

Yet few people speak this way today. Many dismiss such speech as “fear-based” argument. The fact is, however, that some things should be feared, including our tendency to be hard-hearted and hard-headed, to prefer passing things and error to eternal truths. Running about in a panic is not helpful; we need sober acceptance of our vital need for the sacraments, the proclaimed Word, holy fellowship, and the transformative power of the liturgy.

Until this sober appreciation is recovered by many and demonstrated by the few of us who remain, the steady erosion seems likely to continue. Church closings may be “coming soon to a neighborhood near you.” It is sad to lose buildings, many of them works of art, but it is even sadder to ponder the human loss that the empty buildings represent.

Today, it is generally believed that the “Harlot City” referred to in the Book of Revelation is Rome. The opulence and the prominence of the city along with the mention of the seven hills on which it rests, its persecution of Christians, and the use of euphemisms such as “Babylon” are generally presented as evidence that Rome is the wicked city.

I propose that the city is actually Jerusalem, not Rome. A more direct indication than the oblique references above occurs in Revelation 11:8, which says that it is where also their Lord was crucified, a clear reference to Jerusalem.

Let’s look at Revelation chapter 11 in context.

Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.”

Revelation 11 opens with John being told to measure the “temple,” clearly referring to the Temple in Jerusalem (the “holy city”). The Jewish Temple had a court of the nations (Gentiles) and was the only temple rightly called the “temple of God.” The “forty-two months” is likely a reference to the duration of the Jewish War with the Romans, three and a half years.

The fact that John is instructed to measure the temple obviously presumes that there is still a temple to measure! Many scholars assume that the temple is only a symbol, not that it is really possible for John to measure the actual, physical temple. This may be so, but to me the context seems more straightforward and that the real temple is meant. If that is true, then this is evidence that Revelation was written before 70 A.D., as a growing number of scholars think tenable.

As for the court of the nations not being measured, and the Gentiles role in trampling the city, this refers to a prophesy by Jesus of Jerusalem, not Rome. Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Lk 21:24). Rome did in fact lay siege to Jerusalem under the command of Titus. On August 29^th in 70 A.D., the final wall was breached and Roman soldiers poured into the temple area where they fought hand to hand with Jewish soldiers there. In his work The Jewish War (VI 4,5), Josephus points out that the Temple was destroyed by fire on the exact anniversary (9th of Ab) of its destruction by the Babylonians.

But, back to Revelation 11, where prior to this destruction we are told of two witnesses that will warn the city and call the people to faith. The witnesses can be no other than Moses and Elijah, who are themselves symbolic of the Law and the Prophets.

And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth. And if anyone would harm them, fire pours out from their mouth and consumes their foes; if anyone would harm them, thus he is doomed to be killed. They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.

That these are Moses and Elijah figures is evident in their powers. One has the power to smite the land with every plague and turn the waters to blood (Moses in the Exodus). The other has the power to call down fire from Heaven and to shut the sky to prevent the rain (Elijah).

Allegorically, these two witnesses represent the Law and the Prophets and illustrate how the very Scriptures venerated by the Jewish unbelievers testify against them. The Law and the Prophets point to Jesus Christ. Of what use would such a testimony be to a pagan city such as Rome? But Jerusalem would experience shame and stand accused. As the context builds, we are surely in Jerusalem, not Rome.

Then come the key verses:

And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.

The Lord was not crucified in Rome but in Jerusalem. Thus the “great city” is unambiguously identified as Jerusalem.

Why does the text speak of Jerusalem as “Sodom and Egypt”? In fact, such terminology was common among the prophets. Here are some examples:

1. The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah … Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! … Bring no more vain offerings; your incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure your iniquity and solemn assembly (Isa 1:1,13).
2. For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen … they proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil upon themselves (Isa 3:8-9).
3. But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah (Jer 23:14).
4. My people do not cry to me from the heart, they wail upon their beds; for grain and wine they gash themselves, they rebel against me … They turn to Baal; they are like a treacherous bow; their princes shall fall by the sword … Such is their derision in the land of Egypt. (Hosea 7:14-16)
5. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord GOD (Ezek 20:36).

Finally, a Satanically inspired attack sees the two witnesses killed, and in what is a special ignominy in a Jewish context, the bodies are not buried:

For three days and a half, men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb, and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth. But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

For the Jewish people, the burial of the dead was a fundamental work of mercy. It was unthinkable to allow even one’s enemy to remain unburied. In the book of Tobit, for example, Tobit actually risks his own life to ensure that a stranger is buried.

For all of these reasons, I argue that the “great city” of the Book of Revelation, a city doomed to destruction, is Jerusalem.

Some will argue that the seven hills the harlot is describe as riding (Rev 17:9) clearly refers to Rome. However, I contend that the use of “seven” may be as a symbol of fullness rather than as a definitive number. Mount Zion (Jerusalem) is the great mountain of the Lord, the true pole of the earth: God’s holy mountain rises in beauty, the joy of all the earth. Mount Zion, true pole of the earth, the Great King’s city! (Psalm 48:2-3)

Others may point out that the harlot is called “Babylon” later in Revelation: Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! (see Rev 18:2) Babylon was a code word for Rome among early Christians (see 1 Peter 5:13). However, this may well be said in irony. Ancient Babylon was once cursed with these words: Babylon must fall because of Israel’s slain, just as the slain in all the earth have fallen because of Babylon (Jer 51:49). So now, ironically, Jerusalem must fall because of the slain Christians.

The name of the “great city” is hidden behind many references in Revelation. In the end, though, I believe that it is clearly and unambiguously identified as Jerusalem in Revelation 11:8. It is the great city, where also their Lord was crucified. No ancient pagan city (with the possible exception of Tyre) was ever referred to as “harlot.” This term was reserved as an ironic epitaph for Jerusalem or Israel, which bore this term with special ignominy because she was espoused to God (Ezekiel 16; Jer 2:20; Is 57:8).

Of all this, some may say, “Why does this matter? Who cares about the identity of the city?”

Indeed, to some this may seem to be “inside baseball” or a debate about non-essentials, but I contend that it is an important consideration for us who live in troubled times.

Jerusalem represents the family of faith and Rome, the “outside, pagan world.” One of the saddest truths for us to ponder is that our struggle is not only or even primarily with the unbelievers around us. Tragically, our struggle often takes place within the house faith. Our opposition is too often from among our very number, people who, having heard the truth of God, accept it only selectively.

Half-hearted faith is often a worse enemy than wholehearted rejection. Jerusalem saw some conversion to Christ, to be sure, but collectively she turned on and crucified the very Messiah whom God had sent to her. Why? Because she heard and accepted only what pleased her.

Selective faith may be worse than no faith at all. Indeed, the fierce Roman opposition could be tamed, but selective faith is more subtle, more internally self-justified. It wears the garments of faith, but betrays that the deeper conversion that is required has not yet occurred.

Jerusalem or Rome? What do you think? If you disagree with my conclusion, I would be grateful if you would explain why your view should override the textual reference to the city where Jesus was crucified, for indeed that is the heart of the argument I have set forth here.

This song says, not merely of ancient Jerusalem but also of us,

Ne irascaris Domine satis, et ne ultra memineris iniquitatis nostrae. Ecce respice populus tuus omnes nos.	Be not angry, O Lord, and remember our iniquity no more. Behold, we are all your people.
Civitas sancti tui facta est deserta. Sion deserta facta est, Jerusalem desolata est.	Your holy city has become a wilderness. Zion has become a wilderness, Jerusalem has been made desolate.