What if you threw a party and nobody came? You’d be heartbroken, of course, as you’d be let down by those you love.
Jesus spoke of a party in today’s gospel- a wedding banquet thrown by a king for his son. Many were invited, but nobody came. The king, we’re meant to understand, is God the Father; Jesus himself is the king’s son.
This parable is about the “kingdom of heaven,” which is a kingdom of love, because God is love. And because God is love, he treasures relationships. That’s why so many are invited to the wedding party! But no one was compelled to come. With love, there’s no such thing as an offer we can’t refuse.
Sadly, in Jesus’ parable many did refuse to come to the party, because they were indifferent, rude, or downright hostile and angry. Will this be our choice as well? Or will we accept Love’s invitation to love like him? After all, this is a party we don’t want to miss! And we wouldn’t want to let down our host.
Today started with an 8:45am wake up after a much needed seven hours of sleep and a light Spanish breakfast, before heading to the Viva la Vida! Pro-Life Youth Festival. Organized by the Irish, the conference showcased many Pro-life Programs throughout the world (England, USA, Poland, Canada, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, and Ireland were all represented). The speakers’ main theme centered on the importance of using images to proclaim the evil of abortion, as they have proven to be extremely effective. The goal of each group was to end abortion, totally and completely: First by changing public opinion, and then the law. Currently, many speakers said, society uses people and loves things. We are acting completely backwards. Interspersed between the presentations, several bands performed and the crowd got more riled up each time.
Highlights included a talk by Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, who dedicates her life to ending abortion and investigates Planned Parenthood’s facilitation of child abuse through undercover operations (check out her videos on YouTube!) The band L’Angelus was also a hit! A combination of Cajun fiddle tunes, saxophone pop, and New Orleans R&B, these four siblings put on quite a show that got the audience off their feet to say the least! It was not long before their younger 9 and 5 year old sisters, 7 year old twin brothers, and mother came on to perform as well—such a powerful expression of family and life.
After the conference, we made our way (extremely slowly due to increasingly massive crowds) to the Parque del Retiro. The metro was just insane…picture included…but it just goes to show how many youth there are out there living the Catholic Faith. Ole!
Exiting the metro we immediately come across a church and went inside to take a peak and say a prayer. The contrast from the crowded and noisy streets to the air conditioned and serene church was significant. It felt as if God was reminding us to take a hiatus from our busy lives and make that quiet time for Our Lord. Just so happens the priest needed an English version of the WYD pilgrimage book and we had one. Mass was starting in 10 minutes. I bet you can guess what happened. The mass was beautiful, and in English! The Lord is always leading us to where he wants us to be and He certainly had a plan for us today.
At the park we stopped for ice cream (a necessity of course), stood in the shade from the hot sun while watching a youth pep rally and band (the spirit never dies down, wherever you go), and made friends with some Italians who fervently tried to persuade us to trade our American flag for theirs along with every other patriotic item they had. After a solid 20 minutes of friendly argumentation, we decided to meet at the same spot at 3pm on Saturday to exchange flags, story to be continued…
After finally making it back through the crowded metro to our host’s home, we quickly changed into a clean and sweat free pair of clothes before heading back to town for dinner. Exiting the Puerta del Sol metro stop around 8:20pm, we stumbled upon a march of protestors against the pope. Now this is something I would rather not include but I believe it to be significant to the heart of the youth here today. Despite lines of police separating the youth from the protestors and blocking two major streets, every country seemed to have a group of youth praying and shouting, “Benedicto, we love you!” Through the difficult trials, we do not back down.
The night ended with a spectacular performance of Flamenco dancing. Every step, every facial expression is done with intention. The little things which these talented dancers do make the show so full of passion. It is in some way a metaphor for our own lives—we must do what we do with a true passion for the glory of God.
I would like to end with a brief prayer Lila Rose said in her early teens and shared with us. “Lord, use me. Use me to work for Your glory and to fulfill Your plans for me.”
Good (3am) night!
Eliz.
Written by: Elizabeth Lent, Junior at University of Notre Dame and parishioner at Little Flower in Bethesda
I am very happy about, and look forward to the new English translation of the Roman Missal that will begin use in November. However, I have had challenges in explaining to the faithful what the essential problem with the current translation is. When the distinction between “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” is mentioned, many eyes glaze over or puzzled looks appear. I have tried to take an example of a prayer and show the difference in three columns: Latin, new translation, and current translation (as I do below). But asking people to compare three different columns, one of them in a language unknown to most of them, presents problems too.
But, at the bottom of this post there is a great video that does a wonderful job explaining the difference between the method of “dynamic equivalence” (translating the gist of a prayer, and capturing its basic thoughts), versus “formal equivalence” (translating a prayer in a more literal, word for word way). The video shows the difference with a basic down to earth example and then explains why the difference is important. While it’s geared to teens, adults can benefit greatly from it as well. See what you think.
Example of difference – As Fr. Z. often does to great effect, the opening prayer (collect) for this coming Sunday shows the different approaches of the current translation and the new translation.
LATIN: Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da nobis id amare, quod praecipis, id desiderare, quod promittis, ut inter mundanas varietates, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.
NEW TRANSLATION (formal (word for word) equivalence) O God, who cause the minds of the faith to unite in a single purpose, grant your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise., that amidst the uncertainties of this world, our hearts may be fixed, where true gladness is found.
CURRENT TRANSLATION (dynamic (gist) equivalence). Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise make us one in mind and heart.
As you can see the current translation (lame duck, as Fr. Z calls it), gets the gist of the Latin prayers. But there are important omissions.
First it proposes that lasting joys can be found in this world, rather than in heaven, which the Latin says.
The current translation rather weakly ask that we will be helped to “seek the values” whereas the Latin more vigorously asks that we may “love what you command.”
The Latin speaks of hearts as being “fixed,” whereas the current translation muddles this into our joys (not our hearts) being “lasting.”
Etc.
It will be seen that the current translation is in much need of help and that the new translation fixes the problems of the old by using a formal equivalence (word for word) translation as opposed to the “dynamic equivalence” (a general summation of the idea) translation currently in use (but not for long)!
Clearly we need more than the “gist of a prayer,” to pray with the universal Church. The new translation will be welcomed by this pastor.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf of course is the master of analyzing these collects and you can see his more expansive treat of this prayer here: 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time
What do John Wayne, Oscar Wilde, Buffalo Bill, and (possibly) George Washington have in common? They all became Catholic on their deathbeds.
Conversions such as these should cause rejoicing! But that’s not always the case. News that a notorious gangster became Catholic as he died was met with howls or protest by those who thought it unfair that such a person might receive God’s mercy. Much like those in today’s gospel who grumbled when the latecoming workers received the same pay as those who’d worked all day.
From the world’s perspective, the conclusion of Jesus’ parable isn’t fair. After all, longer work should lead to greater pay! But Jesus was speaking of the kingdom of heaven, where different rules apply.
On the job, we can earn a paycheck, and even a bonus. But there’s nothing we can do to earn our way into God’s kingdom. We’re welcomed in, not because of anything we’ve done, but because of what Jesus has done. Heaven isn’t a reward for good behavior, it’s a gift from God. There’s no admissions fee, as Jesus already paid the price for us.
Yes, we are accountable for our actions before God, who calls us to lead holy lives. But Jesus’ parable reminds us that those passing through the pearly gates won’t hear, “Congratulations! You’ve earned it!” Jesus will say instead: “Welcome! I love you.”
Wow, what a day. First thing I learned: do not abandon your group to go join some high school friends you see across the room at the Catedral de la Almudena. Turns out you will most likely not be able to find your group again and become lost in a completely foreign Palacio Real. Oh yeah, and you don’t realize this until after you’ve already left the high school friends… definitely panicked for a good twenty five minutes before being reunited at last, thank you St. Anthony!
Turned out to be a huge test of faith as well as humility. But the Cathedral was magnificent and filled to the brim with youth. First thing you would notice? The ceiling. Arches upon arches with gold trim; the simplicity made the Cathedral seem infinitely high. Eager crowds which had been rambunctiously waiting outside quickly became a prayerful wave of souls all pouring eyes over saint after saint and then spiraled up a staircase to venerate a pristine statue of the Virgin of Alumdena, displaying their country’s flag on the way for all to see to see.
Next stop, Calle Mayor—a main street which runs right through the center of town. Walking through many plazas, we were amidst a wave of colors. Every WYD group was dressed head to toe in patriotic wear and waving flags every which way. When we eventually reached Plaza Mayor, we were engulfed by singing, yelling, dancing, and chanting—all for the tremendous show of their country’s spirited participation. The peak of the excitement, or so we thought. At one point, we turned around to find a group of Italians racing towards us waving flags and yelling, “Italia! Italia!” The whole experience was really something.
Spending the rest of the afternoon exploring Madrid, we helped ourselves to some Tinto de Verano, or Sangria, and tried our first Spanish tapas. At 8pm began the opening mass, held at the Plaza de la Cibeles, a massive square…well, more of an odd shaped rectangle. Now, there were not just huge crowds here, there was a multitude of disciples. One ten minute stretch to get to the street was the equivalent of a mosh pit—every man for himself. It was actually insane. Followed by more singing, yelling, dancing, and chanting (this was the real peak of spirit), the mass began.
I knew to expect tons of countries at WYD, but I never fathomed the spirit and the reality of the faith that these young people literally all over the world are living in their daily lives. It was comforting and I felt very calm and relaxed for the rest of the evening, knowing that the fight against the secular society will be won. We are all together in this, we are all member of the One Church and no one can take that away.
Happy trails!
Eliz.
Written by: Elizabeth Lent, Junior at University of Notre Dame and parishioner at Little Flower in Bethesda
Yesterday on the blog we discussed some of the media back and forth on some statements by candidate Michele Bachmann. On of the issues is of a wife being submitted to her husband. Mrs. Bachmann at first indicated support for this biblical principle but has since, in the face of questioning backed off from it more than a little. You can read more of that in yesterday’s post here: Michele Bachmann Interview A portion of the video interview on marriage is also at the bottom of this post.
In yesterday’s post I indicated I wanted to spend some time today setting for this biblical principle of the headship of the husband. It is a headship rooted in love and service, not in power, but it is a headship.
There are cultural and worldly notions that underlie the rejection by many Catholics and Christians of the biblical teaching on the Headship of the husband. Indeed, such a concept is unpopular in our culture which usually gets pretty worked up over questions of authority in general. But that is because the worldly notion of authority usually equates authority only with power, dignity, rights and being somehow “better,” rather than equating authority with love, and service. Consider what Jesus says about authority:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority and make their importance felt. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:41-45)
Jesus describes then sets aside the worldly notion of authority wherein those in authority wield their power by “lording it over” using fear, and the trappings of power. But in the Christian setting there is authority (there has to be) but it exists for service.
Consider a teacher in a classroom. She has authority. She has to in order to unify and keep order. But she has that authority in order to serve the children, not to berate them and revel in power over over them. The same is true for a police officer who has his authority not for his own sake, but for ours so he can protect us and preserve order.
Further, having authority in a Christian setting does not make one better, for authority is always exercised among equals. Our greatest dignity is to be a child of God, and none of us are more or less so because we hold any position of authority.
But, truth be told, worldly notions of authority affect Christians and many harbor resentments to authority because they think of it in worldly ways. Further, many who have authority (and most of us have some) can also fall prey to worldly notions of authority and abuse their leadership role.
The key to understanding the authority of a husband and father in the home is set aside worldly notions of authority and see the teaching in the light of the Christian understanding of authority as existing for love and service, to unite and preserve.
With that in mind let us turn to the “unpopular” and politically incorrect notion of wives being submissive to their husbands.The teaching is found in a number of places in the New Testament: Ephesians 5:22; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1. In all places the wording is quite similar that wives are to be submissive, that is under the authority, of their husbands. In each case however, the teaching is balanced by an exhortation that the husband is to love and be considerate of his wife.
The most well known of the texts is from Ephesians 5, wherein the infamous line is: Wives should be subordinate to their Husbands as to the Lord. For the Husband is the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is the Head of the Church…so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything; (Eph 5:20-21, 23) Apparently the Holy Spirit didn’t get the memo that we don’t think and talk like that today! 🙂
Alright, so maybe it grates on modern ears today but don’t just dismiss what God teaches here. One of the great dangers of this passage is that it is so startling to modern ears that many people tune out after the first line into their own thoughts and reactions and thus miss the rest of what God has to say. It will be noticed that there is text that follows, and before a man gloats at the first line, or a women reacts with anger or sadness, we do well to pay attention to the rest of the text, which spells out the duties of a husband. You see if you’re going to be the head of a household there are certain requirements that have to be met. God’s not playing around here or choosing sides. He has a comprehensive plan for husbands that is demanding and requires him to curb any notions that authority is about power and to remember that, for a Christian, authority is always given so that the one who has it may serve. And before we look at submission we might do well to look at the duties of the husband.
So what are the requirements for a husband?
1. Husbands, love your wives– Pay attention men, don’t just tolerate your wife, don’t just bring home money, don’t just love in some intellectual sort of way. LOVE your wife with all your heart. Beg God for the grace to love your wife tenderly, powerfully and unconditionally. Did you hear what God says? LOVE your wife! Now he goes on to tell you to love her in three ways: passionately, purifyingly and providingly.
2. Passionate love – The text says a man is to love his wife: even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her. The Greek word, παραδίδωμι (paradidomi), translated here as, “handed over,” always refers in the New Testament to Jesus’ crucifixion. Husbands, are you willing to give your life for your wife and children? Are you willing to die to yourself and give your life as a daily sacrifice for them? God instructs you to love your wife (and children) with the same kind of love he has for his Bride the Church. That kind of love is summed up in the cross. Love your wife passionately, be willing to suffer for her, be willing to make sacrifices for her and the children.
3. Purifying love – The text says of Christ, and the husband who is to imitate him, that Christ wills to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Now a husband cannot sanctify his wife in the same way God can. But what a husband is called to do is to help his wife and children grow in their relationship to Jesus Christ. He is first to be under God’s authority himself, and thus make it easier for his wife and children to live out their baptismal commitments. He ought to a spiritual leader in his home, praying with his wife and children, reading scripture and seeing to it that his home is a place where God is loved and obeyed, first of all by him. His wife should not have to drag him to Church, he should willingly help her to grow in holiness, and pray with her every day. And he should become more holy as well and thus make it easier for his wife to live the Christian life. He should be the first teacher of his children, along with his wife in the ways of faith.
Too many American homes do not feature a man being the spiritual leader of his house. If any one is raising up the kids in the Lord it is usually the wife. But Scripture has in mind that the husband and father should be a spiritual leader to his wife and children. Scripture says, Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Fathers and husbands need to step up here and not leave all the burden to his wife.
4. Providing love – So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it– Husbands, take care of your wife in her needs. She needs more than food money and shelter, these days she can get a lot of that for herself. What she needs even more is your love, understanding, and appreciation. She needs for you to be a good listener and wants an attentive husband who is present to her. Like any human being she needs reassurance and affirmation. Tell her of your love and appreciation, don’t just presume she knows. Show care for your wife, attend to her needs just like you instinctively do for your own self. Encourage her with the kids. Confirm her authority over the kids and teach them to respect their mother. Show her providing love also by taking up your role and duties as a father who is involved with his kids. That’s what God is teaching here.
OK, so scripture DOES teach that a wife should be submitted to her husband. But what kind of husband does scripture have in mind? A husband who really loves his wife, who is a servant leader, who is makes sacrifices for his wife, who is prayerful and spiritual, submitted to God’s authority and who cares deeply for his wife and her needs. The same God who teaches submission (and he does) also teaches these things clearly for the husband. The teaching must be taken as a whole. But all that said, there IS a teaching on wives being submitted to their husbands (properly understood).
And there is just no way around it, no matter how much the modern age wants to insist there doesn’t need to be headship, there does. Every organization needs a head. Consider your own body first. With two heads you’re a freak, with no head you are dead. The members of your body need a head to unify the parts, otherwise there is disunity, death and decay. Every organization needs headship, a final decider, to whom all look when consensus on significant issues cannot otherwise be reached. The Protestants have tried to have a “church” without a head, without a Pope, and behold the division. Even this Country, which we like to call a democracy, is not actually a pure democracy. There are legislators, judges, law enforcers and many other people and mechanisms who exercise local, federal and final headship and authority.
Thus in a family, where consensus and compromise may often win the day, nevertheless needs a head, a final decider, to whom all look and all submit, to resolve conflicts that cannot be resolved otherwise. Scripture assigns this task to the husband and father. Headship just has to be. But please remember to shed your worldly notions of headship when considering the teaching of Scripture and remember, headship, authority, is for love and service, it is for unity and preservation, not for power, prestige, trappings and superiority.
For more on this consider listening to my sermon Teaching on Marriage in mp3 format. But beware, It is 35 minutes! Consider downloading it if you can’t listen just now. You can download this and other sermons of mine by going here: http://frpope.com/audio/recordings.php and then right clicking on the title of any talk and selecting the “Save Target As” option. You can also get my sermons at iTunes. Just search on my name.
Here is the video clip where Michele Bachmann is attacked for saying a woman should be submitted and then backs down. Please note however, I am not sure a husband’s servant leadership means that he should force his wife to take a law course she does not want to take. Such an exercise of authority hardly seems necessary or proper.
–
–
This video clip is from the movie Fireproof and depicts a heartfelt apology from a husband who realizes he has not loved his wife as he should. A beautiful movie available at Amazon if you have never seen it.
The great English Catholic G. K. Chesterton once remarked that ever since Jesus insisted that it’s easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle’s eye than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, we’ve been frantically trying to build bigger needles and breed smaller camels!
People of every generation have found this teaching of our Lord hard to swallow. It certainly shocked the disciples, as we just heard. And this saying can make us uncomfortable too, because so often we seek our comfort in the things of this world.
Jesus is not saying that we don’t have legitimate financial needs. We most certainly do! And he wants us to pray for them. What Jesus is saying, however, is that when our wants become needs, we cross the border into the land of idolatry, which is a dangerous and foolish thing to do. Because to love riches more than God is, as Bishop Robert Morneau has put it, to commit spiritual adultery.
And so today’s gospel challenges us to consider our priorities, to evaluate our goals, and assess how we spend our time and energy, to determine if we have de-throned almighty God as Lord of our life, and replaced him with the “almighty” dollar. Because if we wish to enter God’s kingdom, we must seek it, first of all.
I would like to a look at an excerpt of an interview I saw recently of Michele Bachmann. David Gregory is the interviewer and the Show is “Meet the Press.” What I want to examine is Mr. Gregory’s displayed attitude to the Christian Faith and how it reflects an increasingly negative assessment of what is often called “Biblical Christianity.” The assessment is clearly and thoroughly negative, which is not surprising these days. Perhaps I should rejoice, for the Church, to be faithful, will often be hated and considered a sign of contradiction. But another part of me says we ought also to be clear to point to and uncover the growing hostility to the traditional Catholic and Christian faith, lest a perfect storm take aim on us. It is that vein that I raise some of the concerns expressed here.
The general tone of Mr Gregory’s questions to Mrs. Bachmann regarding her faith is, You don’t really believe all that backward biblical stuff do you?….You don’t really take all that stuff too seriously do you?……You don’t really mean to tell me you’d ask God for advice and then do what he told you, do you?….You wouldn’t actually try to apply your (backward) faith to actual, and real decisions you’d make in office, would you?….And by the way, aren’t you Christians really a bigoted crowd when it comes down to it? Like any professional interviewer he uses a “pleasant tone” bu the upshot of his remarks is that the historical Judeo-Christian view is indefensible.
Let’s take a look at the transcript of the interview. As usual, the original text is in bold, black italics and my own remarks are in plain red text.
Disclaimer: I am not indicating, by my remarks support or lack of support for Michele Bachmann as a candidate. I am honestly undecided about the 2012 Presidential election.
MR. GREGORY: From the economy, I want to move on to another topic that’s deeply meaningful and important to you, and that’s your faith in God. This is something that not only motivates you as a person, inspires you as you try to live a virtuous life, but it’s also been very important to your political identity as well. OK, fair enough, if she chooses to make it part of her political identity it’s fair game for the press to question her on it.
MR. GREGORY: And I want to ask you about, not only the role God plays in, in your life but to what extent he’s a motivator for decisions that you make. One example that’s gotten some attention is some remarks you made back in 2006 about your career path, which you’ve talked about here, and I want to play a brief clip of those remarks.
(Audiotape, October 14, 2006)
REP. BACHMANN: My husband said, “Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.” Tax law! I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, “Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”
(End audiotape)
MR. GREGORY: Is that your view for women in America? Is that your vision for them? –
Translation- “You can’t really be serious about advocating this backward Biblical principle!”
Well actually, Mr Gregory, this Biblical teaching appears in a significant number of passages of the New Testament. You may not agree with it, but listen to your tone. You could have asked more neutrally, “How do you think most women in America will understand or interpret your embracing of this?” or perhaps, “Would you like to clarify or distinguish your remarks?” or yet again, “How do you understand the concept of submission?”
What Mr. Gregory does not seem to understand is that many Christians actually believe there is a place for this principle in marriage, and many pastors (including this one) actually teach this. To be sure, the concept of submission is balanced with the command that the husband love his wife as Christ loves the Church. But this is an ancient Christian teaching that deserves more respect than Mr. Gregory shows.
I wonder too, though many interpretations of Islam contain far more restrictive notions for women than any Christian view, if Mr. Gregory or any reporter would question a Muslim with the kind of disdain he shows here to the Christian faith? You decide.
REP. BACHMANN: Well, I–during the debate I was asked a question about this, and my response was is that submission, that word, means respect. It means that I respect my husband and he respects me.
MR. GREGORY: Right. Congresswoman, I didn’t even have to check with my wife and I know those two things aren’t, aren’t equal.
REP. BACHMANN: What’s that?
MR. GREGORY: Submission and respect.
REP. BACHMANN: Well, in our house it is.
Actually I think I agree with Mr Gregory here, though certainly not his “gotcha” tone. Mrs Bachmann is, equivocating and watering down the text more than a bit. (I want to devote more time to this “unpopular teaching” on marriage tomorrow on the blog).
That said, I understand Mrs Bachmann’s “predicament,” in that he has her in a kind of “gotcha” moment, where he tries to make her (and traditional Christians) look absurd and foolish. There is little time on live TV to do the kind of work necessary to properly explain these sorts of biblical teachings. She obviously wants to get on to “safer” issues.
And frankly, though many of us Christians want our favorite politicians to be our heroes when it comes to faith, we have to remember that they are not theologians and certainly not martyrs. With rare exceptions, like St. Thomas More, politicians just aren’t the sort to take a lot of heat for the faith.
REP. BACHMANN: We’ve been married almost 33 years and I have a great deal of respect for my husband. He’s a wonderful, wonderful man and a great father to our children. And he’s also filled with good advice. He…
MR. GREGORY: But so his word goes?
REP. BACHMANN: –pardon?
MR. GREGORY: His word goes?
OK, he’s calling the question and wants clarification, But again notice the tone: “You can’t be seriously be suggesting that a husband actually has headship are you?”
REP. BACHMANN: Well, both of our words go. We respect each other. We have a mutual partnership in our marriage, and that’s the only way that we could accomplish what we’ve done in life is to be a good team. We’re a good team together.
A disappointing answer, to be sure. In effect she is setting aside the teaching when she says, “Well, both of our words go.” If both go, neither go, there is just impasse.
The fact is, in any family, organization, Church, or government, there has to be headship. Someone has to be available, to whom all look and agree, that his answer is the final one to which all the members are bound. In most matters, consensus can be built, and this is what Mrs. Bachmann seems to refer to in the second half of her answer. But, there are just times when disagreements cannot be overcome, and a final authority is needed to make a decision binding on all. Without this, there is simply endless division and a battle of wills.
The Protestants jettisoned the Pope and they have had endless divisions ever since. For, if no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
Headship is just necessary, even if one thinks it a “necessary evil,” it is still necessary. Even our bodies have a head to unite our members. An organism with two heads is a freak, and an organism with no head is dead. You just have to have a head.
And the Scriptures assign this role to the husband. More on this in tomorrow’s blog.
MR. GREGORY: To what extent does your relationship with God mean that you take cues from God for decisions that you make and that you would make as president. You’ve talked about God inspiring you to marry your husband, you know, telling you to marry your husband, to get into politics, to take certain decisions about your career, as we just talked about.
REP. BACHMANN: Well, I do have faith in God, and I learned it right here in Iowa. I was born in Waterloo, Iowa, I’m heading up there to say thank you to everyone who instilled my early values in me. And that began at our church. My parents took us to church every week. We went to a Lutheran church, First Lutheran in Waterloo. And we were–they prayed with us at night, and we prayed before we prayed before we had meal time. They really instilled wonderful values in us. And I recognize that I’m not perfect and that I need God in my life, and that’s really…
MR. GREGORY: God has guided your decisions in life. Would God guide your decisions that you would make as president of the United States?
REP. BACHMANN: Well, as president of the United States, I would pray. I would pray and ask the Lord for guidance. That’s what presidents have done throughout history. George Washington did. Abraham Lincoln did.
MR. GREGORY: But you said that –God called me to run for Congress. God has said certain things about, you know, going to law school, about pursuing other decisions in your life. There’s a difference between God as a sense of comfort and safe harbor and inspiration, and God telling you to take a particular action.
Again, note the implied tone: “You’re not gonna, like, pray, are you?” You’re not going to ask God to guide you or influence your decisions are you? I mean really, come on! A President praying and seeking guidance from God?! Get serious woman! This is a critical job and we can’t mess around with all that superstitious stuff! OK, look, it’s OK to ask God to give you strength, but don’t suggest to me that its OK if God tells you to stand against abortion rights, or Gay Marriage. You have no business allowing your faith to influence your thinking and certainly not your choices! Not that’s just going too far!
REP. BACHMANN: All I can tell you is what my experience has been. I’m extremely grateful to have a faith in God. I, I see that God has so blessed this country. We’ve heard that song that he’s “shed his grace” on the United States. I believe it. He’s been very good to our country. And I think that it’s important for us to seek his guidance and to pray and to listen to his voice. Imagine that!
MR. GREGORY: Would you appoint an openly atheist person to be a member of your administration, your Cabinet or even as a judge to a court?
Note the implication that a believer is likely to be a bigot, or to be unjust and exclusionary. In supposing this to be a likely scenario Mr Gregory engages in a bigotry of his own. Most Christians I know are well able to interact with non believers in hopes of building bridges. We are also able to distinguish between sacred and secular domains. Frankly with all the bad Catholics running around Congress, and more than a few on the bench, a few principled atheists might not be too bad. (I say this not with glibness, but with great sadness). 🙁
REP. BACHMANN: Well, my criteria, would be first of all, “How do you view the Constitution?” If you uphold the Constitution, if you’re competent, and if you’re–if you, if you share my views, then you can get appointed. That’s my litmus test is, do you stand for the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views.
MR. GREGORY: Right, But an atheist would be acceptable to you as a member of your administration?
REP. BACHMANN: That wouldn’t be a question I would ask.
MR. GREGORY: OK. I want to also ask you about your interpretation of the Bible and your feelings about gays and lesbians. You have said in recent years that opposition to same sex marriage is defining a political debate in this country. You’re opposed to it, you’d like to see a constitutional ban against it in this country. And during a speech that you gave in 2004 at an education conference, you spoke openly and in detail about gays and lesbians. And I want to play just a portion of that speech and have you react, react to it.
(Videotape, November 6, 2004)
REP. BACHMANN: It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It’s anything but gay. … It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that’s why this is so dangerous. … We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: That is the view President Bachmann would have of gay Americans?
I will say, many evangelical Christians lack proper nuance when it comes to speaking on this matter. I think it is proper for us to be very careful and measured in describing our stance on the question of homosexual activity. We ought to avoid unnecessary hyperbole. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is more nuanced and careful, but clear that the homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered and homosexual activity is sinful:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC # 2357-2359)
All this said, Mr Gregory and surely the secular world will not accept even this more careful statement. And frankly it isn’t that different from what Mrs. Bachmann said. Yet this is the principled Catholic stand. I wish Mrs Bachmann had been more careful and hence I cannot per se object to Mr Gregory’s followup question above. But it is clear that the ancient Judeo-Christian teaching on this matter is increasingly being called “hate,” and “judgement.” We must continue to insist that there is simply no way we can approve of Homosexual activity based on a principled and consistent reading of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
REP. BACHMANN: Well, I am running for the presidency of the United States. I’m not running to be anyone’s judge. I do stand very…
MR. GREGORY: But you have judged them.
This is the typical view of the secular world: “If you disagree with what I do, you are judging me.” In a world where tolerance is one of the only virtues left, “judging” is the only sin left. The fact is, we don’t have to judge what is sinful, God has already done that, and He has every right to judge. We can but only report what God has revealed in his Word and in Natural Law.
REP. BACHMANN: I don’t judge them. I don’t judge them. I am running for presidency of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Is that the view of gays–gay Americans that President Bachmann would have?
REP. BACHMANN: Well, my, my view on marriage is that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s what I stand for. But I ascribe honor and dignity to every person no matter what their background. They have honor and they have dignity.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think that gay Americans hearing quotes like that from you would think that that’s, that’s honor and dignity coming from you about their circumstance?
REP. BACHMANN: I am not anyone’s judge…
MR. GREGORY: Right.
And so the interview continued.
I do think Mrs. Bachmann said some things in a way that were not helpful in terms of the image of the faith, but, that said, the substance of her views on the matters above, are mainstream Christian and Catholic. It is true, some among our number debate the specific details and articulation of these teachings, but they remain clear biblical teachings held by many and essential to the patrimony of our faith. They should not be consigned to freak show status by otherwise “tolerant” media types. The tone of dripping contempt articulated by Mr Gregory for things such as the headship of the husband, prayer and sought guidance from God, and the immorality of homosexual activity, are not just directed at Mrs Bachmann, they are directed at the traditional Catholic and Christian faith.
Further, and more dangerously, the traditional Catholic teaching on homosexual activity, as articulated in our Catechism, is increasingly being called “hate speech.” We ought to be very sober about these particular attacks, for soon enough, they will build to legal and social sanctions. This is already happening in places like England and Canada where clergy are being arrested and fined for articulating orthodox Catholic belief on homosexuality.
I am interested in your views, especially of Mr. Gregory’s tone and presuppositions of the Catholic and Christian faith. I might ask that you avoid comments of a purely political nature. As you know, this is not a blog about politics. It is about the Catholic Faith and culture.
Photo Credit: Screen shot from the Meet the Press video below.
What if you threw a party and nobody came? You’d be heartbroken, of course, as you’d be let down by those you love.
